Thursday, April 08, 2010



Despite previous governors' refusals, McDonnell issues Confederate history month proclamation

This should stir up the ACLU, the ADL, the SPLC, the NAACP and all the usual suspects
"Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has quietly declared April 2010 Confederate History Month, bringing back a designation in Virginia that his two Democratic predecessors -- Mark Warner and Tim Kaine -- refused to do.

Republican governors George Allen and Jim Gilmore issued similar proclamations. But in 2002, Warner broke with their action, calling such proclamations, a "lightning rod" that does not help bridge divisions between whites and blacks in Virginia.

This year's proclamation was requested by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A representative of the group said the group has known since it interviewed McDonnell when he was running for attorney general in 2005 that he was likely to respond differently than Warner or Kaine.

Richmond is the former capital of the Confederacy.

Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond) said he was "stunned" to learn of McDonnell's decision and even more stunned that the proclamation did not include any reference to slavery. "It's offensive,'' he said.

Source

Will the SPLC now brand the entire State of Virginia as a "hate group"? They're crazy enough.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good for the governor, however I am slightly irked they are adding slavery to it. The point of that war was never slavery.

Anonymous said...

Yes it was!!! Don't give that states right crap. They wanted to keep slaves and so they called it states rights. And before you start calling me names...I am an independent voter...a freethinker!
As for what the govenor did...good for him. Much of the south stood for many good things.

Anonymous said...

Very true Anon 1:38, a fact the Left would rather people didn't think about. Governor McDonnell deserves a great deal of credit for his honesty and willingness to do what is only right.

Tens-of-thousands of brave Americans died fighting for what they truly believed in, the Confederacy, and are deserving of a place of honor in our history. I'm a northern yankee, but it makes me sad to see so few Southerners willing to stand up for their proud heritage. It also angers me to see their honorable flag treated as some symbol of racism, when in fact, it is the people making that charge who are the true racists.

People of the South should be very proud of their history, and should never allow anyone to disgrace it. The fact that well-known, Communist-backed groups like the ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and NAACP, are coming out against the Governors action should serve to inspire and unite all Southerners, indeed, all true Americans.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:28 your talking out of your rectum. The War was about economics, states rights and such, not slavery. Pretending Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves is false since he wanted to ship blacks either to Africa or Central America is overlooked. Also when he was in his state legislature he voted against allowing blacks to give testimony in court. The "Emanicpation Proclamation" did not free a single slave and was done with political motive to keep European nations out of the war.

Robert said...

There was a great lecture given by Professor Guelzo on Lincoln at The Teaching Company. They have a free podcast there under "Great Leaders: Abraham Lincoln" that you can listen to. I found it fascinating what Guelzo had to say about Lincoln, including his attitudes on slavery, and the lead-up to the Civil War. Well worth a half hour or so of your time.

Anonymous said...

"Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond) said he was...even more stunned that the proclamation did not include any reference to slavery. "It's offensive," he said."

Why does every reference to the Confederacy require a reference to slavery. The Confederacy was made up of a people who were passionate about their way of life which included far more than slavery. But regarding slavery, history plainly shows us that both the North and South owned slaves, and that there were, in fact, many Black slave owners. Slavery was an issue, but it was not strictly a Southern issue.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:28 your talking out of your rectum. The War was about economics, states rights and such, not slavery.

Not quite. First, we should all agree that the North's entrance into the war was because of the South's succession and military actions. The South had taken military steps before Lincoln was president, so the pieces were already in motion before Lincoln was sworn in. Lincoln always stated that his primary goal in the war was the preservation of the Union. He was almost singularly minded in that quest. It therefore can be argued that for the North, the war was not about slavery, but primarily about preserving the Union.

However, that analysis is slightly tainted as the Union was ripped apart by the South in their aggression and eventual succession from the United States.

The question then becomes "why did the South secede and leave the United States?"

Some will argue that it was over "states rights." While that may be true, the overriding issue that drove the states rights argument was slavery. No other topic dominated the states rights premise more than slavery.

Economic issues are also brought forth as causing the war. This too is true. However, it should be remembered that the economic issues that were contentious all centered around the issue of slavery. There is no escaping that.

It can also be argued that a cause of the war was the Southern state's belief that they were losing power and influence in the Federal government as new, non-slave states entered the Union. Once again, this is true. However, once again, the overriding issue within the admittance of new states was slavery.

No war ever starts for a singular reason and the American Civil War is no exception. The best analysis is that the North's reason for fighting the way was preserving the United States, with the issue of slavery s distant second. The South, on the other hand, may have had multiple reasons for fighting the war, but within those reasons, the 500 pound gorilla was always the issue of slavery. No other issue dominated the reasons as much and as clearly as slavery.

It is disingenuous to say that the Civil War was fought strictly for the reasons of slavery just as it is disingenuous to say that slavery was not the overriding factor for the South's fighting the war.

Anonymous said...

Talking out your rectum!! Why would you sink to this name calling. Not sure of your arguement?? Stormewaters

Anonymous said...

Why is it that my comment got deleted???

All I said was that we shouldn't honor losers in our history, only winners.

Because only losers need history months, like blacks.

Anonymous said...

As a non-American, I think it's kind of ironic that the northern states of the US make such a virtue of fighting and winning a war of separation and independence from the then British empire, but later called the southern states of the US rebels and worthy of defeating in a war just because they also wanted to be free and independent.

easy e said...

horraaayyyyy for the governor. I'm black and the confederate flag had nothing to do with slavery. The slave trade came from the north...they were the real racist if you wanted to place a label somewhere.....secondly more blacks fought for the south than the north. I will be proudly waving my american flag and confederate flag on july 4th. Now mess with those people who are flying the mexican flag in our country....now that's hatred!!!!