Politics meets historical revisionism.

Remove all ads!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208200/ns/us_news-washington_post/

Maybe this should be in AoDA but what put it in AoLS is that a sitting governor signed on to this nonsense.

Some GOP candidates have been doing well in elections recently. I'm wondering if some voters are going to be dismayed by what they ended up with. No all GOP candidates would make bad officials IMO but I wonder if the current crop of candidates include some really bad ones that will be an embarrassment to their party and/or state if elected.

 

Your link just took me to the homepage for MSNBC (the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party), so I don't know what article I was supposed to look at.

You think the GOP has been doing well recently, just wait until November. It could be a bloodbath. Here in MA we have some congressional seats that have been safe for generations that the Dems are afraid of losing.

 

I just used the link to see if it was working and it didn't take me to the homepage.

Instead it took me to an article titled "Confederate History Month sparks anger in Va." which is what I intended.

Regardless of if msnbc leans left or not I'll argue celebrating "Confederate History" is probably not a good thing.

Also I've read both the Wall Street Journal (leans right) and the NY Times (leans left) so I would say reading multiple new sources is probably a good thing.

 

Oddly, the first time I clicked on it, it brought me to the homepage. The second time, it brought me to the article. MSNBC seems to do that. I think it's a liberal conspiracy.

Anyway, as to the article, the Governor's Proclamation isn't 'revisionist history'. Within the context of that proclamation, slavery has little place. While it was one of the major divisions between North and South, and is popularly seen as the reason for the war, the proclamation speaks of the study of the history of it and the understanding of the people involved. I think it was a good proclamation for the simple reasons that one must understand one's history and that demonizing your foes is the fastest way to becoming them. I think the latter is the part people are objecting to. The Confederacy and anyone who fought on it's side has been widely demonized in American culture, and people often assume that nothing good happened there or that there were no redeeming features to it, that all soldiers of the South were vile, slave-abusing plantation owners. I think a good reminder of how it really happened, and that there were good men on both sides, is important.

Moreover, 'revisionist history' requires more than ommitting facts. If I were to talk about the tactics of World War II and I never mention the Holocaust, I'm not 'revising history'. 'Revisionist history' means re-writing it. Denying the holocaust is revisionist history.

 

I'll point out that I am quite aware of the fact that most of the Confederate troops that fought in the Civil War did not own slaves.

However the war itself was fought to protect slavery and ignore democracy as the southerns states that left the Union only tried to do so after the election of a President they didn't care for because of his anti-slavery leanings.

That the proclamation doesn't address slavery directly is a pretty big omission. Also that it talks about "the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War" implies that it is portraying a heroic image of the Confederates fighting against the odds, rather than acknowledging the reasons they did so are quite questionable.

Also it isn't like the sons of families from the Union didn't end up dying in the war that I argue the South started.

I definitely say it is less than respectful of democracy to say you don't like how an election turned out so your state should leave the union. If someone I didn't vote for wins the White House I'd probably still be against anyone who voted in a similar fashion saying it is justifiable to declare independence. That is why I point to how the actions of the South were both pro-slavery and anti-democracy in nature.

 

Snook, I'm really surprsied you would go there, considering some of the links and sources that you have posted.

Yes, it is. If one left out the Holocaust from the German historical record, or a day honoring Nazi Germany, you would have something similar.

This is McDonnell's defense:

That makes it "revisionist history." It is the governor's own version of what he thinks is important. While he comments that it "obviously involved slavery," he made an decision to leave that part of the historical record out of a month that is supposed to be about the history of the Confederacy.

The context is historical, unless you really want to believe that it is about "promoting tourism." In that case, he can just build another Disneyland, which is where the governor's "proclamation" probably belongs.

Sorry that statement makes almost no sense.

Leaving out the issue of slavery is not "understanding one's history;" it is an attempt to rewrite history by diminishing it's importance, especially because of its central role in the history of the Confederacy. It is quite obvious that you and the governor share this view.

People should be free to draw their own conclusions from a complete and accurate historical record, not one edited by the government for poltical purposes and its own agenda. If the governor wants to promote tourism, that's one thing, since the ugly truth of slavery as the central cause of the CW would do little to promote it.

No, not really. The Confederacy has not been "demonized," unless you mean the same way in which the Germans have in WWII. What has been demonized is slavery. I understand the desire of some to go back and "whitewash" that history, by its complete omission from a procalmation that is supposed to be largely about the historical record.

No, really, it doesn't require more.

Then you would be writing about the tactics of WWII. If you were writing about those from the German side you would have to mention the Holocaust, because it was a part of the overall German tactics (reallocation of troops and materails from the fighting fronts), but it would not be a central focus. But again, if you had a month of Nazi German history in WWII, it would be a central feature. When you edit features out of the historical record you are rewriting history.

Very nice point, pplr. I noticed that as well.

 

I'm disappointed in this comment:

To assume such a position represents the Republican party shows fairly extreme bias on your part. Brilliant deduction here -- 'Vote Republican and get Revisionists who deny slavery.' A very unfair picture you're painting.

The whole issue of the civil war is a complex issue in the south -- I don't agree with much of it but many people on the south still hold tight to their right to fight 'northern oppression.' To them, the war was NOT about slavery, but rather the right of the federal government (and the northern vote) to alter the laws of the southern states and destroy the souther states economy. There were many movements throughout the south to abolish and restrict slavery, but they were slow to make the changes.

The main thing I got from the article was the tourism aspect -- by showing heroics from the Confederate Army it brings to light a different side of the war than has been previously exhibited. A side which a significant number of people will pay to see. Every state has been hit hard by the ecomony and all are seeking new ways to boost their economy. Creative? Yes. In poor taste? Probably.

There are heroes on the winning side of a war and on the losing side. To ignore the 'losers' motivations and sacrifices is also revisionist -- and it has nothing to do with either political party.

 

I admit, I did it for comedic purposes. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

You know what this reminds me of? "All Quiet on the Western Front" There was a book that portrayed the Germans as humans, flawed, faulty humans just like the rest of us. Not as horrible, evil bugaboos who are inhuman and need to be put down like rabid dogs, but boys who were in a really lousy situation, and were just like the boys from the other side.

I'm no believer in slavery or any of that nonsense, but it seems to me that an effort to rehabilitate the image of the southern states from the caricature it has become is not always a bad thing. God knows we've seen TONS, literally, of material that vilifies the south and shows us what evil people they were. Maybe a look at the other side of the coin wouldn't be a bad thing. I think it can be done while acknowledging the dark side of history as well.

 

Slavery was the central issue in the CW. They have to ask themselves, if one removes the issue of slavery, would the CW have ever happened? I think we agree that the people in the South felt that slavery was their economic and, even, some argued, a "biblical right." And that the federal government had no right to impose laws restricting slavery on the Southern States. But as pplr points out, had the election gone differently, would the South have started the war?

In the larger sense, we were a "nation" of colonies, and like many other countries that start as colonies there are regional and cultural differences. Take even Canada as an example of such differences between the French and the English cultures and regions. This comes pretty close to explaining it, although not actually written by prof. Fischer, at least I don't think it is:

"Colonies then are the seed of Nations, begun and nourished by the care of wise and populous Countries."
- William Penn (1681)

http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eodyssey/Quotes/History/Albions_Seed.html#Conclusion

You can even blame the Vikings if you go back far enough.

---------- Added 0 hours, 47 minutes and 7 seconds later... ----------

You mean like Gone with the Wind? Really, I'm sorry to say that we've had quite the opposite. But not on the issue of slavery. Around the issue of slavery there is a "demonization" of the South, because of the Holocaust of slavery. But once you remove slavery from the picture, we are left with the same old, glorious, overly romanticized vision of the "Ole Gentle," idyllic South. Gone With the Wind is a wonderful narrative. It almost makes you wonder why those slaves would want their freedom.

I love that book. And it does remind me of this, the way in which the governor is trying to romanticize the "Old Cause" of the Confederacy (especially in rewrting the historical narrative). AQotWF is about the absolute futility of war, not its glorification. It is an anti-war story in the largest sense. And how leaders try to keep people divided because of their differences, rather than uniting them because of what they have in common. Good point.

 

I admit I may not have clarified much with regard to that.

No I don't think declaring the Confederacy a good thing or denying slavery is necessarily on the GOP party agenda.

That said many of the political activists who are noted for being both vocal and less than factual or reasonable this year have been making headlines on the conservative side of the spectrum. So if there is a bumper crop of new GOP elected officials I suspect that at least a few of them are going to turn out to be people that, at least at first, most political parties would not be pleased with.

This article itself put me off because the Governor seems to be leaning towards "Lost Cause" historical revisionism.

Maybe I was in the mood to be put off because many local elections took place in WI yesterday and in Waukesha-a nearby village turned suburb of Milwaukee a sitting democratic Mayor had been defeated by a conservative leaning individual with no experience in local government, at least in part, based on the claim that the mayor was involved in negotiations over drinking water supplies (which Waukesha has a problem with) threatened Waukesha's "sovereignty". In sum, what I've read about him make me not want to vote for him and wonder if he was at least a bit of a crackpot.

So that was hanging in the back of my mind when I came across the article about Virginia's governor.

Now an interesting point about the GOP and Civil War revisionism is that as the GOP has increasingly found its base in the South its presidential candidates have remarkably friendlier to the Confederate flag than one may expect is likely for the party that was historically responsible for winning the Civil War.

Moreover that combating the racism which justified the slavery that was a major reason for the Civil War has been a cause more strongly embraced by the Democratic Party during the 20th Century than the Republican.

Does that mean the GOP openly supports bigotry today. No. But despite having a black chairman the GOP does seem more likely these days to include members that try not to address bigotry or proConfederate revisionism.

Some republicans may try to address them but the current governor, a member of the GOP, issued his proclamation after the prior 2 governors, each Democrats, had discontinued the practice of issuing similar ones despite being governor of the same state in the same South.

 

Oh, I know I'm gonna take flack for this, but what the hell.

Not all Southern Slaveholders were Evil Incarnate. Yes, they were involved in a morally reprehensible economic practice -- that's easy to see now. But then it was a common practice -- sometimes I get the feeling that moden people believe the southern slaveholders absolutely KNEW that what they were doing was evil, and the WHOLE WORLD knew that it was evil, but they did it anyway because they were .. wait for it .. EVIL! Evil to the core. Not a positive character trait in them at all. Horrible people the lot of them.

Now the world isn't so black and white. And I'm willing to concede that there were some of them who were incredible sadists and perverts. But not all of them. They likely had redeeming qualities. Some of them honestly believed that the rights of their states as guaranteed in the Constitution were being violated, and some of them fought because of tremendous social pressure to do so. Some of them may have been very good people who just happened to be flawed. What I see here is an effort to look at those soldiers and people holistically rather than with sanctimonious intellectual dishonesty: "oh, he was Confederate? He was evil. Discussion ended. Let's break for lunch. Aren't we lucky we are so frigging perfect?" Reminds me of this little story:

Spoiler

Luke 18:10 -- 14

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Sometimes I feel that people are too quick to judge the Southerners. I would want a few more facts about me to be considered before being made into a caricature by those who live 150 years from now.

 

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were both Southern slaveholders, so your statement [that people believe that] has no test in reality. People in the North and Western territories did own slaves as well.

I have lived most of my life in the South and the day I see Southerners no longer judging the rest of the world as harshly as they tend to do, I'll break out my violin.

They were pandered to till no end by the rest of the Founders to join the Union. In exchange for signing the Constitution, they cut a deal that the issue of slavery would not be touched for 20 years. Time ran out.

 

LKD,

Your comment, while insightful, makes me have more sympathy for the guy from Waukesha than for a Governor that choses to restart a tradition of supporting revisionist history.

This isn't a case of Northerners calling people names. This is a case of a governor choosing to work for an excessively positive caricature of the Confederacy and those in it.

By that I mean one where dark side of its past is ignored.

Hommage paid to people who suffered and died on the side of the Confederacy but not those of the Union (who also died by the thousands).

And the argument about slavery being practiced other places actually is actually pretty weak as the whole of the US had been pro-slavery at one point and some places saw others recognizing the problems related to it (inhumanity, denial of liberty to others, and the possibility that it encouraged immorality on the part of the slave owners and managers as well) and opted not to follow their lead but embrace slavery even tighter.

Part of the tensions relating to slavery wasn't the North never had slavery, its that the North did away with it and the South decided to hold to it even tighter.

I can see social pressure being a motivating factor for people to join the Confederate army. But doesn't seem to be what the Governor's proclamation talks about at all. It would perhaps show how Southerners could be victims twice over. Once of having to experience a brutal war and once more by being played by a group of people that served as their leaders and were the actual slaveowners.

The governor's proclamation very much seems to be to downplay the bad relating to the Confederacy and encourage sympathy for it through the trials its people and soldiers went through.

Interestingly enough Grant, who was very much a cause of southerners' suffering during the Civil War, tried to be kind towards them as soon as it ended. Offering them terms that not many governments may towards an internal military enemy. There really wasn't much in the way of hangings of Confederate leaders nor was their a confiscation of arms handled by Confederate troops-they got to go home keeping the guns that had been handed to them.

Not that long after the Civil War the KKK and similar terrorist groups tried to remove the liberties that black people had received.

Birth a of Nation is one more old movie that painted racism in a positive light.

Now even if you sympathize with Confederate troops as people who fought bravely and were hoodwinked into fighting for an immoral agenda that doesn't exclude the actions of Southern leaders (some of which I'm sure actually were slave owners that prompted others to defend their "property" rights) that the governor is also looking to honor.

As for the rest of the world knowing slavery was evil. Brazil was still practicing slavery after the US. But in Britain (a nation the US had more cultural ties with) slavery was decidedly viewed as evil and most of the historians I've heard speak on the matter say that the British population as a whole would not want to intervene on the side of the Confederacy knowing that they would be fighting to protect slavery.

So it isn't like slaveholders of the time didn't have examples others pointing out that slavery was now viewed as an evil and not something to be supported/engaged in-some of which were coming from places that formerly engaged in the practice and had experience with it and leaving it.

 

At the time, slavery was an institution that did not have 100% public support OR 100% public condemnation -- it was something that was up for debate, and many people, based on how they had been raised and their own personal experiences, were in favour of continuing the practice. It wasn't something that "every right thinking human of the day" knew to be absolutely wrong.

As for the revisionist history part, for how long must a hairshirt be worn? I mean, seriously, how long do we rub a people's nose in the dirtiest parts of their past? Do we still hate the French for their excesses during the time of Napoleon? Do we still hate the Macedonians for the vile acts committed by Alexander the Great? Is there animosity towards Danish descendants of Vikings? We still permit Germans to celebrate all the wonderful things about their heritage without bringing up the holocaust every single frickin time. There comes a time when we need to say yes, slavery did happen, and it was horrible, but it's not the ONLY thing that ever happened in the south.

 

History is not about what you feel emotionally. It is knowledge of the past, through study and investigation. You, LKD, of all people, want to leave out parts of the historical record to be PC?

Historians should always strive for perspective. That means placing events within the context of the times in which they occur, and what is relevant to us today. It is like looking backwards through a telescope, rather than from our own side of events, and then down the long distance of history. With that said, perspective can only be gained through careful study of the historical record, understanding what is known of an event from primary sources and then carefully assembling them with cool detachment into a large picture or narrative, depending on what the particular historian wants to accomplish. But it's hardly done out of "hate" as you suggest. Would you leave out of the Bible the Jewish people in capivity to make the Egyptians "feel better" about the event?

Revisionist history is a technical term as well as a practical one. Pplr did not use the term in its academic sense, but in the more popular sense that the history is being distorted or manipulated to misrepresent a central event in the nation's history for a political purpose or personal agenda. That is wrong, regardless of which side of history one desires to be on.

When one stands on a Civil War battlefield one gets a strange, errie feeling, and in a dying light, one can still see the faded ghosts of those blue and gray uniforms among the trees, as if they had never left. Your imagination can play strange tricks when you stand upon such consecrated ground. The men in those uniforms, some of them homemade, fought for different reasons. The Civil War was a very personal war, and in it families fought against families on the same battlefield. They did so because each one of them believed they were fighting for something they believed so strongly, that they would be willing to kill a dear friend, or even a brother.

In the war, the reason they gave their lives, or took the life of a friend or brother was important, and personal. For each individual it was surely not just about "slavery." Many fought out of a sense of duty, to their homes, their communities or their states; some fought for their "rights;" some fought because their honor demanded it. The imporant thing is that these were not just buzz words, or spin, as they are today. They meant something important. No one even knows why we are still in Iraq anymore; what's worse is that no one even cares why we are there.

But when you are standing in an open field, looking down the long barrel of a rifle, 20 yards opposite your best friend, facing almost certain death, and about to have your jaw or leg blown off, or have your head splattered by a flying cannonball, you better damn well know why you are standing there. I guess what I'm trying to say, in a rather long-winded, ranting manner, is that the men who fought the Civil War gave a full account of themselves, and we owe it to them to do the same.

In the end the Civil War was larger than the individuals who fought it. We were a divided house at the beginning, and at the end, we became one house, but with still many voices within it. There are those who would like to see that house divided once again for their own political gains. And that's a part of what is happening with this Virginia Proclamation, as pplr points out. Slavery in the United States has its origins in Virginia. Norfolk was a large port for the importation of slaves. Slavery is a part of the Virginia legacy and slavery cannot be detached from the American Civil War in an honest and straight-forward manner, as much as we would like to make everyone feel better about it.

To see this, it is important to understand that slavery is even more central to the ACW, than the Holocaust is to WWII. When that war started it was not even an issue. Slavery was the key issue for the ACW from its beginning to its end, and is a large part of its legacy. If America is about freedom and liberty, just who that freedom is applied towards would certainly be crucial. To keep 4 million people in forced sevitude is hardly an expression of a free nation and even at the founding everyone knew it. Jefferson's statement "All Men Are Created Equal," in the DoI probably sounded at bit hollow in Independence Hall as a result of slavey.

None of this about "hating" the South because of slavery. It is about hating "slavery." While this is happening in VA, in Texas the school board is trying to remove Thomas Jefferson and the word "democracy" from its American history textbooks. Is there a pattern here?

The Vikings are again at the gates. Wait! Did I offend the Danes, or the Swedes...?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12...d-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/

 

LKD,

It may have been up for debate but it says something else that isn't good when many used violence to try to stifle that debate.

Also George Washington could tell slavery was wrong and he was in this nation before it was a nation. He didn't do much to face slavery in his life time (and perhaps the Civil War never would have happened if he and the other founders actually dealt with the problem). But he knew it was wrong enough that he freed all of his slaves in his will so he knew that, at least where his direct connection to it was concerned, it ended with him. Doubts about the morality of slavery had existed for a long time before the Civil War.

About how long must the hairshirt be worn. Note that this particular example relates to a Governor choosing to bring up the Confederacy and trying to spin in it a positive way. Northern people weren't forcing him to think about it, he opted to bring it up and spin it. This isn't a case of forcing people to go through the ugly bits of their ancestors past as much as someone trying to bring up the past only it an edited fashion that decidedly detracts from understanding it but does work with a propagandized understanding. If he didn't want to think about the Confederacy and its bad side that is fine. But he wanted to think about the Confederacy while ignoring its bad side, which isn't fine.

And about the propagandized understanding of the South. If you look up the former Confederate General Jubal Early you will find that right after the war ended he undertook an effort to propagandize a positive view of the Confederacy. Some of the early "Lost Cause" ideology can be attributed to him and it is arguably at least partly because of an active propaganda effort-not an honest reflection on history-the US (including earlier historians as late as the mid 20th century) had such problems addressing the Civil War and racism. If this governor is taking a step towards supporting a propaganda effort that is already over a century old I don't think it is unfair for anyone to point out why what he is doing is wrong.

 

I'm sure as hell not PC!! And I do not believe that anyone telling the truth about slavery and the evils attached thereto should be silenced -- I think that the facts should come out, absolutely.

But I also have a view of history that is different from yours, Chandos. I believe that two people of good conscience can take the same event have come to differing conclusions about it. I also think that just because one analysis of the events doesn't take the same position as another, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

I guess what I am trying to say is that while I am not sure about the content of what he is doing. If he is actively denying that slavery took place or saying that slavery was a great institution, then he'd be a whacko on par with a holocaust denier. That's no good, obviously. But if he is merely trying to present the Confederacy in a different light, one that doesn't focus on the many negatives, then I think that's not the world's worst thing. His document, as near as I can make out, merely doesn;'t mention slavery. Does that omission equal something nefarious or racist? I'm not sure, to be honest, but I wonder. Maybe it could get people to look again, long and hard, at what they have always believed about the South.

An example from my beloved country. We have a guy by the name of Louis Riel. For years he was portrayed in Canadian texts as a traitor to Canada who was hanged for rebelling against the federal government. In recent years, the Metis and Francophone communities have gone back to the historical records and tried to display him as a freedom fighter who worked for his people and against injustice. Their campaign has succeeded and he is now seen in many textbooks as a maximum stud muffin of history. Now as a staunch Anglo-Canadian, I'm not super happy about this but as a thinking human being I can understand the desire of a people to focus on the positives of their ancestors. I can get behind their efforts to not whitewsh the bad necessarily, but to choose to focus on the good.

 

LKD, the problem with that is that focusing just on the good while not mentioning the bad is whitewashing.

Also the view that slavery was a bad thing and a major reason some states tried to form the "Confederacy" was a conclusion that was only put together more recently in the later 20th century as historians began to take a closer look at the Confederacy and see through the "Lost Cause" propaganda efforts I referred to before.

The US, at least in parts, actually went through a period of not acknowledge how bad both slavery and the Confederacy were. More research and attempts to face reality brought about this acknowledgement, not less.

I don't know much about the person you referred to but I have to say the reverse seems to be the case with the Confederacy and US History.

About the guy you refer to. Was he fighting for a minority that was oppressed or just against a different group of people that weren't the same as his own. One bears the hallmarks of a freedom fighter while the other may be something of a bigot. I don't know which he fits under but it is a difference worth noting.

 

There's definitely a difference between how the Civil War is viewed in the South and elsewhere. We* generally view those who fought on the front lines of the war as people who made great sacrifices, usually out of loyalty to family or state, rather than belief in the cause. Robert E. Lee is a classic example of this. He declared, when Virginia sided with the South, that he still considered himself an American, but he was a Virginian first. He believed slavery was an evil doomed to die, and that the war was a lost cause, but he fought for his homeland.

*I say 'we' because I currently live in the South, but I'm a Yank through and through.

So, in your estimation, a History of WWII in Northern Africa is revisionist history because it doesn't cover the Holocaust (not in Northern Africa), D-Day (not in Northern Africa), or the Battle of the Bulge (not in Northern Africa)? I'm sorry, but no. Revisionist history requires more than changing the focus. It requires changing the facts. To not mention slavery in any declaration about the Civil War is, at best, an omission, but is not revisionist history. Claiming that the end of slavery was only a side-byproduct of the war and was never really a central issue would be revisionist history. Claiming that Hawai'i sided with the South would be revisionist history.

Actually, I'd argue that the context is as much societal as historical, and definitely centered on Virginia (as opposed to the war in general).

Yeah, that was poorly worded. Sorry.

Again, this proclamation was never intended to be a summation of the entire war, nor the causes of the war, nor the results of the war. The role of slavery isn't diminished in the least. It's just not mentioned.

Where on earth do you get the idea that anyone is trying to edit the historical record?

Actually, I would compare it more to the Germans in WWI than in WWII. All too many Americans assume that, since the Germans were evil in WWII, and since we opposed them in WWI, they must have been evil in WWI as well. They weren't. Likewise, all too many Americans assume that everyone who fought on the side of the South was an evil, abusive slaveowner who raped his children. They weren't.

Yes, it really does, unless the item supposedly 'revising' history is proclaiming itself to be a full and complete study of the history. Then ommitting facts could be revisionist.

So, if the History Channel does a month on the Civil War and never mentions slavery, they're promoting revisionist history. That I agree with. If a governor makes a 7-sentence proclamation recognizing the month as a 'month of confederate history' and doesn't mention it, he's not. The governor also didn't mention Lincoln, or Lee, or Jackson, or Gettysburg, or any details of any kind in the war.

Yes, but Chandos, you live in Texas.

Yes, but the common man probably doesn't know that Washington had slaves and probably only knows that Jefferson fathered an illegitimate child with one of his.

Yeah, but the same can probably be said about anyone. I lived in New England and let me assure you, they're just as willing to judge others harshly. It's just a matter of who they judge. I'll bet the same can be said of the West Coast, of Mexico, of England, of France, of China, of South Africa, and of Austrailia.

pplr, did you actually read the proclamation I linked?

Well, it is confederate history month, and this is being done in a state that sided with the confederacy. Expecting them to talk about the Union is sort of like expecting Black History Month to talk about Lincoln.

And while we're arguing about Universal Health Care here, England has dropped the Holocaust from it's history books for fear of 'offending' someone. Is there a pattern here? No, there isn't. The one and the other have nothing to do with each other.


Oh, and the Governor's proclamation has now been ammended to include:

But now he's mentioned God and God-given inalienable rights! Oh, no, here comes the next firestorm...