Virginia Governor Celebrates the Confederacy, Forgets Slavery

Aw, he’s just trying to ac-cen-tu-ate the pos-i-tive. Why spoil those mint juleps and silk gowns and gallant cavalry charges by discussing an “insignifcant” aspect of the lifestyle of the CSA?

It takes a lot to be worse than Gilmore.

I could deal with a Civil War History Month or even just a Southern History Month (the latter especially would embrace blacks), “Confederate History Month” is a slap in the face. Especially since the CSA only lasted four years. What did it accomplish exactly, besides killing a lot of people? Uh….nothing.

Well, it DID create the stew of simmering bigoted resentments that they didn’t get to keep those damn darkies around for cheap labor.

Seriously.

We won. You lost. Move on and shut up about it already.

This man wants to be the next GOP leadership?  He can’t even get past the fact that the south was and is racist.  As a professor of history I find this talk disturbing.  No other country in the world allows put-down revolutions and secessions to be taught with such pride as if they didn’t lose or had valiant reasons to fight.  I think the nearly 200 comments in the previous blog pointing out the hypocrisy will atleast put this fool in his place.

This man wants to be the next GOP leadership?  He can’t even get past the fact that the south was and is racist.

He just Macaca’d himself nearly as badly as George Allen. Even NRO has issues with it for God’s sake.

Why spoil those mint juleps and silk gowns and gallant cavalry charges by discussing an “insignifcant” aspect of the lifestyle of the CSA?

With that combination, it is a miracle the Confederacy lasted as long as it did.

What did it accomplish exactly, besides killing a lot of people? Uh….nothing.

A lot of embittered southerners and their sympathizers in other regions who subscribe to the “Lost Cause” school of historiography, US history scholars, Southern literature scholars, and Hollywood if Gone With The Wind and how it has shaped popular memory of the Civil War era….

You know, speaking of the past, when blacks enjoyed the hospitality of the fruits of the Confederacy— shackled, whipped, raped, etc., we can proudly say that Virginia’s risen from the ashes of the War Between the States.

I’m not sure this is strictly fair.  American slavery was certainly abominable even by the historical standards of imperial slavery—and when something is morally abhorrent by the standards of slavery, that’s pretty fucking bad, reach-for-the-soul-bleach bad—but it’s not like blacks were the only group that was frequently whipped and/or raped by those brave, courtly gentlemen of Dixie.  Women, children, immigrants, the poor—anyone who can’t reliably expect to have access to credulous authorities.  Shouldn’t that part of the Confederacy be remembered also?  The one that rejects all attempts to constrain the actions of the landed gentry, and valorizes feudal ideas that legal protection should be derived from, and contingent on, ownership?

Fuck these people.  The Haven faction would have kicked their asses.

He added a new clause about slavery:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/mcdonnell-apologizes-for-proclamation-adds-slavery-clause.php?ref=fpa

Trouble is, by doing that, he undercuts the entire premise of Confederate History Month. Racial chattel slavery was the fundamental principle behind the split and attempted formation of a new nation. Now the Governor went and said that the foundational principle of the Confederate States of America is abhorrent, so let’s celebrate Confederate History Month!

understand the concept of commemorating the history of the Confederacy; many men died fighting for their beliefs and cultural system of the South. However, you cannot separate the fact that slavery played an integral role in the Confederacy.  Gov. Bob McDonnell did.

Pam, normally I read you and I’m basically “HELL YES”, but this is ridiculous. There is literally no reason for anyone to comemorate the rancid trash that passes for what southern partisans laughably refer to as their “Heritage.

Slavery didn’t just play an “integral” role, it’s the sole reason they were willing to start a war that killed nearly a million people. Southern Heritage supporters are amazingly stupid at best, and evil, repugnant crypto racists and slavery apologists at worst. There is no room, whatsoever, to pretend that their evil little experiment in war crimes in support of slavery deserves anything other than mockery - well, mockery, and maybe another march to the sea.

And I’d like to add: The men who died fighting for the confederacy were either pathetic dupes, or dedicated racist mass murderers. Either way, absolutely nothing they did is admirable and worth commemoration.

Now the Governor went and said that the foundational principle of the Confederate States of America is abhorrent, so let’s celebrate Confederate History Month!

Yeah, really.

Bob McDonnell’s mouth, meet Bob McDonald’s foot.

Er, McDonnell.

Ross Lincoln—

Or drafted into the army at the point of a gun.

Good point Ben - there was that too. People forced against their will to fight for the confederacy deserve recognition, but the cause and its ardent supporters ought to be spat upon, and shunned.

the cause and its ardent supporters ought to be spat upon, and shunned.

I agree. Whenever I drive on Monument Avenue or take a walk there, I have to remind myself not to be too impressed by the physical beauty of the monuments, since they’re built to memorialize such an evil thing.

The one that rejects all attempts to constrain the actions of the landed gentry, and valorizes feudal ideas that legal protection should be derived from, and contingent on, ownership?

Note that those are all of the same “ideals” that the Republican Party has been valorizing since they decided that the Southern Strategy was the best way to gain control of the country.  That’s what I realized after the other thread—you really can trace the current Republican Party’s attitude towards things like people who work for wages back to the slavery-based economy of the antebellum South.  The South never really has managed to figure out a way to have wage earners as the engine of their economy instead of unpaid laborers (ie slaves), which is why they’re a hotbed of low wage and anti-union protections to this day.

The same folks who say Jim Crow was a long time ago seem to spend a whole lot of time being butthurt over losing a war more than a hundred years ago.

I grew up in VA. Left after college in the late 80s. My parents still live there.

I have a direct ancestor who owned a plantation. And slaves. He was an officer in the confederacy. He was a GA state legislator. He was a signatory to GA’s order of secession. I strongly suspect he participated in crafting the damned document.

(Collaterally, I believe but have yet to confirm that either he or his father also was instrumental in throwing out the Cherokees from their land in GA.)

God-DAMMIT but I do not ever want to celebrate that *^#**^%^&@% “heritage.” I do not wish to acknowledge his “honor” and “sacrifice” in his trying to protect his slave-owning ASS.

McDonnell is an ignorant asshat with a JD from the right-wing fundagelical agenda-pushing tier IV Pat Robertson law school (nothing against tier IV law schools), as is VA’s AG.

*seethe*

The Johnsons are odd people.

I remember Bob Johnson (Sheila’s ex-husband and BET co-founder) endorsing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries, and during a speech he said that he believed Bill Clinton was more of a black man than Barack Obama.

Here’s the piece about workers from Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech that jumped out at me earlier:

And at the outset, I am glad to see that a system of labor prevails in New England under which laborers can strike when they want to, where they are not obliged to work under all circumstances, and are not tied down and obliged to labor whether you pay them or not! I like the system which lets a man quit when he wants to, and wish it might prevail everywhere.  One of the reasons why I am opposed to Slavery is just here. What is the true condition of the laborer? I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.  When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor, for his whole life. I am not ashamed to confess that twenty five years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on a flat-boat—just what might happen to any poor man’s son!  I want every man to have the chance—and I believe a black man is entitled to it—in which he can better his condition—when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.

So it’s alright to make fun of someone’s dyslexia but not alright to make fun of someone’s stutter? Just because one’s a Republican and the other a Democrat still doesn’t make it right. Double fucking standard.

Does CSA month mean that we get to remember the Virginian terrorists who worked to assassinate the US President, conspired to use poison gas on prisoners and civilians, attack cities and merchants coming and going from ports allied to or under the moderate control of the USA?  The CSA was a state-sponsor of terrorism!

Treasonous descendants of traitors.

But now we know the price of McDonnell’s allegiance to his rightwing “values”: one billionaire supporter’s phone call. Like all bigots, he is a coward at heart

Slavery didn’t just play an “integral” role, it’s the sole reason they were willing to start a war that killed nearly a million people.

Oh, come on.  I think I’ll badly paraphrase The Simpsons to illustrate my point (go look up the actual transcripts, but this is fairly close):

[Citizenship Interviewer]:  What were the causes of the Civil War?
[Abu]: Actually, there were multiple influences, besides the obvious schism between the Abolitionists and Non-Abolitionists.  Economic factors between an industrialized north and an agricultural south—
[Citizenship Interviewer]:  Stop. Just say Slavery.
[Abu]:  Slavery it is!
[Citizenship Interviewer]:  Welcome to the United States, citizen!

Bad misquoting of The Simpsons aside, you simply must be aware that there were significant political and economic differences between the North and the South at the time of the Civil War, besides slavery.  Yes, slavery was a pivotal issue, but it was hardly the only influence in the war.

As to the content of the post, the proclamation was ridiculous and clearly meant to appeal to a certain faction still fighting the Civil War.  A faction, I might add, that many, many people in the former Confederacy are vehemently against, despite being marginalized by our rather unrepresentative representative government*.  Red meat for Tea-Partiers, is there more to say?

If you’ve ever wondered why Democrats and progressives generally fail, the “Civil War” is a good place to start. The right-wing assh*les celebrate the Confederacy, and the “War of Northern Aggression” while the actual patriots and those on the winning side have always called it the neutral “Civil War.”

The progressive movement would be a century further along if we’d immediately relabeled it the “War of Southern Treason” and made all the racists and “Jim Crow”  idiots more obviously aligned with traitorous and anti-American attitudes.

Bad misquoting of The Simpsons aside, you simply must be aware that there were significant political and economic differences between the North and the South at the time of the Civil War, besides slavery.

We went over this in great detail below but, no, not really.  The entire economy of the South was based on slavery.  Every conflict between the North and the South was over slavery, whether it was the expansion of slavery to the new territories or what Congressional representation should be.  Every one of the secession statements issued by the confederate states specifically state that they are seceding because of slavery.  The war was not fought over slavery as a moral question, but slavery was absolutely at the root of every single reason for the war.

I’m sorry, but “The Simpsons” didn’t actually give you accurate information.  Shocking, I know.

The right-wing assh*les celebrate the Confederacy, and the “War of Northern Aggression” while the actual patriots and those on the winning side have always called it the neutral “Civil War.”

You know, I’ve never herd the term “War of Northern Aggression” used by anyone where I live, in the South, except as a tongue-in-cheek term, even when an arch right wing teabagger uses it. The preferred serious right-wing name, for some reason I fail to understand, is “War Between the States”.

Personally my preferred historical term is “War of the Rebellion” and my favorite tongue in cheek euphemism is “The Late Unpleasantness”.

Just ducking in to back Mnemosyne.  Sorry Signals…you’re wrong.  Slavery was THE issue and all the “complications” surrounding the political causes of the Civil War were directly related to the fact that the Southern states relied on slavery as their foundation of their economies.  To claim otherwise is to unnecessarily grant authenticity to a rancid and corrupt “cause”.  Like Mnem said-read the various articles of secession sometime.  All of them hold as an central thesis both white supremacy and the absolute necessity of slavery. 

As an aside, while I happen to be from VA, I can happily say that I am from NoVA and am thus not a “real” Virginian.  McDonnell is not just an idiot, but an idiot without even the courage of his own convictions.  I predict a bright future for him in talk radio.

The Virginia Confederate secession declaration made it clear that it was the perceived oppression of slave-owning states - due to the election of Lincoln - that justified their secession.

Oh, poor butt-hurt slave-owning states and their masters.  What a mistake we made in readmitting those states; what need has Maryland for a Mississippi?

None of the other issues would have existed between the North and South had there not been Slavery.

i’ve had to listen to this bullshit all my life. it was bs when i was a kid, and continues to be bs; the war was fought over the issue of “state’s rights.” the “right” in question was, of course, the right to have slaves. as well, the soon-to-be confederate states had no problem running roughshod over the rights of non-slave states, as they demanded they enforce the fugitive slave act.

but mentioning these two items is considered bad form here in va, as well as the rest of the old confederacy. these clowns have convinced themselves that the “war of northern aggression” was some righteous, yet failed effort to sever ties with a despotic regime, instead of the despicable, treasonous act that it actually was.

i guess it’s the only way to rationalize the fact that great, great grandpaw was an immoral thug, fighting for the right to continue keeping other human beings in bondage. absent that rationalizing, they’d have to admit to themselves that great, great grandpaw was a scumbag.

Slavery was THE issue and all the “complications” surrounding the political causes of the Civil War were directly related to the fact that the Southern states relied on slavery as their foundation of their economies.

Right, fine, the Simpsons quote was intended to be facetious and was taken seriously.  Whatever, I fail at making jokes.

On more serious issues:  perhaps I’m blind to the realities, and perhaps you could point me to some relevant documentation, but as far as I know, the issue of slavery and the Civil War grew out of the fact that the industrialized North simply “outgrew” the need for slavery as a basis of economic growth before the South did.  At the very least, it’s what I was taught in high school and college, and I would welcome more edifying information.  Sincere thanks in advance to anybody who can enlighten me on these facts… I studied engineering in college and may not have had the breath of education others have had.*

I’m sincerely not trying to troll here (see * below), but as I understand the events, we had Southern states declaring their desire to secede prior to Lincoln taking office.  Claiming, as Mnemosyne did, that:

The entire economy of the South was based on slavery.

kind of reinforces my bad Simpsons quote.  Point:  economic differences existed, slavery played a very significant role in the conflict, but do you honestly think that the plight of people in slavery motivated this war?  If so, I refer you to the fact that Southern states were seceding before Lincoln even took office.  More so, I refer you to the Civil Rights movement 100 years later (yes, approximately), which might disagree with the lasting effects of that noble cause.**

To reinforce, and quote someone else:

Sorry Signals…you’re wrong.  Slavery was THE issue and all the “complications” surrounding the political causes of the Civil War were directly related to the fact that the Southern states relied on slavery as their foundation of their economies.

If you read my original post, it was a quoting of The Simpsons, as irrelevant as that might be, as a point that economic conditions were a prevailing factor in the Civil War.  I mean, really.  Did you not even read my original (albeit sarcastic) post?

I will do the unthinkable and quote myself:

there were significant political and economic differences..

Is that really that unclear?  Sheesh.  I highly recommend a re-reading of the economic interests of Europe at the time;  in particular, you do know the French had an interest in cotton and considered supplying troops to the Confederacy?***

Slavery was the primary issue at the time, sure.  Next, you’ll have me believing the Teabaggers were interested in preserving the rights of the individual.  Pshaw.

* I sincerely mean this.  Points to online references of relevant information would be very much appreciated.  I’m an engineering nerd and perhaps I don’t have the background.

** I feel it necessary to say that many very noble people took up a challenge over many generations, which honestly I doubt I would have the moral strength to, and fought for the rights of many people.  Please feel free to bash me for this comment, which I feel is an accurate depiction of what happened at the time, as opposed to a particular statement denoting belief.

*** History buffs chime in!  I think they did, actually, for a very brief period, but perhaps that was just my severe lack of education in high school.  If I’m wrong, let me know.  I’m not very particular about fact-checking my late-night responses to people who misread my post.

Signals and Systems - you really really need to read the thread a few below this - the one with 200+ comments.  This very question was debated robustly and pretty comprehensively.  As a UK-ian, I credit that thread with increasing my knowledge of the causes of the Civil War about a hundredfold.

as far as I know, the issue of slavery and the Civil War grew out of the fact that the industrialized North simply “outgrew” the need for slavery as a basis of economic growth before the South did.

There was absolutely nothing preventing the South from “outgrowing” slavery as a basis of economic growth, except for the stubbornness and inertia of its leading citizens, who happened to be plantation owners. There were no Luddite laws that said they couldn’t partake of the industrial revolution, or using agricultural innovations like the McCormick Reaper or Whitney’s cotton gin—in fact, the existence of the latter industrial implement only spurred the use of slaves despite its time and labour savings.

do you honestly think that the plight of people in slavery motivated this war?

For those making the moral argument regarding slavery at the time (the abolitionists and anti-abolitionists mentioned in the Simpsons joke), yes. It was one of several motivations—political, economic, demographic, cultural, moral, etc.—arising from one issue: the South’s continued use of slaves, and its insistence that the practise not only be accepted but also spread.

No slavery, and you eliminate the central issues on all counts from the beginning.

you do know the French had an interest in cotton and considered supplying troops to the Confederacy?

I do know that. I also know that the main reason for that interest was that France’s main European rival, Great Britain, controlled cotton production across the Atlantic (there was also a geopolitical interest related to Mexico). Britain, which had abolished slavery, also considered intervening on the side of the CSA early in the war. At that point, both countries’ initial interest was more about the opportunities provided for power politics and economic advantage, but once the issue of slavery came to forefront as the root source of every grievance that began the war (as it inevitably had to, for the reason described above), both powers lost their appetite to get involved.

The Simpsons joke is good because it works on a few levels: the INS officer is happy to go with the dumbeed-down version; Apu’s more detailed answer is correct; but so, ultimately, is the simplistic one.

as far as I know, the issue of slavery and the Civil War grew out of the fact that the industrialized North simply “outgrew” the need for slavery as a basis of economic growth before the South did.

The generation of the founders, including slave owners like Washington adn Jefferson, saw slavery as (1) morally wrong, (2) too complicated to get rid of immediately, and (3) on its way out, as too inefficient to be profitable.  Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin (a machine that removes seeds from cotton) and suddenly using slaves to farm cotton turn immensely profitable—and also suddenly, slavery didn’t seem so morally wrong after all, to people who were becoming rich off it.  But, it is not so much that the North “outgrew” slavery as that slavery really doesn’t work well in the long run, except in unusual conditions like the early 19th Century South.

And to be clear, to say:

there were significant political and economic differences..

without noting that those differences were due to the South’s practise of slavery is as silly as Gov. McDonnell claiming that slavery wasn’t a significant part of the the CSA.

Slavery was the primary issue at the time, sure.  Next, you’ll have me believing the Teabaggers were interested in preserving the rights of the individual.

Slavery was the primary underlying issue and over-arching theme at the time. Regarding the teabaggers, I can only paraphrase Walter in The Big Lebowski: “Ignorami! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the CSA’s commitment to slavery, Dude, at least it’s a coherent ethos.”

Wow, and these people still call themselves the Party of Lincoln?

This is like Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies claiming that they fought the Civil War to make the North stop havin’ slaves (I seriously remember that bit of dialogue in re-runs on Nick while home from school sick one day as a kid). The laugh-o-meter of course roared and rightly so—revisionist history should be laughed at (especially Conservative revisionist history, being laughed at to them is akin to castration). It should also be put down by the weight of facts, post chuckle.

You know, there was plenty of information available for anybody who cared to know exactly what McDonnell is. WTF is wrong with all the dumbfuck non-wingnut voters who were so easily fooled by his micron-thick veneer of moderation?

Note how Lincoln: (1) says very plainly that slavery ws the cause of the war, and (2) assigns the guilt for slavery to both North and South:

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

This is like Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies claiming that they fought the Civil War to make the North stop havin’ slaves

In the real world, the “hillbillies” hated the plantation owners down in the flatlands, and sided mostly with the Union

The Party of Lincoln… yeah.

Lincoln himself was quite racist. Pro-segregationist, in fact, but it was pretty hard to find someone who agrees with the ideas of equality of today in the 1860s. He also felt the Rebels should receive full pardons after the war had ended, which pissed off a lot of the radical Republicans who wanted to revoke their rights to vote and run for office once the war was won.

Does anyone else kinda get freaked out by the fact that the British were extremely close to siding with, aiding, and reinforcing the Confederates?

WTF, as most of us learned that in grade school, we have come to terms with that long ago.

“Point:  economic differences existed, slavery played a very significant role in the conflict, but do you honestly think that the plight of people in slavery motivated this war?”

Of course not.  The war was motivated by the South’s desire to keep some people in slavery forever.  The plight of the slaves themselves was of secondary importance (if not tertiary) for most Americans, Southern or Northern.

But the handwriting was on the wall, and like wingnuts have been doing since humans lived in caves, they refused to accept what was obvious to everyone else: That slavery was doomed.  And so they clung even harder to their belief that African slavery was the natural order of things.

“If so, I refer you to the fact that Southern states were seceding before Lincoln even took office.”

Yes, they were.  But it was because they knew Lincoln wouldn’t give them what they wanted: continual parity between slave states and non-slave states, which would give the South the political power to continue practicing slavery.  And keep in mind that Lincoln attitudes RE slavery were mild in comparison to the most rabid abolitionists.

“More so, I refer you to the Civil Rights movement 100 years later (yes, approximately), which might disagree with the lasting effects of that noble cause.”

The Civil War did not start as a “noble cause” to free the slaves, but to keep the Union whole.  But by the time the war ended, the cause of ending slavery had been firmly added to its raison d’être.

That fact the South resented all of the Union goals for the war, and continued to stamp their feet and make trouble for the next (what date is it today?) 145-some years does not make was was achieved, and what was attempted, any less important (or maybe even noble). 

The cause of the Civil Rights movement would not have been possible without the Civil War ending slavery, and force adoption of the various post-war Constitutional Amendments that resulted from the South’s loss.  The Civil Rights movement was about getting those Amendments respected and enforced…

Point:  economic differences existed, slavery played a very significant role in the conflict, but do you honestly think that the plight of people in slavery motivated this war?

I notice that you immediately tried to turn slavery back into a moral question instead of what it actually was, an economic system that permeated the entire South and influenced every aspect of life and politics.  Just a few highlights from the thread below:

- Every state that seceded specifically stated that they were seceding because they wanted to continue to own slaves.  They also threw in a few extra grievances, but the one reason they all gave was slavery.
- Conflicts over whether or not new territories could decide on their own whether or not to allow slavery (most decided not to) led to things like “Bleeding Kansas” and the raid on Harper’s Ferry.  Those weren’t territorial disputes.  Those were disputes about expanding slavery to new parts of the country.
- “States’ rights” means the state’s right to have slaves.  It may have been gussied up in pretty language after the war, but that is the only meaning that it had antebellum and during the War.

Every one of the political and economic conflicts between North and South were rooted in slavery.  Every.  Single.  One.  Trying to claim that slavery was merely a moral question and that the really important questions were over states’ rights (to own slaves) or representation in Congress (where slave-owning states would be outnumbered) or differences in the economies (slavery-based vs. wage-earning) is silly nitpicking.

It’s true that it was taught in schools for many years that slavery was only a moral question, but it was a ridiculously short-sighted way to teach it that misled generations of kids into thinking that the economic system of slavery and the moral question of slavery were two separate things when they’re so intertwined that it’s impossible to claim that one specific aspect of slavery was a cause of the War and another was not.  It also explains why the Civil Rights Movement became necessary—by deciding that slavery was merely a moral question that had been resolved by the war, Americans were able to overlook the real problem, which was that the South’s economy was based on free labor and having an oppressed underclass, and it stayed that way until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century.  Just because African-Americans were no longer literal slaves doesn’t mean that the economic and caste systems that were originally based in slavery changed very much.

In the real world, the “hillbillies” hated the plantation owners down in the flatlands, and sided mostly with the Union

Yep, that’s why West Virginia seceded from Virginia and why Kentucky ended up “neutral” during the war. Tennessee barely ended up in the confederacy and eastern Tennessee was a holdout and committed guerilla warfare against the rest.

Lincoln himself was quite racist.

By today’s standard’s, yes.  At the time, they not only called him a “n-lover,” they spread rumors that he himself was part black and that was why he wanted to end slavery.  They called him “The Original Gorilla,” as in, he was just an animal like all of those slaves.

For his time, Lincoln was pretty middle-of-the-road—too radical for some but not radical enough for others.  Kind of like another president from Illinois ...

I don’t know… I still have a hard time believing Charles Johnson has gone all reverse Dennis Miller.

Yep, that’s why West Virginia seceded from Virginia and why Kentucky ended up “neutral” during the war. Tennessee barely ended up in the confederacy and eastern Tennessee was a holdout and committed guerilla warfare against the rest.

The “hillbillies” knew exactly what legal slavery meant for them:  low wages and poor working conditions with no room to complain, because they could always be replaced by a slave if they did.

That’s probably the biggest triumph of American conservatives:  they’ve managed to convince working-class whites that low wages and bad working conditions are the fault of minority workers, not owners and managers.

The Civil War did not start as a “noble cause” to free the slaves, but to keep the Union whole.  But by the time the war ended, the cause of ending slavery had been firmly added to its raison d’être.

This. Basically the Union fought to keep the country united. The south fought to secede—so it could expand its form of economics, ie, slavery, into the western territories.

Everytime I hear a Southern Confederate defender issue their inanities about it not really being about slavery, etc., etc., I think: you people really need to go back and read the original texts of the time. This is fresh in my memory because I just saw The Rivalry at Ford Theatre in DC about the Lincoln Douglas debates and the follow-up presidential race between the two. The play basically uses the words right out of their mouths. Douglas killed himself running around the South while seriously ill after he lost the Presidential campaign trying to stop the secession.

I think Johnson was the one who made a commercial during the election where she said “I’m a Democrat businesswoman and I support McDonnell”.  I would be surprised if she’s actually registered as a Democrat.  I’ve only known of Republicans who can’t figure out when to use a the adjective form of the word.  I guess plenty of people of fell for it though, because McDonnell won.  I’m looking for a better job right now, and I am especially hoping to find one in a different state.

Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin (a machine that removes seeds from cotton) and suddenly using slaves to farm cotton turn immensely profitable—and also suddenly, slavery didn’t seem so morally wrong after all, to people who were becoming rich off it.

Richer. They were already using slaves to farm cotton, but the cotton gin freed up slave labour used to pick seeds for diversion to the fields. And since slaves were relatively fungible and easily ammortized over a lifetime of back-breaking work, and because (unlike crops) they could reproduce in any climate, the slave owners weren’t economically motivated to create demand for someone to, say, invent a McCormick Reaper for cotton harvesting. Add in the deeply ingrained cultural racism and the aristocratic mentality and they were gonna keep on with slavery as long as they could, even at the cost of treason.

I often think of the antebellum South as being a victim of a particularly repugnant form of the Resource Curse that plagues most of the Arab world today, with limited commodities like oil being replaced with, y’know, relatively unlimited commodities like human beings.

There’s no formal registration of party affiliation in Virginia. You can’t vote in both primaries, but you can vote in a Republican primary (if they have one) one election cycle and in the Democratic primary in the next.

McDonnell pretty swiftly added the slavery criticism and issued the half-assed type of apology that said he was sorry to the people he offended.  The incident revealed a lack of knowledge by him or his advisors on the history of this proclamation.  Governor Allen (R) (yeah, the “macaca” guy) issued the proclamation without slavery language and his successor Gilmore issued one, too, but included a nod to slavery.

There’s no formal registration of party affiliation in Virginia. You can’t vote in both primaries, but you can vote in a Republican primary (if they have one) one election cycle and in the Democratic primary in the next.

I know that primaries are open because I voted in one even though I’m registered as independent.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that nobody can register for a party, though.  If that is the case, I wouldn’t know about it because I have never registered as either Democrat or Republican, although I thought I had that option when I registered to vote.  Still, my point was that that commercial was the first time I had ever use the noun-as-adjective mistake (insult?) used by someone who identifies as a Democrat.  It seemed a little suspicious to me.

FWIW, being registered as independent has led to some hilarious misunderstandings.  The reason I’m not a registered Democrat is because that party isn’t nearly liberal enough for me.  But during campaigns I always get fun phone calls from Republicans who think that I’m indecisive and middle-of-the-road so they think they can convince me to vote for McCain, McDonnell, or whoever.  They sure are surprised when I disagree with them on most issues.

A lot of the radical Republicans were pretty pissed at Lincoln for being too lenient to the Rebels. I don’t know what I would’ve done if I were in his shoes. It’s said that he suffered with bouts of serious depression and just wanted to unify the country again.

I just hate it when people celebrate shit like that. It’s about the most un-American thing, in my eyes. Southerners are the only ones who reenact battles of a war they lost. And too top things off, they’re still butt-hurt about it.

Lincoln saw the civil war’s end as a way to reunite the country but killing off the rich aristocrat land owner would have set the US back 20-40 years in terms of economic production because so much of the land would be subdivided into individual plots and without a source of lending power in the south the north would rob them blind.  Turns out though that Lincoln totally dropped the ball by assuming Georgia is like Indiana.  They aren’t.  The south turned into a massive hate-filled backwater land because the newly opened west was about as productive and without the issues of the civil war so the railroads went west rather then south and left them to rot.

This is one of the fundamental reasons the south is still a thorn in the US’s side.  Without the major economic development that rushed the immigrant’s children up the socio-economic ladder in the north (yes, I know it isn’t wholly true, but that’s why I said his children or grandchildren) the south simply back-slid into poverty so low that at some point over 70% of the population was in default of loans or working strictly as labor on a farm.  Then when the US military started making bases in the south at the turn of the century they got an influx of cash without the prerequisite industry to support it.  So they were able to maintain their social hegemony without actually moving forward socially and accepting the modern wage labor system.

I found some really interesting information in the responses to my second post; thanks to those who added to my understanding. 

My original contribution was supposed to be nothing but an objection to the over-the-top language used by Ross Lincoln (“sole reason”, “nothing but deluded fools or mass murderers”, etc.).  My specific point was that reducing a complex social environment and ensuing war to one primal cause is really just a terrible rhetorical and logical approach.  I stand by that!

I don’t post here often, and now I remember why, because I’m very bad at using this type of forum, tend to be taken in a way I didn’t intend the first time, and then tend to make the situation worse.  I did a terrible job on my second post and was deservedly raked over the coals. People (rightly) read arguments there I wasn’t really trying to make, but that’s what I get for typing quickly and not really rereading after liberal use of copy/paste.

I won’t bother to try and clarify what I meant to say, since I agree with virtually all of what was said in response to my god-awful post.  Instead, I’ll retire with whatever grace I can to the status of lurker.

P.S. Mnemosyne and others, I was quoting the Simpsons for humor, not as a scholarly citation.  Sheesh.

This is like Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies claiming that they fought the Civil War to make the North stop havin’ slaves (I seriously remember that bit of dialogue in re-runs on Nick while home from school sick one day as a kid).

The immediately preceding line was Jed telling Jethro, who wished he could have kept the surfer girl he ‘captured’ (thinking she was a “Grunion” which he mistook for foreign invaders rather than fish) around to unload the truck, “We don’t hold with having slaves boy”.

Granny actually thought the south had won the war and freed the slaves; “That’s right! We fought a war to make them Yankees give up that foolishness.”

It was a pretty funny episode really.

Talking about the “Grunions” (which are related to Smelt) which Jed still thinks are people;

Jed: Pitiful, scrawny lookin’ little things, kinda like, uh?
Jane: Smelt?
Jed: Didn’t get that close.

I think it’s somewhat sad that my comment above about slavery is just second above the post and poster which most of the rest of the thread is responding to… And my comment is a single line which answer the significantly longer post?

The Civil War did not start as a “noble cause” to free the slaves, but to keep the Union whole.  But by the time the war ended, the cause of ending slavery had been firmly added to its raison d’être.
Comment #44: MikeEss

Well if you want to pick that nit; (as stated in the last thread) it started when a group of Terrorists led by a traitorous General started shoting up one of our military bases.

“Well if you want to pick that nit; (as stated in the last thread) it started when a group of Terrorists led by a traitorous General started shoting up one of our military bases.”

True enough, but the North could have left with their tail between their legs.  But they refused to just let the rogue states go.  And the Union was in it to win it…

Dude, stop overusing the word “terrorist” to describe someone you loathe. A terrorist can’t be a uniformed member of a military.

Signals and Systems, you don’t have to worry about scholarly citations here, as people usually give you a link to a bullshit site like Wikipedia or a blog. JSTOR anyone?

Lincoln himself was quite racist. Pro-segregationist, in fact, but it was pretty hard to find someone who agrees with the ideas of equality of today in the 1860s.

True, though I get the sense that Lincoln was the kind of person who was able to change his views.  After all, he was originally content to see slavery merely remain legal where it already was, and then came to the conclusion that it had to be eradicated.  He came around to supporting the participation of African-Americans in the Union Army. 

When Lincoln entered Richmond after its abandonment by the Confederates and African-Americans turned out in droves to see him, it must have a tremendous emotional impact on him. 

Also, what I had meant by the Party of Lincoln reference is that every now and then, some Republican, in addressing the lack of African-American voter support for the Republican Party, will lament it by mentioning “After all, we are the party of Lincoln.” 

On an alternate note, it always cracks me up how these Southern conservatives simultaneously express nostalgia for the Confederacy while posing themselves as the epitome of American patriotism.

“On an alternate note, it always cracks me up how these Southern conservatives simultaneously express nostalgia for the Confederacy while posing themselves as the epitome of American patriotism.”

Excellent point.