Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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?.
"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.