GREAT NEWS: Virginia Brings Back Confederate History Month.

[uscitizen]

One rumor is that it was Jeffersons father in law.
Of course the rumor that Jefferson fathered the child goes back to at least 1802.

 

[Zona]

Perhaps we should also have Mexican history month?

And British history month, while we're at it?

Why? Confederate history is part and parcel of UNITED STATES history. No getting around it -so what possible justification do you have to decide future generations should be forced to remain ignorant about OUR history? Except for liberals who always believe in re-writing history -REAL history does not involve re-writing those parts that are just too "inconvenient" to allow others to know or just flat out omitting them in order to deceive those who came after. So TRY to wrap your mind around this: HISTORY has nothing to do with any particular political party or policies. I know far too many liberals who believe otherwise -and I'm starting to think that fact alone justifies making sure liberals are never in a position to re-write US history.

History IS what it IS.

Mexican history is NOT US history - and unless MEChA gets it way, it will never will be. Just like Canadian history is not US history. It is what it is. Really dude -learn to deal with REALITY.

Then why wont this idiot even bring up the slavery part of the equation? he said the reason he didn't bring up slavery was because it wasn't that big of a deal. Seriously. He is trying to take that part back now, but he said slavery wasn't that big of deal.

Jesus Christ, you idiots who defend this crap make me sick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Perhaps we should also have Mexican history month?

And British history month, while we're at it?

Why? Confederate history is part and parcel of UNITED STATES history. History IS what it IS.

So is Nazi Germany history, in the sense the UNITED STATES also fought a war with that foreign country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I like how the OP calls this GREAT NEWS..

I also like how he doesn't stick around to actually debate his position.

 

[frazzledgear]

They should have never gotten rid of it in the first place. My only hope is that the teachers in the schools include Confederate History Month into their curriculum and teach it with the same amount of zeal that they promote black history month with.


LiveLeak.com - Virginia Brings Back Confederate History Month


RICHMOND -- Gov. Bob McDonnell has brought Confederate History Month back to Virginia after an eight-year hiatus.

McDonnell becomes the first governor since 2001 to designate April to commemorate the secessionist, slaveholding South.

I am sure the blacks there just love this. That war was a horrible time in our country and this idiot wants to celebrate it. Whats next, Slavery month?

You are an idiot sir. An embarrassment to everyone who received a dd214.

So we should just pretend it never happened or what? History IS what it is -it isn't about whether you LIKED what happened in history but that you TEACH what happened in history. Not a hard concept to grasp. It is Confederate HISTORY month -not the "Confederate Don't You Wish We Were Celebrating the Confederacy Victory in the Civil War Instead Month". It isn't about CELEBRATING anything. It is about UNDERSTANDING and in order to understand a subject, it must be taught.

 

[Zona]

They should have never gotten rid of it in the first place. My only hope is that the teachers in the schools include Confederate History Month into their curriculum and teach it with the same amount of zeal that they promote black history month with.


LiveLeak.com - Virginia Brings Back Confederate History Month


RICHMOND -- Gov. Bob McDonnell has brought Confederate History Month back to Virginia after an eight-year hiatus.

McDonnell becomes the first governor since 2001 to designate April to commemorate the secessionist, slaveholding South.

I am sure the blacks there just love this. That war was a horrible time in our country and this idiot wants to celebrate it. Whats next, Slavery month?

You are an idiot sir. An embarrassment to everyone who received a dd214.

So we should just pretend it never happened or what? History IS what it is -it isn't about whether you LIKED what happened in history but that you TEACH what happened in history. Not a hard concept to grasp. It is Confederate HISTORY month -not the "Confederate Don't You Wish We Were Celebrating the Confederacy Victory in the Civil War Instead Month". It isn't about CELEBRATING anything. It is about UNDERSTANDING and in order to understand a subject, it must be taught.

Perhaps you missed this little part.....that idiot forgot or just ignored the whole slavery thing. How can you understand history if you are trying to re write it?

Understand....

 

[Polk]

There were half a million slaves in Virginia when Virginia seceded in order to assure they remained slaves.

I think a whole month to celebrate that is a bit excessive.

How many slaves were in America when we seceded from Great Britain? And we still recognize Independence Day.

Except, you know, the United States wasn't formed on the sole (or even partial) basis of protecting the "right of slavery".

 

[Polk]

Jefferson owned and mated with slaves.

Still I think confederatew history nanosecond would be sufficient.

And he also fought for the abolition of slavery.

I guess it was embaressing loving a slave...
Did he free his slaves while fighting for the abolition of slavery?

He freed them in his will, if I recall correctly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There were half a million slaves in Virginia when Virginia seceded in order to assure they remained slaves.

I think a whole month to celebrate that is a bit excessive.

How many slaves were in America when we seceded from Great Britain? And we still recognize Independence Day.

Except, you know, the United States wasn't formed on the sole (or even partial) basis of protecting the "right of slavery".

Well neither was the Confederacy formed on the sole basis of protecting slavery, but it doesn't matter either way. Slavery is something the founders of this nation took great pains to protect. Both nations are equally guilty of slavery, and if you condemn one you must condemn both. You can't protest Confederate History Month while simultaneously celebrating Independence Day.

 

[Polk]

How many slaves were in America when we seceded from Great Britain? And we still recognize Independence Day.

Except, you know, the United States wasn't formed on the sole (or even partial) basis of protecting the "right of slavery".

Well neither was the Confederacy formed on the sole basis of protecting slavery, but it doesn't matter either way. Slavery is something the founders of this nation took great pains to protect. Both nations are equally guilty of slavery, and if you condemn one you must condemn both. You can't protest Confederate History Month while simultaneously celebrating Independence Day.

That's just historically inaccurate. The genesis of the Confederacy was the defense of slavery. Every succession resolution mentions slavery numerous times and it was the fear that Lincoln would take moves to end slavery which prompted the revolt. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers did not take "great pains to protect" slavery. They saw the slavery issue as one better left alone considering the context of the times. If you read the debates from the convention, no delegate makes an impassioned defense of slavery. The supporters of slavery argue that it's a necessary economic evil.

 

[midcan5]

Isn't it odd that the southern states still cling to a time when the constitution meant nothing to many people living under it.? The founding of America was the beginning of the end.

Jefferson wrote, "He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade].

Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. " WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery


Bob McDonnell's Civil War -- and ours - War Room - Salon.com

Op-Ed Columnist - A Confederacy of Dunces - NYTimes.com


"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except, you know, the United States wasn't formed on the sole (or even partial) basis of protecting the "right of slavery".

Well neither was the Confederacy formed on the sole basis of protecting slavery, but it doesn't matter either way. Slavery is something the founders of this nation took great pains to protect. Both nations are equally guilty of slavery, and if you condemn one you must condemn both. You can't protest Confederate History Month while simultaneously celebrating Independence Day.

That's just historically inaccurate. The genesis of the Confederacy was the defense of slavery. Every succession resolution mentions slavery numerous times and it was the fear that Lincoln would take moves to end slavery which prompted the revolt. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers did not take "great pains to protect" slavery. They saw the slavery issue as one better left alone considering the context of the times. If you read the debates from the convention, no delegate makes an impassioned defense of slavery. The supporters of slavery argue that it's a necessary economic evil.

The genesis of the Confederacy was many reasons, it's historically inaccurate to say that it's only cause was slavery. You're ignoring the historical conflict between north and south over tariffs, and the fact that Lincoln had absolutely no support in the south and they didn't want him as President. And of course they took great pains to protect slavery. They removed Jefferson's verbal assault on Great Britain for introducing slavery to the colonies in the Declaration, enshrined slavery in the Constitution, and gave blacks a special designation as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.

But, once again, none of this matters. Slavery is the crime, not whatever reasons were given for secession by either the United or Confederate States. Both were guilty of slavery, and letting one off the hook just because they didn't say slavery was one of the reasons they seceded is ridiculous.

 

[Polk]

The conflict over tariffs had existed for over a generation, but with a single exception (1833, South Carolina), it had never even come close to dissolving the Union.

And both of things you describe aren't protections of slavery. They're kicking the can down the road about addressing the issue. The three-fifths compromise was developed to balance between those who wanted them counted as persons (ironically, the people who had them in chains) and those who did not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The conflict over tariffs had existed for over a generation, but with a single exception (1833, South Carolina), it had never even come close to dissolving the Union.

And both of things you describe aren't protections of slavery. They're kicking the can down the road about addressing the issue. The three-fifths compromise was developed to balance between those who wanted them counted as persons (ironically, the people who had them in chains) and those who did not.

If you don't think putting slavery in the Constitution as a legitimate institution is protecting it then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Polk]

The conflict over tariffs had existed for over a generation, but with a single exception (1833, South Carolina), it had never even come close to dissolving the Union.

And both of things you describe aren't protections of slavery. They're kicking the can down the road about addressing the issue. The three-fifths compromise was developed to balance between those who wanted them counted as persons (ironically, the people who had them in chains) and those who did not.

If you don't think putting slavery in the Constitution as a legitimate institution is protecting it then I don't know what to tell you.

The Constitution, as originally passed, did not recognize the institution of slavery as legitimate or illegitimate. It simply set rules allowing the address of issues.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The conflict over tariffs had existed for over a generation, but with a single exception (1833, South Carolina), it had never even come close to dissolving the Union.

And both of things you describe aren't protections of slavery. They're kicking the can down the road about addressing the issue. The three-fifths compromise was developed to balance between those who wanted them counted as persons (ironically, the people who had them in chains) and those who did not.

If you don't think putting slavery in the Constitution as a legitimate institution is protecting it then I don't know what to tell you.

The Constitution, as originally passed, did not recognize the institution of slavery as legitimate or illegitimate. It simply set rules allowing the address of issues.

You don't think forcing states to return escaped slaves to their "owners" is recognizing slavery as a legitimate institution?

 

[Polk]

If you don't think putting slavery in the Constitution as a legitimate institution is protecting it then I don't know what to tell you.

The Constitution, as originally passed, did not recognize the institution of slavery as legitimate or illegitimate. It simply set rules allowing the address of issues.

You don't think forcing states to return escaped slaves to their "owners" is recognizing slavery as a legitimate institution?

No, it doesn't. It simply recognized the existing legal state of human beings as property.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution, as originally passed, did not recognize the institution of slavery as legitimate or illegitimate. It simply set rules allowing the address of issues.

You don't think forcing states to return escaped slaves to their "owners" is recognizing slavery as a legitimate institution?

No, it doesn't. It simply recognized the existing legal state of human beings as property.

And it protected that state of being.

 

[Dr Gregg]

yeah, cause jackasses that wanted to ruin the United States of America should really be celebrated.

and say the south won and had their own country, imagine how many wars there would of been as we expanded West and the two battled over the newly acquired land. OK, off topic

 

[Samson]

I am sure the blacks there just love this. That war was a horrible time in our country and this idiot wants to celebrate it. Whats next, Slavery month?.

The purpose is not only to "celebrate."

The purpose is to increase state revenue;

"I was focused on ... the Civil War history, and the Confederate army and the fact that we've got battlefields here, and frankly t More..hat this is going to be a very important event here next year that will promote tourism and economic development," he said, noting the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War.

I think this speaks more about the desperation of states (Georgia has made a similar declaration) to avoid budget crisis than to coddle to the wants and desires of ex-confederates.

And to answer your question, I'm certain that if "slavery month" could be a revenue producer, then they'd consider it. Unhappily, slaves are not known for vast amounts of disposable income, thrown willy-nilly in attempts to recall lost "glory."