No Apology Needed For Virginia Governor About Confederate Month
Thursday, April 8th, 2010Author Mike Rough
A few days ago Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell announced that April was Confederate History Month in the state of Virginia. Originally the issue of slavery was left out of the proclamation but was added to it in the amended version below. WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war
In response:
An African-American Virginia lawmaker said Wednesday that he is not yet ready to accept an apology from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, suggesting McDonnell’s misstep regarding Virginia’s confederate history is part of a pattern which calls the governor’s sincerity into question.
‘I expect respect from him and toward me and my constituents. If he continues to do this, I’m not going to believe his apologies,’ Virginia State Sen. Henry Marsh III said of the state’s governor Bob McDonnell.
Now is it me or have the winds of political correctness and racial sensitivity blown all sense of history and fact completely out the window? It seems to me that Sen. Henry Marsh III and Bob McDonnell need to study their history a lot closer.
Point of Fact – THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT ENDING SLAVERY. SLAVERY WAS A TOOL USED BY THE UNION.
The usage of slavery is just one of the many instances in our history of manufacturing or allowing events that have galvanized our nation to action, where without them any action taken by the populace would have been slower to move forward.
The Southern states seceded from the Union because of tariffs on imported goods from Europe, and the misrepresentation of Lincoln’s aims if he was elected president.
The catalyst of the final decision to secede was brought on by the election of Lincoln, but not because he was an abolitionist but because he was against “Slave Power” or the ability of the Southern states to influence the Buchanan presidential administration. Fueled by extreme partisan press publishings of outright lies, innuendo, and inflammatory remarks on both sides of the debate regarding Lincoln, proposed tariffs (primarily to aid recovery of northern manufacturing), and slavery.
Lincoln stated clearly through personal letters and communications that it was not his intention to abolish slavery after his inauguration, but halt its expansion to any new states joining the Union.
The simple fact remains that Lincoln and his handlers did not consider the possibility that the southern states would secede due to Lincoln’s election, and downplayed potential secession concerns during the campaign to keep voters from picking another candidate. Combine this with the previous threats of secession over “Nullification” with South Carolina, and the table was set for what became the secessionist movement that precipitated the conflict at Fort Sumter, inflaming Virginia to vote to secede from the Union.
It wasn’t until Lincoln and his advisors realized that they were not seeing volunteers for the Union army increasing, in fact they were decreasing as the war entered its second year, that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in the hope of spurring a resurgence of nationalism in the north to bolster Union troop enlistment.
While the “threat” of slavery abolition may have been inflammatory toward the creation of the Confederacy it was by no means the primary reason that it was formed nor the Civil War fought over. In the end it was all about money and power and the control of the revenues generated by the south. The abolition of slavery was just a political maneuver that was right in its premise but used as a lever to pry the hearts of the young men of north into patriotic service.
“Confederate History Month
WHEREAS, April is the month in which the people of Virginia joined the Confederate States of America in a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse; and
WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the numerous civil war battlefields that mark every region of the state, the leaders and individuals in the Army, Navy and at home who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today; and
WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth’s shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present; and
WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history; and
WHEREAS, Confederate historical sites such as the White House of the Confederacy are open for people to visit in Richmond today; and
WHEREAS, all Virginians can appreciate the fact that when ultimately overwhelmed by the insurmountable numbers and resources of the Union Army, the surviving, imprisoned and injured Confederate soldiers gave their word and allegiance to the United States of America, and returned to their homes and families to rebuild their communities in peace, following the instruction of General Robert E. Lee of Virginia, who wrote that, “…all should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war and to restore the blessings of peace.”; and
WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live, and this study and remembrance takes on particular importance as the Commonwealth prepares to welcome the nation and the world to visit Virginia for the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War, a four-year period in which the exploration of our history can benefit all;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert McDonnell, do hereby recognize April 2010 as CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH in our COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.”
As much as I believe that slavery was wrong and that the abolition of slavery is and was a good thing, the distortion of history in order to garner attention by the radical left is appalling. It is also disheartening to see the Governor of Virginia back pedal and issue a revised and historically incorrect amendment in order to appease those who stoop to playing the victim at every turn. It’s time people speak up without fear of being labeled, taunted, or unjustly treated for espousing their right to speak, have an opinion, and vote their conscience in whatever means they choose to display.
If you choose to remain silent for fear of criticism than you have cast a vote for oppression, tyranny, and whatever unfortunate circumstances may be levied by those who are diametrically opposed to your way of thinking.
Wake Up, Stand Up, and Speak Up! You owe it to yourself and your children, without you there is no US.
No related posts.
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 8th, 2010
5:48 pm
Hurrah for the Governor…right up to the point where he wimped on his principles and the facts. It is long past time that everyone lightened up, and if “they” can celebrate Black Pride events and have “Gay” parades, Earth Day, and Asian Awareness Month, the least the Lefties can do is be quite about our heritage. I’m about ready to launch my own “civil” war about the necessity to be civil to US. I am fed up with nasty slurs and epithets, including racist, hate-filled, mean-spirited, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, trailer trash, red-necks, bubbas and all the other deliberate insults which are hurled our way daily from politicians and the MSM. Come to think of it…didn’t I just write about that very subject?! Dang it, whud Ah do with mah Stahs an Bahs? Ah thank Ah’ll pull down th’ Burnet and hoist the cross of St. Andrews for a while.
lynne says:
April 8th, 2010
9:16 pm
Well most folks have been rewriting history quite a lot about the “Civil War” to fit their narrative. Slavery is a very bad use of folks and a poor use of resources not even to consider it was an evil institution. But a lot of keeping the South in the union was revenue and not “slavery”. Look where the US government got most of the income was in Port fees, tariffs and excise taxes. The Civil War gave us many firsts. The first income tax, the first draft and the first martial law.
Well, Linda maybe it’s being from Idaho and we all know what those folks are like…wink wink nudge nudge. But I know I’m not a racist, or any other “ist” except a constitutionalist. Everyone else can go pound sand.
oldmanriver says:
April 10th, 2010
3:27 pm
The South could have used a potent weapon against the North that would have done a lot to evaporate the support for the war in the North. Imagine if the Southern States would have preemptively outlawed slavery. Many of the people supporting the war in the North would have quit supporting it. We all know that the South would never have done this. I grant you that the war was not all about slavery but it was one of the major keystones of the war. Why if slavery were not important would you have laws like the Missouri Compromise. Why would it have mattered if the states that were entering the Union were free or slave states. Why following the war were there Jim Crow laws which kept colored people from actively being involved in public life? Why was the KKK such a powerful force if slavery was such a trivial thing? They were not working for states rights but a racist agenda. I think it is all well and good that we respect the people that fought on both sides in the war but to celebrate in any way the cause of the Confederacy is wrong. The South did get the shaft after the war and that was equally wrong, but to say that slavery was not one of the corner stones of the Confederacy is being a bit revisionist as well. We would do well to put finding legitimacy in the Confederate cause behind us and work on the problems that we have now.
lynne says:
April 11th, 2010
9:06 am
I’m not saying that slavery was trivial. I’m saying that was not the main motivation of why the south fought or Lincoln fought. Lincoln said his goal was to keep the Union together.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that”
Remember The Emancipation proclimation was done in 1863 2 years into the war and only freed slaves in states that were in rebellion.
declared “all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free” but exempted border states and those areas of slave states already under Union control. As a practical matter, at first the Proclamation could only be enforced to free those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side. However, millions more were freed as more areas of the South came under Union control.
oldmanriver says:
April 11th, 2010
1:51 pm
Lynn,
I agree with you Lincoln’s main goal was the preservation of the Union. I ask you this, if the South had never had slavery would there have been a civil war? Would the Southern States have reacted to the election of Lincoln in the way they did? I think not. Many of the disagreements leading to the Civil War were about slavery. Our history would have been much different without the institution of slavery. If plantation owners just increased wages to the point they could attract labor they probably would not have been growing cotton. There probably would not have been a plantation system as such. Slavery is what made it all possible. If it didnt make it possible then why werent plantation owners hiring people. I know you will all say that there werent enough people but that goes against economic reality. If something is in short supply then prices go up you would have had immigrants coming over to supply that labor. People from the northern cities would have come down given a high enough wage. The problem with that is that there would not have been any profit left to grow cotton. So plantations would have to either get smaller, labor saving devices would be invented or something not so labor intensive would have to be grown. In the end it all revolves around slavery. The south was supporting a way of life for the very few that was abhorrent. There is no way to get around this fact.
lynne says:
April 11th, 2010
2:27 pm
omr
you are correct slavery was definatly the catalyst for the war. I do agree with that statement. I suppose that I disagree most with the attitude that everyone in the north was good and noble. While everyone in the South was evil. It was much more complicated issue.
CheriVNB says:
April 11th, 2010
2:53 pm
Just watched the HBO mini series “John Adams”. While I am not a historian and can’t attest to any historical accuracy or inaccuracies, it was a great demonstration of the varied opinions of our founders, and the clashes of their personal and political ambitions. Politics is the DISGUSTING endeavor of twisting facts and truth to appeal to dipolar interests to gain agreement for action, it has very little to do with fact and more to do with survival. Sadly the people willing to do “anything” or “whatever it takes” will come out ahead simply due to political expediency.
I do agree the continued indulgence in revisionist history of ALL types does little to further human responsibility and decency. The cause of the Confederacy was states independence to decide their fate according to their needs and not have the will of “other interests” forced upon them. The north did not fight the war to abolish slavery, but to secure the size of the union and their tax/tariff revenues. All the impartiality and political correctness in the world can not help people who look to blame others. Diversity means a divergence of ideas and interests, not the convergence and homogeneity of them. Negating the Confederacy invalidates Virginas’ sense of determinism and impulses for self-governance. That spirit should not be denied in confronting the past because it help propel this nation toward greatness on many fronts. Slavery was and is wrong. The past can not be changed. We must move on. Imagine if the colonists had continued to BLAME the British Monarchy on the “Sesquicentennial Anniversary” for perceived failings instead of the continued governmental evolution history records. C~
oldmanriver says:
April 11th, 2010
4:17 pm
Lynn,
I agree completely, the tragedy of the Civil War other than that it happened at all, was the aftermath that took place in the South. The people of the North were not innocent, everyone was benefiting from slavery whether they owned slaves or not, north and south. The freeing of slaves was done with no thought as how to integrate them into society. It was not a simple matter of good guys and bad guys as there were enough of each on both sides to go around. I think what I find offensive about the Governor of Virgina is that he is using this subject for political expediency. He knows that if he can strike the right chord with people money will flow into his campaign coffers. Of course he expected that people on the left would start howling and that he would have to amend his statement. He probably had it drafted before he made the proclamation about Confederate Month, but he knows that if he can show that he is standing up to liberals then conservatives will throw money at him. He wanted to create a stir and this was a very good way to do that. Look at the congressman that yelled “you lie!” during the Presidents speech. Money instantly started flowing to him. He probably was not calculating on that and it was probably an honest emotional outburst, but now every politician has seen that. They will act accordingly. CheriNVB is correct, we must move on, we have much more pressing issues to deal with without having to rehash something that should have been over some 150 years ago.
lynne says:
April 11th, 2010
8:37 pm
I like that we can agree on some conman ground.I think you and are more alike than dis alike. We are realists and we both know easy answers are hard to come buy.
I do wish we could have the open exchange of ideas in a public forum. We both learn a lot and find what we disagree about tends to be in degrees or shades of gray instead of black and white. So much of our discussion seems to be of shouting down our opponents no matter who they belong to politically. Winning the argument substitutes for a dialog.
I do prefer my history strait up not shaken or stirred. I’m as guilty of that because I think I’m fighting against revisionist history.
I’d agree with CVB but unless we can agree on a “Truth” perhaps admit some fault not because of evil intent but cause of a mistake. To many folks want to play class or race warfare, and try to punish the descendants of mistakes made prior to them being born.
Should I be held as a murderer because my grandfather committed a murder? No one I know that is alive held a slave. So shouldn’t we move beyond race. As we say in the Army there are no colors but Army Green. No Americans but the red,white and blue.
Ed Daras says:
April 17th, 2010
8:58 pm
Are human beings more than just expendable tools?
admin says:
April 18th, 2010
10:37 am
Ed,
Your simple question is bristling with philosophical potential for debate. Individually we may consider ourselves more than expendable tools, but depending on the point of view regarding others whom we directly and indirectly interact with I believe there is a sliding scale of perception regarding the value of any being as expendable.
This argument can be made regarding deity as well.
What it comes down to is the perception ultimately of those who have attained levels of power and influence that are able through their decisions effect happiness or misery upon more than just themselves.
Kurt says:
April 18th, 2010
9:00 pm
I believe it was Abe that said something to the effect that he would be president of all the states or none. If the South had said ok, we’ll free the slaves, but we’re still seceding, we still would have had the war.
The prime directive of any organism, be it human, virus, or government, is to keep existing. States leaving was a threat to the survival of the federal government.
When it comes down to it, the war was fought over states rights. The was was fought over power. Slavery was only an excuse given.
So anybody want to lay odds on what would happen if Idaho tried to secede? Even after the US federal government gave the Russians a hard time about letting some of their territories secede?
Few young soldiers in today’s US military would question the order to open fire on Americans in armed rebellion. Think the fact that the Constitution does not allow it? They have not followed the Constitution in a very long time anyways, why would they start now? Some cops have said they would resist, but cops armed with pistols and a few assault rifles against troops armed with tanks or better?
Me thinks that there will be American blood spilled again as we transition into the next phase, where we get a dictator.
Ed Daras says:
April 30th, 2010
1:54 am
What if my life were merely valued at only today’s going rate?
Ed Daras says:
April 30th, 2010
2:05 am
Pretense is always generally a mandatory prerequisite for Battaille.
Ed Daras says:
April 30th, 2010
2:20 am
Fiendowrst and foremost: are we endowed with a common language?