Honest Abe Statue In Richmond Has South Rising Again
	found on Seattle Post-Intelligencer written by MAYORBOB, edited by Colin (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Thu 26 Dec 6:15pm
		"On April 4th, 1865 President Abraham Lincoln and his son visited Richmond, Virginia to see for themselves the devastation that had been wrought to the capital of the Confederacy. They found a city whose physical shell, along with its spirit, had been crushed by the burden of war among brothers. On April 5th of this year, the U.S. Historical Society intends to unveil a bronze statue of Lincoln and son at the site of the Civil War Visitor Center of the National Park Service to commemorate the visit," MAYORBOB writes. "The memorial, whose title will be 'To Bind Up The Nation's Wounds', has become the center of a controversy. A group calling itself 'Sons of Confederate Veterans' had only just heard of the unveiling of the statue. Needless to say, it's a group that has its own notion of how much of a healer Abraham Lincoln was. Brag Bowling, spokesman for the group said that The statue is 'a slap in the face of a lot of brave men and women who went through four years of unbelievable hell fighting an invasion of Virginia led by President Lincoln.' A spokesperson for the group responsible for commissioning the statue said that the statue perfectly captures the moment when a national leader, his son, and a city came together again. With a throwaway statement describing the Civil War as 'an invasion of Virginia led by President Lincoln,' don't you think the Sons of Confederate Victims could use some remedial U.S. History courses to go along with bronze statuery?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 119 commentsbest: 19 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Richmond's statues   by milo_foo       at Thu 26 Dec 6:24pm score of 1.5 interesting     Richmond has some beautiful statues of Confederate generals down one of its major boulevards. At some point they decided to "balance" those statues with one of black tennis star and Richmond native Arthur Ashe. The statue shows Ashe holding a tennis racket, with children coming up out of the base of the statue. The unfortunate effect is to make it look as though Ashe is about to bean the kids with his tennis racket. The statue of Lincoln will probably show him extending his hand, putatively as a gesture of goodwill, but chiseled such that it could be interpreted as a sucker punch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

55.  Way, Way off topic   by ughugh       at Fri 27 Dec 12:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I know that the tone of this post was serious, and that the Arthur Ashe statue was pretty controversial, so I apologize for the following offtopic post. milo_foo wrote The unfortunate effect is to make it look as though Ashe is about to bean the kids with his tennis racket. This actually made me giggle as I remembered a Norman Rockwell painting. Rockwell probably intended to paint Santa as this nice, caring person holding a little boy in his hand. Instead it looks like he is going to pop the little guy into his mouth like a sugar cookie.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: Way, Way off topic   by rmurf62       at Fri 27 Dec 1:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 55     That's not Santa; that's the evil Mecha-Santa, who comes out once a year to destroy small canadian villages near the North Pole. YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Way, Way off topic   by milo_foo       at Sat 28 Dec 10:48am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 55     And unlike me you had the good sense to post a link to a picture of the statue in question. Why didn't I think of that? Here's the Arthur Ashe statue mentioned above. The statue is actually worse than I remembered. It also looks like he just stole the children's book.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  ok.   by postbear       at Thu 26 Dec 6:40pm score of 2 funny     the spokesman for the backward people comes with the name brag bowling?! was the name skeeter moonshine already taken?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: ok.   by charlies       at Fri 27 Dec 2:32am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 4     I think his business cards read, "Brag Bowling, the Baptist Bigot". There will be a fruitcake "group" (which probably consists of Brag and his drinking buddies) which will oppose anything. I modestly suggest that history has spoken (about137 years ago) and all of Brag's horses and all of his men can't make the South rise again. It is an entertaining article, though--Is Brag related to Trent? This would never have happened if we had elected Strom in '48!! We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: ok.   by monobrau!       at Fri 27 Dec 1:35pm score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 17     If Brag and his beer-gutted confederates would like to meet on the battlefield to settle this once and for all, I'll be glad to represent the Union. Anybody else? It's time these crackers shut the fuck up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Ah Richmond!   by captainebo       at Thu 26 Dec 6:43pm score of 4.5 informative     Most unfortunately, I grew up in this town, and it is easily the most feudal city I have ever encountered.       On the one hand, you have the West Enders, who all conspire for their chance to belong to the Country Club of Virginia. CCV, which last I checked has a $30,000 joining fee, they also boast a massive 6 minority members, who were strongarmed into the club by the PGA.       For those desiring even more exclusive membership where even shadier deals go down, much of Richmond's high and mighties rub elbows at a building known as the Commonwealth Club. This club, which I'm told employs the best chefs in the city, to my knowledge has no minority members, which matches its equal exclusion of women.       For those people unable to afford the West End, there's beautiful Gilpin Court. Those of you who know me are aware of my affection for struggling, minority students, but even I couldn't be motivated to take a job in Gilpin Court's elementary school, which boasts reading test scores in the 9th percentile.       Another poster mentioned the recent Arthur Ashe controversy, which focused on the outrageous suggestion that a black man's image should stand on the same honored street as Confederate generals. That such a debate could even arise is a testament to the awful bigotry which pervades this disgusting little town.       That being said, perhaps the best possible resolution to this conflict was suggested to me by a right-wing attorney who belongs to both of the clubs mentioned above. A partner at the prestigious corporate firm Hunton and Williams, whose clients include Philip Morris and several of the world's largest polluters, his advice was this: "Don't put Ashe next to General Lee, put his statue at the public tennis courts which once turned him away for his blackness." I suppose there's no such thing as a perfect son of a bitch. "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

64.  Re: Ah Richmond!   by katieo       at Fri 27 Dec 1:15pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 5     Well, I'm not going to bother defending Richmond, having grown up there myself and knowing that most of what you say is all too true. But I would like to note that I could say similar things about all the other places I've lived, including Los Angeles, Madison, WI and my current home, D.C. Hell, I could write that screed about the entire United States; 95% of the European Plastic contingent would probably nod their heads and blame all of us (and maybe they wouldn't be so far off the mark...) Some people hear what Trent Lott says and prefer to think it's a reflection only on Mississippi. Myself included - it's easy to laugh at Mississippi and think it's no reflection on you. For me, it eases some of the shame about being from Virginia, the segregation state. But Lott's the Majority Leader of the Senate for a reason, and he does reflect the country in some ways. And there are groups like "Brag Bowling's" everywhere. More neo-nazis in Idaho than anywhere else, more klansmen in Central PA than in Mississippi. So to tdahnsn, it might be fun to make fun of the south, and not undeserved; but it's also an active effort to ignore the problems that exist elsewhere. It's like France going out of their way to accuse Germany of being anti-semitic. Not that Germany didn't earn that reputation, but let's not ignore the fact that France bears it too... Kids, you've tried and you've failed. The lesson is: never try.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   125.  Re: Ah Richmond!   by choodak       at Sat 28 Dec 9:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     I don't know about putting Ashe's statue next to Lee's but putting it in the tennis court that once turned him away is brilliant.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Look, it's the South, and they're kinda cranky...   by tdahnsn       at Thu 26 Dec 7:49pm score of 4 funny     For those of us who grew up with "The War of Southern Succession" and "The War Between the States" and never, ever, ever, before 4th grade and a law change, "The Civil War" being relived all around us, the fact that a bunch of yahoos down there really BELIEVE in this. This is the same group that brought you Civil War recreations and drunken shootings of friends and family. To them, this Statue would be a whole lot like building one of Hitler invading in Poland. It's so built up in their minds that this is A VERY BAD THING that they aren't their usual well-thinking selves. They're liable to say all sorts of things when it's related to something they really BELIEVE in, just ask Trent Lott, who gets all confused and unable to think about what he's saying whenever someone brings up how great Segregation was. These people are never reasonable and will never die out. It's probably best to nuke Virginia, most of the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Northern Florida, and Lousiana, and East Texas, and make sure you get Arkansas while you're at it. That, or learn to snicker quietly and enjoy these sorts of folks. It's necessary to get them riled up once in a while, but they keep on going for a bit, getting all sputtery and saying the grooviestly fucked up things. It's cheap, it's easy to do, and it's relatively harmless. The longer you can keep them babbling and getting that lost cow-in-the-slaughterhouse look, the more likely you are to win. Just keep them going for a bit and you're a shoe-in, whatever the cause. Want desegregation? Just get one of them all winded up about Segregation. Want lotteries and liquor stores? Tell them it's the devil's work or some such nonsense. They will never learn, they will never find reason, they will never, ever, shut the hell up. So learn to make fun of them and get them to fuck themselves up. That's probably a whole lot surer a means than nuclear bombs. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by captainebo       at Thu 26 Dec 7:52pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 8     It's necessary to get them riled up once in a while, but they keep on going for a bit, getting all sputtery and saying the grooviestly fucked up things. It's cheap, it's easy to do, and it's relatively harmless. The longer you can keep them babbling and getting that lost cow-in-the-slaughterhouse look, the more likely you are to win. Just keep them going for a bit and you're a shoe-in, whatever the cause. Want desegregation? Just get one of them all winded up about Segregation. Want lotteries and liquor stores? Tell them it's the devil's work or some such nonsense. If you're right, how come they control the White House and both houses of Congress? Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by Remo1       at Thu 26 Dec 8:31pm score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 8     Ok, here's my proposal: You can nuke those states, if I can nuke just one: California. Fair deal?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by tdahnsn       at Fri 27 Dec 4:28am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 11     Why? When was the last time California's crackers burned down a church? When was the last time California's crackers beat the shit out of a black man... oh wait. Fair deal. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by mawgwy       at Fri 27 Dec 7:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     "Claude McKay's use of the word cracker in this passage from his novel Home to Harlem fiercely illustrates the potent and derogatory punch this epithet has when employed to describe whites. However, the word's etymology is slippery. It is also a designation used by and for Southerners many of whom self-identify proudly as crackers, especially whites from Georgia and sometimes from Florida. ( At the same time, much of the impact the word has on its recipients and their reactions depend on who's doing the calling and where the people doing the calling are from. Indeed, one study identifies 21 kinds of crackers , all but one identified with the South. (McDavid, 96) While the word cracker has varied and shifting definitions, and while "cracker culture" is a major field of study all by itself, the word cracker actually holds mostly negative connotations stemming back to its first usage. In fact, in Florida, the word cracker when used as a racial epithet is a violation under the Florida Hate Crimes Act. (Hendrickson, 52)." The rest of this article can be found here So my question is this sort of like the term Nigger when a black person uses it, like it's ok for a white person to say "How ya doin', my cracker." But pain and shame to the black person who uses it.. or would that be a bit off? Equalism.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by tdahnsn       at Fri 27 Dec 9:16am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 28     "So my question is this sort of like the term Nigger when a black person uses it, like it's ok for a white person to say "How ya doin', my cracker." But pain and shame to the black person who uses it.. or would that be a bit off?" No, it's meant to be inflamatory, unless spoken to a close personal friend by another cracker. Basically, it's a collective term for those assholes who are still thinking back to the good-old-days that never existed, when every white person in the south (from their recollection, in any case) had a fantastic plantation, and all the "li'l chilluns" were taken care of by servants, and their families owned "half a county" and things were right with the world before those Yankee bastards came and took it all away from them. Yeah, it's a term that covers a whole lot of folks, like that old bastard who found out I was Jewish and called me kike and said they don't serve those kind in his store. Or those folks that still insist on referring to portions of Miami as they are labelled on old city maps: The Coconut Grove Negro District, The Overtown Negro District, and The Liberty City Negro District. It's a venomous little word, and in it is carried all sort of mean spirits and hatred. Does that clarify it for you? Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  A Cracker by any other name   by Seymour Paine       at Fri 27 Dec 1:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Maybe it's just me, but I have absolutely no emotional reaction to 'cracker.' In fact, I can't think of a word describing whites qua whites that is offensive, on the order of the n-word, or insulting words describing Jews. Is it because whites are the power group, at least in the West? I'm not sure why this is a reason, but it seems like one. OTOH, blacks and Jews are definitely not in power in the West, so, perhaps negative words describing them gain power from their relatively weak position in society vis-a-vis the majority. Am I making sense? I want to die like my grandfather, in my sleep, not like his passengers, screaming in terror.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: A Cracker by any other name   by mawgwy       at Fri 27 Dec 1:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 58     That's the thing that I saw as odd. The statement below was modded up for being funny. "Why? When was the last time California's crackers burned down a church? When was the last time California's crackers beat the shit out of a black man... oh wait. Fair deal." While it may have been amusing, my immediate thought on it is if you were to replace the word cracker with the "n-word".. it becomes a racist statement... example: "Why? When was the last time California's niggers rioted throughout an entire city? When was the last time California's nigger's beat the shit out of a white man... oh wait. Fair deal." Personally I am against the use of racial epitaphs as they seem rather lacking in creative way's to insult people. Equalism.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Cracker, please.   by oneword       at Fri 27 Dec 3:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 61     Upthread I've also seen several instances of what is in essence the following old saw: I love white people; It's just the crackers I can't stand. Now many of us -- excepting the Progressive Sanctified in our presence, or course -- probably have seen a very similar type of comment made by family or friends at one time or another (people we care about and respect, not the typical strawmen provided so efficiently by the Sons of the Confederacy), and can recognize that as probably the most palatable and pernicious form of racism out there. Is it so different when it's used against potato-chip-and-mayonnaise-sandwich-eating-with-a-pepsi Cracker-asses?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: A Cracker by any other name   by OmnipotenceNet       at Fri 27 Dec 9:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 61     Personally I am against the use of racial epitaphs An epitaph is an inscription on a tombstone, usually a short piece commemorating the person buried there. It comes from the Greek epi- and taphos. The latter means "tomb." You're thinking of epithet, which is rooted in Greek epi- and tithenai. The latter means "to place." Epi is a multipurpose prefix; in this case, it means roughly "on" or "upon." So epitaph is "upon a tomb," whereas epithet is similar to "to place upon," as the definition of epithet in this context means a term used to characterize a person, specifically an abusive term.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: A Cracker by any other name   by eduardo       at Sat 28 Dec 12:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 58     Jews are definitely not in power in the West Oh, come now. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: A Cracker by any other name   by kallisti       at Sat 28 Dec 10:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 95     Jews are definitely not in power in the West Oh, come now. You think that's the Jewish bankers pulling the puppet strings? The ones who control 80% of the world's wealth? (Protocols of Elders of Zion, Jewish Bankers et. al., 18xx) FUNNY! They're actually the puppets of the Bavarian Illuminati, who control absolutely ALL of the world's wealth - even the money you have in your pocket! Ahahahahahah! You are doomed, mere mortal, doomed! (The Illuminatus Trilogy, Robert Anton Wilson, sometime while he was really really tripping)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   126.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by Gromky       at Sun 29 Dec 12:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     I think the deal with cracker is that it's not really just a racial epithet. The connotation is racist white. Honestly, my family uses cracker to describe folks like Strom Thurmond all the time...and we're white. And as for the south being bad, I live in Idaho. I run into people all the time who are actually convinced that, originally, the n-word wasn't a racist term for blacks, that it was applied to all races...I've never had the courage to ask them to prove it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by Cetra       at Fri 27 Dec 7:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     It's probably best to nuke Virginia, most of the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Northern Florida, and Lousiana, and East Texas, and make sure you get Arkansas while you're at it.       Yeah, hey, fuck you! I happen to live in Tallahassee and I, for one, take every chance I GET to make fun of beer guzzling rednecks.       Sheesh, at least like, warn us non-hicks before you drop the bombs, eh? Where I work, they pay me to post on Plastic.com! ...They just don't know it yet!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by tdahnsn       at Fri 27 Dec 9:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     OK...Relax. Re-read. I'm not really advocating nuking most of the Southeastern US. I'm advocating learning to laugh at these little shits and get them into sputterring rages so the whole world can be entertained. Geez...you'd think I would have made jokes about slaughtering innocent millions just to get rid of a few bad apples...oh wait, nevermind. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by Cetra       at Fri 27 Dec 10:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     Well I thought it was pretty obvious that I was kidding as well... perhaps I'll start using sarcasm tags if you do too, hmm? Btw, I totally advocate nuking this entire area, just so long as the normal people are evacuated first ;) Where I work, they pay me to post on Plastic.com! ...They just don't know it yet!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by rdww       at Fri 27 Dec 7:27am score of 1 compelling   in reply to comment 8     "To them, this Statue would be a whole lot like building one of Hitler invading in Poland. It's so built up in their minds that this is A VERY BAD THING" Gee, could the reason be that Lincoln came to look over the moonscape his Union troops had made of the city? War is hell indeed... but that doesn't imply erecting statues of the devil. Didn't any of the geniuses at the U.S. Historical Society consider that putting up a statue of America's first Total War president in a town he was responsible for leveling might be a wee bit offensive?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by sglover910       at Fri 27 Dec 8:07am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 24     Didn't any of the geniuses at the U.S. Historical Society consider that putting up a statue of America's first Total War president in a town he was responsible for leveling might be a wee bit offensive? Get real. The Virginia of 1865 was engaged in treason, and trying to hang on to a quasi-feudal social structure. It was treated far more magnanimously than it had any right to expect. Thanks to Lincoln and the Union army, the entire South was ultimately socially and economically healthier than it ever would have been had The Cause won. On an ad hominem note, I wonder if you're so critical of Southern states that insist on paying official homage to the Confederate flag? There are lots of people who find that a wee bit offensive. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by rdww       at Fri 27 Dec 12:04pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 29     "Get real. The Virginia of 1865 was engaged in treason..." Real, indeed, was the mass destruction unleashed by Lincoln and his generals in the last year of the war, as was the large number of civilian deaths involved. And you propose that the people of the South today have an obligation to offer a hearty thanks for this because, after all, their ancestors were involved in "treason?" You are TOO kind!       Consider - In America, a group of cranky, bourgeoisie slaveowners get up a rebellion against their legitimate government, and proclaim themselves a sovereign state against all the odds. Are they heroes or traitors? Answer: Depends on whether the year is 1776 or 1861.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  1861 was no 1776   by Gorvernaut       at Fri 27 Dec 1:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 47     In America, a group of cranky, bourgeoisie slaveowners get up a rebellion against their legitimate government, and proclaim themselves a sovereign state against all the odds. Are they heroes or traitors? Answer: Depends on whether the year is 1776 or 1861.   Patriots like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did own slaves, but the Revolution was about direct representation in government, not slavery. In fact, many American revolutionaries strongly opposed slavery. Benjamin Franklin, for example, participated in one of the earliest abolitionist societies in the United States.   Traitors like Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, turned their backs on America because their greed would not allow them to give up their slaves. The United States allowed the southern states proportional representation in the House, and more than proportional representation in the Senate. They couldn't make the same complaints of taxation without representation their ancestors did. Still, the tide of human progress was turning against the institution of American chattel slavery. So the slaverowners formed the Confederacy. The Confederacy was never just about state's rights. It was about preserving slavery. Both the Confederate Declaration of Independence and Constitution make this plain.   The comparison between 1776 and 1860 is a facile analogy that attempts to lend respectability to men who fought to keep other men slaves. So, yes, the leaders of the Confederacy were traitors. Worse, they were oppressors. The world is a better place for their defeat and destruction.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: 1861 was no 1776   by rdww       at Fri 27 Dec 1:14pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 57     Indeed, this is a "black and white" thing... it generates the worst of simplistic, black-and-white thinking and propaganda. A "facile analogy" may simply be one too accurate and disturbing for easy use of labels.       BTW, there were also Confederate leaders who opposed slavery, and there is little doubt that Washington, etc. would have been hung as "traitors" after the Revolution had it failed. Your worldview color scheme cries out for some grays.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  We went through this -- read some history   by sglover910       at Fri 27 Dec 1:43pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 63     An earlier thread already beat this issue to death. The Confederacy was about defending slavery. The articles of seccession ratified by the Southern state legislatures explicitly mention slavery as the central reason for seccession. BTW, there were also Confederate leaders who opposed slavery So what? We're not talking about diversity of thought in the Confederate political system, we're talking about what the Confederacy stood for. Which was slavery first and foremost. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by nmiguy       at Fri 27 Dec 11:42am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 8     You know, I'd be happier if Trent Lott wouldn't apologize and backstep and all that. I wish he would NOT denounce segregationists and be all INSINCERE. Shit, if he came out and said "Yes I am a segregationist and I honestly believe the US would be better if it were still segregated" i'd feel better. I'm not a segregationist, but I just can't stand a liar. Let me know where you stand. And I want the politicians to defend what they believe rather than change their tune because it is unpopular. Don't need an apologist, I think he deserved to lose his position because he blinked in the face of adversity. So FUCK YOU Trent Lott and your racist bigot friends too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by MuzzleBlast       at Fri 27 Dec 2:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Hey, it was you morons that voted for Bill Clinton. TWICE!! And then voted for Al Gore! Then elected Hillary as your senator! Just for the record, most of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners, Lincoln routinely suspended the Constitution (invading states like Kentucky, which had not seceded, etc. ), and the "Emancipation Proclamation" didn't free anyone! Some days it just isn't worth it to gnaw through the leather straps.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by electroboy       at Fri 27 Dec 3:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 72     How about you give us a list (besides Washington and Jefferson) of founding fathers that owned slaves? How about more than one instance of Lincoln "routinely" suspending the Constitution? It seems like your "arguments" are based more on received wisdom than any kind of fact. What, besides the sex thing, was so bad about Clinton? Honestly, either contribute some information, a funny joke, or shut the fuck up. Keep your eyes open and your wallet in your front pocket --Raekwon the Chef   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by adamrice       at Fri 27 Dec 4:25pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 8     For those of us who grew up with "The War of Southern Succession" and "The War Between the States" and never, ever, ever, before 4th grade and a law change, "The Civil War" Reminds me of an anecdote from college. I had a history TA who was an interesting guy. He had grown up in the south, and explained that as a schoolboy, he knew all the battles, all the generals, etc, but was in 6th grade before he learned that the south had lost the war. By the time I knew him, he had gotten over any romanticism he may have attached to the Confederacy, but there's clearly a very weird mass delusion at work to permit a young civil-war buff to A) miss out on that crucial detail, and B) not notice that the south is still part of the USA. if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Look, it's the South, and they run the place   by NH4       at Fri 27 Dec 11:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Just as it's difficult to make too much fun of Quebec in Canada because most Prime Ministers come from there, Tdahnsn, I would submit that it's difficult to make too much fun of the South in America because most recent Presidents come from there: Bush Jr.: Texas Clinton: Arkansas Bush Sr.: Texas (with a fondness for Maine) Carter: Georgia Johnson: Texas Okay, Reagan and Nixon came from (Southern) California and Ford, the accidental President, came from Michigan, but since JFK got taken out, every Democratic President has been from the South and a couple of Republicans have been as well. Quebec is alienated from the rest of Canada and often talks about seceding, and so Canadian politics revolves around keeping the Quebecois happy. Lots of people in the South are still alienated from the rest of the United States and they think of secession as the historical moment of Southern glory, and so American politics revolves around keeping Southerners happy. Many people in Western Canada think it would be okay if Quebec seceded: they wouldn't have to pay transfer taxes, they'd have a lot more influence in the federal government, and they wouldn't have to pretend that French is a viable second language in their neck of the woods. Similarly, many (non-Southern) Americans half wish the South had succeeded in seceding. The eleven states of the Confederacy (if they had even stayed together) would have become a third world agricultural backwater, something like Rhodesia under Ian Smith, and the rest of the country wouldn't have to pay any attention to what passes for religion and culture in the Old South.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: Look, it's the South, and they're kinda   by eiger       at Sat 28 Dec 12:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     As someone who grew up in the south, I am amazed everytime I go home how much things have changed. Of course it is changing. Nothing stands still. It's still not 'there' yet, but it is changing and will keep changing. Also, from my experience living and working in Northern cities, they tend to be more segregated and have just as much racism as southern cities do. Should we also nuke the most segregated city in America, Chicago, when we nuke the least segregated, Atlanta? I figure you were probably trying to be funny, but I have met too many good southern whites who have made a real effort to change because they know that those ideas are wrong. That is a tough road to follow, and it's difficult for those of us who have not had to follow it to judge those people. So, lay-off the southerners, and try to avoid using every wingnut group or politician who pops up to judge an entire region and people. Then again I thought Kerry was going to win. So, what the hell do I know?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  the north vs. the south take two   by michaelcrook       at Thu 26 Dec 8:15pm score of 2 astute     as a northerner by birth and mindset i am always amazed by my visits to the south. it is not the "war of northern aggression" (my personal favorite), nor the "war between the states" that peek my interest, rather the fact the south doesn't realize they lost the war. well hell at least they have their pride. it's the latest trend in europe its the latest trend in europe   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: the north vs. the south take two   by sulli       at Thu 26 Dec 10:10pm score of 2 witty   in reply to comment 10     They even have stores called "Winn-Dixie" - never mind that Dixie lost! (Hey, I grew up in Virginia, I can make jokes like that.) Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  A Wounded Nation   by automaticvenus       at Thu 26 Dec 9:18pm score of 3 brilliant     I go back home to Germany occasionally to visit family. Each time, there's some incident that goes like this: Drive to site of something Hitler built, such as the concrete tank barrier trail close to the Alsace, or a building in Duesseldorf which was demolished save for a few bricks left standing, overgrown with grass and weeds. "Hitler was an evil man." "Yes, I know." "This won't happen again." "Yes, I know." Everyone stares blankly out the car windows. "Kaffeetrinken?" "Ja." Everyone continues to stare blankly out the car windows, holding back an audible sigh or groan or even tears. Yeah, okay, we don't have statues of Hitler in Germany. One can't begin to compare Lincoln to Hitler; you can only attempt to understand the reaction to each within the boundaries of their own country and time. I understand the importance of acknowledging the past, and being sorrowful over it, but I don't understand holding grudges or wanting to exact revenges over actions of which one wasn't a part. I figure, being a modern German, I can't go round atoning for the sins of Hitler, and modern Americans can't go around atoning for the fact their families were Yankees or Confederates. No one can be a historical revisionist and get away with it. It's done. It's over. It ain't happening again, which is all that really matters, but one can only realize that by being reminded of the past, maybe by something like this statue.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Re: A Wounded Nation   by wicked_sprite       at Fri 27 Dec 3:35am score of 2 nuanced   in reply to comment 12     Yeah, I'm a "Yankee" (from Chicago) who spent some time in college in the South (Orlando; granted not the deep South but enough that many of my classmates were from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia) and I think part of this clinging to the past is that the South, like all impoverished places, is deeply grounded to their roots. It's for good reason. The less upwardly mobil you are the more you rely on family and friends. Actually, growing up in Chicago's north side my best friends always came from the south side. I was actually jealous of them. Why? Because, unlike my north side friends, I could always count on them to be there regardless of what school I went to or what profession I choose or what music I listened to. Their friendship was unconditional, and their parents didn't make the demands mine did. There are pro's and con's to that. The pro's? Well, they're obvious to me. Less judgemental. Friends for life. Regardless. I could murder somone and they would still lie for me, do anything, it's like that Bon Jovi song "Blood on Blood." The cons, well, they're traditional in the naive way. They marry young whether they want to or not, they consider themselves financially "successful" if they bring home $1500 a month and expenses equal $1400 a month, they have kids even if they can't afford diapers. (For those of you who might consider me a bad friend, I've had discussions like this one with them already, at no cost to the friendship other than a "fuck you Jen you Yup, have a beer" and move on. My point is, for those who don't have careers or mobility, it's all about family or tradition. They have this above those who move about for careers or don't have a set path before them. I understand the tradition while condeming the racism. I just sadly think it's going to take a long time for some Sotherners to separate the two because of the inherent family traditions which dominate those who have few choices and are trying to deal with it the best they can.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: A Wounded Nation   by plutocracywatch       at Fri 27 Dec 7:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     Unreconstructed neo-Confederates more resemble Germany's "Great War" veterans who were beaten but unbowed, itching for round 2 otherwise known as WW2. The Confederacy was defeated but the spirit of white supremacy was not. The KKK organized immediately after Appomattox, engaging in a guerrilla war of attrition that defeated Reconstruction. Although Dixie remained in the Union, Southern politicians by the 1890's (as segregation became the law) claimed they had reimposed "slavery in everything but name." When Ike sent troops into Little Rock in 1957, it was the beginning of the end. The South faced with another Civil War, began capitulating. THe Civil Rights revolution followed and the Second Reconstruction continues. Finally, Dixie is ours. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: A Wounded Nation   by tdahnsn       at Fri 27 Dec 9:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     It's not that sensible folks compare Lincoln to Hitler, it's that these folks in particular do. They have built up in their minds an image of Lincoln not as Emancipator or Unionist, or even of conquerer, but as the living embodiment of the devil. It isn't something you can relate to, easily, but when you grow up seeing it you tend to understand the warning signs. There are shades of biggots, from those who are slightly unsettled by the sight of a black man walking up the street toward them to those who bomb churches with little kids in the basements. These folks are a whole lot closer to being willing to justify killing children to make a statement than to feeling a little uneasy around some folks. They demonize Lincoln in a number of ways, incorporating him into a strange pantheon along with Jefferson Davis as the Leader of the righteous and Lee as God's Soldier. It's nutty, it's scary, and it's a big part of the old white south. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Instructive Comparison #23: Lincoln and Hitler   by petiex       at Sat 28 Dec 8:59am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 36     Lincoln: Full beard Hitler: Hitler mustache Lincoln: Stove pipe hat Hitler: Hitler hair Lincoln: Largely self educated during his log-splitting youth Hitler: Asthmatic art school drop-out Lincoln: Fond of pastry Hitler: Fond of pastry Draw your own conclusions. "Astute and Helpful Bear." - Owl   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  As a descendant of Confederate veterans...   by sulli       at Thu 26 Dec 10:23pm score of 2 nuanced     and probably Federal ones as well, I think MAYORBOB is throwing around just a wee bit of flamebait here. Whether or not their cause was just, you have to admit that (a) the Confederate soldiers fought bravely and with honor; and (b) Federal troops, while they also fought with great honor and bravery, burned many Southern cities to the ground, when it was by no means clear that this was militarily necessary. So you can see how there was some resentment of Lincoln's visit by former soldiers and (white) residents of Richmond, even as African-Americans celebrated Lincoln's visit as that of the liberator. I actually think the statue is a good idea. Richmond has no shortage of statues of the heroes of the Southern cause - just drive down Monument Avenue to see them all. But you shouldn't dismiss the criticism as being completely without merit. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  If I'm a flamethrower...   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 27 Dec 5:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     ...then the petrol for the fuel was provided by that distinguished Son of the South, Mr. Brag Bowling. Any chance his middle name is Beauregard? His characterization that the fracas that resulted in the burning down of Richmond and the visit of Lincoln and son was an invasion of Virginia by a bunch of marauding Yankees I thought was a rather stunning glancing over of some historical fact. War is hell and its been almost 150 years since. Time to sort of stop living in the past and accept the cold, harsh facts of what history dealt out, IMHO. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: If I'm a flamethrower...   by CaptainLiberal       at Fri 27 Dec 8:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Mayorbob, according to the beliefs of these pro-Dixie guys, it was an invasion of Virginia by an outside power. I guess I'm astonished that you find that kind of rhetoric astonishing. Of course, I live in Texas, so I've been hearing about the "War of Northern Aggression" for most of my life. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: If I'm a flamethrower...   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 27 Dec 9:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Captain, I realize what Bowling meant to say. However, both his meaning and what inference we might take away from it is still rather lamentable. The statement by Bowling is virtually the only thing that makes this story remarkable at all. It would be nice, for accuracy's sake, for some of these "heritage obsessors" to reflect upon actual events rather than live in a misty, gauzy, memory of what their Daddys told them. The fact is that this "invasion" was caused by something or things that happened before. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: If I'm a flamethrower...   by CaptainLiberal       at Fri 27 Dec 9:41am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 34     I guess why I'm just surprised that anyone sees this is newsworthy. You say: The statement by Bowling is virtually the only thing that makes this story remarkable at all. Why is it newsworthy when you can read the same sentiments on a daily basis on dozens of different websites and hear it spoken about in damn near every bar in the South? Did his sentiments really surprise you? There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people in the South that think like this. The South never recovered from the Civil War, either economically or emotionally. While there are plenty of Southerners who realize that these guys are mouth-breathing troglodytes, they also know that you can't sling a rock without hitting one of them. I thought one of the interesting things about Lott's little problem is that I find it hard to believe that any Southern politician can get by without talking to and working for racists and racist groups. It's everywhere. Here in Texas we have reenactors, confederate daughters and sons, secessionist groups and just general purpose redneck bubbas. Those people are never, and I mean never, going to change their opinions of the North's actions during the civil war. They get together in big weepy groups and talk about the destruction of the ideals of the founding fathers (most of whom owned slaves), and the rape of the state governments by an increasingly large federal government. The only way these people are ever going to be gone is when they all die off, and their children die off, etc. Someone else upthread had the only reasonable answer for these people, which is ridicule and social ostracization, although that certainly has its own problems. Cut these people off from the rest of society and you're likely to get militia groups intent on destroying the power of the feds. Down here there's lots of people who hate the federal government. They're in the minority, I think, but it's not a tiny minority. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: If I'm a flamethrower...   by alumshubby       at Fri 27 Dec 8:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Accuracy's sake is why, in spite of my interest in the Civil War (I live in Columbia, SC, which played an important part the state's secession and famously burned late in the war), I've so far resisted my wife's suggestions to join one or another reenactor organization representing either side. I finally shut her up by pointing out that I'd have to get muddy, filthy and lice-ridden before I really felt I was authentic. "How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Just a point   by borkus       at Fri 27 Dec 1:00pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 14     Federal troops, while they also fought with great honor and bravery, burned many Southern cities to the ground True, but interestingly enough, Richmond was put to the torch by Confederate troops, under orders to destroy the tobacco warehouses.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: Just a point   by sglover910       at Fri 27 Dec 1:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 56     Thanks for the link. I thought I recalled something about a scorched earth tactic in Richmond, but I couldn't find any good supporting links. ...Not that it will persuade the Southern heritagists posting in this thread, who even now are twisting the most contorted logic puzzles in their continuing effort to defend The Cause. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law...   by billmcn       at Fri 27 Dec 4:02pm score of 1.5   in reply to comment 14     ...point (a) is certainly true of Axis soldiers,who were mostly German and Japanese patriots rather than fascist true believers. As for point (b), the Union torching of Richmond was just a low-tech version of the firebombing of Dresden or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were all arguably unnecessary. War is always hell; military valor is found on all sides. These statements are true to the point of being cliche and excuse nothing. You're right about the flamebait part though.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: As a descendant of Confederate veterans...   by DreamingReal       at Fri 27 Dec 6:59pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 14     you have to admit that (a) the Confederate soldiers fought bravely and with honor; I guess that is the one thing I don't understand about the South. As far as I can tell, the Confederacy attempted to secede from the Union and actively fought against the government of the United States of America and her people. Why aren't these people reviled as traitors? Do we honor John Walker Lindh because he "fought bravely" against our government? This isn't flamebait, but an honest Devil's advocate inquiry that no one has ever really answered for me... ... with liberty and justice for all* (*Some restrictions may apply. See AG Ashcroft for details.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: As a descendant of Confederate veterans...   by bray       at Sat 28 Dec 4:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     You're also almost certainly a descendant of murderers, rapists, child molestors, and cannibals. Does this having any bearing on what you think of those acts?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Confederate Scum   by Prexaspes       at Thu 26 Dec 11:51pm score of 2 obnoxious     Anyone who defends the Confederacy defends slavery. Am I supposed to get all emotional over the "brave" men who defended communist states? Give me a fucking break. The Confederacy is in the dustbin of history - just the like the USSR and Hitler's Germany - good riddance. And if these latter day neo-Confederates, with their love of slavery and tyranny don't like that, they can kiss my ass. Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Re: Confederate Scum   by dmichels       at Fri 27 Dec 4:56am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 16     That's a nice straw man you built yourself there. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that this world has both leaders and soldiers. By your logic, you must agree with every last thing that George Bush has done so far in office. (And if you can say yes to that, remember that the same idea applied during the previous 8 years of Bill Clinton's presidency.) Don't be too judgemental about soldiers who fought for the losing side. The average person's affiliation in a war has less to do with their personal ideologies than with where they were living when the war started.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Confederate Scum   by zeda       at Fri 27 Dec 7:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Except all the soldiers who fought are long since dead. What's Mr. Bowling's excuse?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Confederate Scum   by plutocracywatch       at Fri 27 Dec 7:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Get real! Many Southerners fought for their nation when it was threatened by rebellion. The Appalachian region mostly remained loyal. There was even a county in Mississippi that resisted the rebels illegal government's attempted occupation. Regardless, people today who embrace the legacy of the Confederacy and Dixiecrats do so by choice, by ideological alliance, not by the bad luck of being born at the wrong place at the wrong time. Saying that every American is as culpable for Bush's actions as Bush is absurd. Remember the Vietnam War protestors? By your logic, they were as culpable for the LBJ-Nixon war policies policies as LBJ and Nixon. I choose my side in the 60's, others like Oliver North choose theirs. Most people face moral dilemmas thrust upon them from society. We are not the prisoners of geography; we are our own prisoners of conscience. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   108.  Re: Confederate Scum   by dmichels       at Sat 28 Dec 6:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     *ahem* Your second paragraph was exactly the point I was attempting to make, minus the sarcasm.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Confederate Scum   by Remus Shepherd       at Fri 27 Dec 7:39am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 16     Anyone who defends the Confederacy defends slavery. No. As we've talked about before, many people in the south suffer a strange duality where they are both ashamed of their ancestors and proud of their past. The Confederacy and the confederate flag are inextricably linked to slavery, yes, but they are also symbols of the south's golden age, a proud and willful time. I heartily suggest you get the Southern Rock Opera CD by the Drive By Truckers. I'm a yankee, but listening to the songs on that album has made me proud of the south. And I think that now I understand the southern 'thing'. My problem is with the idiots who don't know when their pride is foolish and should be swallowed, such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans. If you want others to respect your revered symbols, you have to respect theirs.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Confederate Scum   by sglover910       at Fri 27 Dec 8:32am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 25     many people in the south suffer a strange duality where they are both ashamed of their ancestors and proud of their past. Sorry, but this issue is so muddled that candor is necessary. You can call it 'duality' if you want, but it's based on willful ignorance of historic fact, in an attempt to obscure the disgraceful and inept actions of their heroes. They were traitors fighting to defend a practice that, outside of Sudan and a few other places, is universally morally abhorrent. Don't kid yourself for a second, they fought for slavery. Fortunately they were too strategically incompetent and economically backward to succeed. Everyone acknowledges that the SS fought well, but I don't hear too much nostalgia for the "golden age" of Hitlerite Germany -- and they knew a thing or two about music themselves.... An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Confederate Scum   by bitekman       at Fri 27 Dec 9:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Well, can you consider yourself proud to be an American, despite the genocide of the native americans? Can you be proud of the founding fathers even though some of them owned slaves? I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Confederate duality   by 1fastdog       at Fri 27 Dec 9:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     You can call it 'duality' if you want, but it's based on willful ignorance of historic fact, in an attempt to obscure the disgraceful and inept actions of their heroes. I think you're misinterpreting Remus Shepard's post. He's simply pointing out that irregardless of how we may feel about the matter, certain segments of the south honor their historical ancestry, while at the same time acknowledging that the actions taken by said ancestors were atrocious. I don't think for a minute that most southerners are pining for the "golden age" of which slavery happened to be a part. If you read the linked Drive By Truckers article and delve into the links included in the write-up, you'll discover more of what Remus was talking about. Except for groups like the Sons Of The Confederate Veterans (a confederacy of dunces, if ever there were) I highly doubt that most southerners are engaged in "willful ignorance" or are trying to "obscure the disgraceful and inept actions of their heroes" Does the fact the one's ancestors took part in a war over an abominable practice erase any & all honorable actions said ancestors may have performed before and after the war? Does participation in that war negate every positive thing that someone's distant relative may have done? Can southerners never honor their predecessors because people still get their panties in a wad over preconceptions? Rarely are things as black & white (no pun intended) as we'd like them to be... Tipping The Bottle & Biting The Lime   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Confederate duality   by sglover910       at Fri 27 Dec 10:14am score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 38     He's simply pointing out that irregardless of how we may feel about the matter, certain segments of the south honor their historical ancestry, while at the same time acknowledging that the actions taken by said ancestors were atrocious. I don't think for a minute that most southerners are pining for the "golden age" of which slavery happened to be a part. Sorry, but I can't escape the sense that devotion to the "Southern heritage" is profoundly mingled with self-justification and selective memory. I grew up in Michigan, we had Civil War graves in the local cemetary, and the family lore has it that one of my relatives was an officer in a volunteer regiment. But those were just interesting bits of history -- there was never any sense of nostalgia about that era. If there was any emotional response to the Civil War, it was the serene conviction that our people were on the side of Union and liberty, i.e., right on both counts. So it was never anything worth belaboring, and certainly nothing to feel threatened about. It seems to me that it's Southerners who are much more likely to "get their panties in a wad over preconceptions". Now, right across the state line from me now is the Commonwealth of Virginia. The state is littered with public works named for Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson and Jeb Stuart and Jefferson Davis -- you can't escape it. Imagine being in Germany and taking the Hermann Goering autobahn to Heinrich Himmler Strasse, and finally arriving at Adolf Hitler High School. Mightn't you think that there's something a little odd at work? There's simply nothing comparable to this in the North -- why is that? Does the fact the one's ancestors took part in a war over an abominable practice erase any & all honorable actions said ancestors may have performed before and after the war? Well, everyone expects soldiers to be brave. Again, the Germans fought very well in their last war, but all the valor in the world doesn't compensate for an odious and hateful cause. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  The South /= Germany- Tangent   by Sir Real       at Fri 27 Dec 11:50am score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 42     I am sorry that you have suffered so deeply from your experiences during the Civil War. That said, you're reaching for tenuous analogies at best. Grant and Lee signed a peace agreement as gentlemen; Hitler ended himself in a bunker. Germany was rebuilt by the Marshall Plan; The South was carved up for Northern financial interests (and remains carved up- most southern industry is still owned by northern corporations). If Lincoln and successors had exerted some leadership during "Reconstruction", perhaps we wouldn't have had the endemic poverty and ignorance that followed the war. Finally, (a similarity) we've come to accept that most Germans were fighting for their home and country, rather than an ideological hatred of Jews. Most of those Southerners who fought were too poor to own slaves- but they did own property, and fought to protect it. For some reason it is necessary to remove that nuance from discussions of Confederate veterans. BTW, I hope your northern "serene conviction" isn't troubled by the Union leaving Southern Negroes high and dry after the war (40 acres and mule MY ASS- so to speak) The ancestral southerners I'm most proud of are those who were part of the underground railroad- but I can't visibly celebrate them. They don't have a flag, because the people flying the confederate battle flag would have killed them. I have to fight to reclaim my heritage from hate-mongers, while contending with those who think we all live in the movie "Deliverance". When you have a southern accent, other americans automatically subtract 20 IQ points. You're the implied subject of jokes about trailer parks, inbreeding, spousal abuse, alcoholism, illiteracy, poverty, racism, and idiocy. Having to contend with that stereotype is likely to put some peoples "panties in a wad". Perhaps it's one of those bits of cosmic irony (southerners facing prejudice), but that doesn't make it any less destructive. People need to believe good things about themselves (like your "serene conviction")- even if they have to make it up (ie Sons of Confederate Veterans). Of course, it would be easier to create new, positive southern myths if pop culture didn't seem relentless in tearing southerners down. So go on- tell your trailer park jokes- stereotype people for stereotyping people- make fun of poverty and ignorance (but only if it happens to white southern people)- just be clear that you are part of problem, rather than the solution. The serpent, meanwhile, Sleeps his meal off in Paradise -Smiling to hear God's querulous calling.- Ted Hughes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Confederate duality   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 27 Dec 12:27pm score of 0.5 clever   in reply to comment 42     "Well, everyone expects soldiers to be brave." Unless they are French.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Tangents indeed   by sglover910       at Fri 27 Dec 1:25pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 46     If Lincoln and successors had exerted some leadership during "Reconstruction", perhaps we wouldn't have had the endemic poverty and ignorance that followed the war. Perhaps if Southerners hadn't fought it every step of the way, resorting to terror and vote manipulation, they might have avoided being politically dominated by the same social caste that led them into the war in the first place. Maybe you should review the history of the Klan, and study up on the stolen election of 1876? Finally, (a similarity) we've come to accept that most Germans were fighting for their home and country, rather than an ideological hatred of Jews. Most of those Southerners who fought were too poor to own slaves- but they did own property, and fought to protect it. For some reason it is necessary to remove that nuance from discussions of Confederate veterans. I don't understand what this has to do with anything. If I grant that most German soldiers didn't actually march Jews into Dachau, so what? They fought to support and extend a system that built Dachau. No amount of battlefield valor renders that moot. The same thing applies to Confederate soldiers. You seem to be saying that because they didn't personally own slaves, they should be absolved from 1) defending slavery, and 2) treason. I hope your northern "serene conviction" isn't troubled by the Union leaving Southern Negroes high and dry after the war (40 acres and mule MY ASS- so to speak) Look, the historical fact is that Reconstruction did attempt to redress the injustices of slavery -- ever hear of the Freedmen's Bureau? That it proved politically untenable is a tragedy. But it was Southern recalcitrance that killed it. The ancestral southerners I'm most proud of are those who were part of the underground railroad Then it's a little odd that you spend so much time defending soldiers who fought for a cause that was diametrically opposed to that of your supposed heroes. So go on- tell your trailer park jokes- Ummmm.... I don't really recall making any here. But if this remark is any indication, you seem to want read into what I'm saying, more than what I'm actually saying. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Confederate duality   by Remus Shepherd       at Fri 27 Dec 1:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     If there was any emotional response to the Civil War, it was the serene conviction that our people were on the side of Union and liberty, i.e., right on both counts. Yep, they were. The people of the south were on the side of Slavery and Self-Determination, i.e., wrong on one count, right on another. So they're much more conflicted. Many southerners revere their heros and symbols of that time for the good they tried to accomplish, while admitting that they were wrong about the bad. The problem is that others see the southern symbols as purely bad -- symbols of slavery. So they want those symbols suppressed. The south fights back against this. And when a yankee symbol -- like Abe Lincoln -- is introduced, the southerners try to suppress it. That's kind of what they've been trained to do. It would be nice if we could all respect each other's symbols -- if the south could respect Abe Lincoln as a great president and american icon, and if the north could respect the confederate flag as a symbol of proud rebellion and bravery. I think the north is almost ready to be that open-minded...but there are some idiots in the south, like the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who are short-sighted enough to keep trying to suppress symbols with which they don't agree. There's simply nothing comparable to this in the North -- why is that? Oh, check out any Custer memorial, or any Rockefeller memorial, or hell, any of the thousands of Ronald Reagan memorials out there. They all did bad things and good things simultaneously, and we tend to sweep the bad things under the rug. It's human nature.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Gotta disagree on two counts   by sglover910       at Fri 27 Dec 2:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     It would be nice if we could all respect each other's symbols I'm never gonna view swastikas as the symbol of a political movement that, through an excess of zeal, did cause some unfortunate things to happen, but nevertheless had a lot of good people who meant well. And I've never seen the Stars and Bars as being very different from swastikas. check out any Custer memorial, or any Rockefeller memorial Of course there are memorials to Grant, Sherman, Lincoln, et al, but they're nowhere near as pervasive as the monuments, bridges, roads, public buildings, etc. named after Davis, Lee, Jackson, etc. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  A more tangential tangent.   by adamrice       at Fri 27 Dec 4:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 46     When you have a southern accent, other americans automatically subtract 20 IQ points Or a Jersey accent, or an Appalachian accent, or a UP accent... I mean, you're right, but it's not just a southern thing. As a northerner living in the south, I'll admit that I had that prejudice when I first got here. It took me about a week to get over it, when I realized I was surrounded by smart people. if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: The South /= Germany- Tangent   by NH4       at Fri 27 Dec 10:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 46     Lincoln wanted to exert the kind of "leadership" you advocate, Sir Real, but he got murdered by a bitter Confederate before he could stop the Radical Republicans in Congress from exploiting the defeated Southern states.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: Confederate duality   by mjackso1       at Sat 28 Dec 12:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 66     I MIGHT consider respecting the Confederate flag when I meet a real live person who both holds the confederate flag in honor AND is not a racist. I've been in Texas for a decade now, and I haven't seen such a person yet. Southerners can talk about about the flag being a "symbol of proud rebellion and bravery" all you want, but their public actions (and private words) reveal what they really hold dear.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: Confederate Scum   by jhe       at Sat 28 Dec 10:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Well, can you consider yourself proud to be an American, despite the genocide of the native americans? Well if we can rephrase this as "Can you be proud of America, despite..." then my answers is "Absolutely" (If find it hard to be proud of my achievement of being born of the right parents). The difference between the US and the Confederacy is that there is clearly more to the US than all the bad that we have done. There are a set of ideals which, while often violated are IMHO just as often lived up to. At the end of the day, there just wasn't that much to the confederacy than a repudiation of those ideals and support for one of the most heinous institutions of the modern era. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   116.  Re: Confederate Scum   by bitekman       at Sat 28 Dec 12:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 110     Some would say that one of the ideals of the United States was that it was a loose grouping of independent states with the right to leave if they chose. I think that the Civil War was basically about slavery, just like Gulf War I was about oil. That said, there were (I think) legitimate "reasons" for Gulf War I (ie the defense of a sovereign nation), and I think the confederacy had the trappings of a legitimate cause, even if the underlying issue was heinous. That said, I'm glad things turned out the way they did, and I'm glad slavery was eradicated. It's another blight on our country's history that it persisted as long as it did. I just can understand why not everyone sees Lincoln as a great man. Anyway, if we look around the world, we see countless cases of "losers" being bitter millennia after the fact. It's never a surprise to me that a population keeps picking at old scars. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Confederate Scum   by Lothar       at Fri 27 Dec 12:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Am I supposed to get all emotional over the "brave" men who defended communist states? They did a pretty fine job defeating the Wermacht's Eastern flank. We couldn't have won WW2 without them. Not defending pseudo-communist tyranny, but give credit where credit is due. Besides, if you had grown up in Stalin's USSR, would you have resisted induction in the armed forces when it would have meant certain death from an NKVD bullet all because you had issues with defending your homeland, governed by tyrants, yes, from an invading force that would have put you in even worse conditions for being a "slav"? It was a rotten way to live either way you look at it, and there was no real "win" to be had, but dammit, most had no choice, and they made their contibution to defeating Nazi power, and for that, I do honor them. Remember, The Internet makes you stupid.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Yes, They Are Crazy, and the REAL Heros Are....   by Norman108       at Fri 27 Dec 12:43pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 16     A simple search of the internet reveals abundant evidence of Southern craziness surrounding the American Civil War. Here's one fun ditty for your perusal. I visited the deep South for the first time last year, and even made it to that grand monument to the Confederacy, Stone Mountain. Their veneration of their war heros, and their twisted take on the Civil war is nothing short of delusional. Strangely, this was the first time I had been introduced to the "states rights" argument for the Civil War. I actually sympathize with the position, to some degree. But obviously, human rights take precedence over states rights in every instance, and slavery is one of the most odious institutions ever to enter this country. If Southerners had to be forced to give it up at gunpoint, so be it. There is little evidence things could have turned out very differently. The South had plenty of time to begin phasing out slavery between the time it was first proposed (during the original founding of the constitution,) rejected by Southern politicians, and then finally made into law three generations later. No, the greatest heros of the Civil War were the SOUTHERNERS who rejected slavery without question, who helped support the underground railroad, and who fought on the side of the North against their brethren. These are the great moral heros of the South, who put human rights before states rights, right from the start. And yes, Yankees are often evil, uncultured sons of bitches too. So what? Maybe a statue of Abe shouldn't be at the history center, but neither should Confederate flags and memorials to Robert E. Lee be all over the South, at least in places of honor. Any other view is obscene. Any veneration of anything even remotely associated with slavery is obscene, and should be the object of shame, not celebration. Until this understanding permeates the South, the Deep South will always collude with its own particular form of insanity. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: Yes, They Are Crazy, and the REAL Heros   by katieo       at Fri 27 Dec 2:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     But obviously, human rights take precedence over states rights in every instance Huh. This is a good point, and brings up a larger point...so are we right to intervene in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and would we be right to intervene in China, and stop the obscene human rights violations? I consider myself fairly liberal; I oppose the war in Iraq (if just for practical reasons); I also think slavery was an abomination. I'm honestly a little troubled, however, by the argument that we have no right to intervene in the "self-determination" of other countries. Veers dangerously close to southern self-justification. Some might argue that the federal government had more legitimate control over the states than say, the U.S. does over anyone else. But not in the minds of southerners, obviously. In 200 years, will history look back on all those who made the argument against international intervention as excusing gross human rights violations? Kind of like the Northerners who argued for slavery? After all, the North had no more of a moral high ground, and no fewer unsavory motives for going to war than the U.S. does now, even though they were clearly on the right side (clearly in hindsight, anyway...) I'm not talking about the details of war with Iraq, but intervention in general. I haven't made up my mind, wanted to know what plastic thinks. Kids, you've tried and you've failed. The lesson is: never try.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: Yes, They Are Crazy, and the REAL Heros   by CaptainLiberal       at Fri 27 Dec 3:09pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 53     Any veneration of anything even remotely associated with slavery is obscene, and should be the object of shame, not celebration. Look, I agree that slavery was a pernicious blight to this country. We're still paying for the bad decisions of our forebears. But if we're not going to venerate anything associated with slavery, shouldn't we be redesinging the money? By modern standards, Thomas Jefferson was a rapist, because he indulged in sex with a woman who was legally incapable of giving consent. Most of the founding fathers kept slaves, and saw very little wrong with it. Those that did, kept them anyway, which, is to my mind, much worse. I'm certainly not suggesting that we should put Jeff Davis on the five dollar bill, but the idea that we abuse and heap scorn on anyone who was involved with slavery, or the protection of slavery is about as goofy as the idea that every American should go around wringing his hands on a daily basis because our country engaged in near genocidal conflict with Native Americans. Good people often do bad things. Lincoln said repeatedly that he would tolerate slavery if it would keep the Union intact. Does that make him a scumbag? Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Re: Yes, They Are Crazy, and the REAL Heros   by Norman108       at Fri 27 Dec 4:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 77     We venerate Jefferson because he was a great Statesman and Diplomat, not because he was a slaveholder. After all, even he didn't venerate his own status as a slave holder. But yes, the statement of "no veneration" was too extreme. Should have said, any veneration that's specific to slavery (such as the plantation economy) or that defends slavery (such as perpetuating the idea of Confederate civil war "heroism") is obscene and shameful. Obviously, some accounting must be made for the times. As I mentioned, the fact that the South did not begin to faze out slavery even more conscientiously during the beginning of the 19th century, is (in my opinion) not defendable. By the time of the Civil war, if not before, slavery should have been abolished altogether. And again, it's the White and Black Southerners who fought for this, against the odds, who are the real heros of the Confederacy. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Yes, They Are Crazy, and the REAL Heros   by sglover910       at Sat 28 Dec 12:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 75     I'm honestly a little troubled, however, by the argument that we have no right to intervene in the "self-determination" of other countries. Veers dangerously close to southern self-justification. Although every party involved muffed it rather badly, this is why we eventually intervened in the Balkans, and should have intervened in Rwanda. States and their 'rights' are abstractions; people bleed. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Confederate Scum   by nyekulturniy       at Fri 27 Dec 12:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     My take on the Confederate Army (from someone eligible to be in the SCV): Many brave men, some good, some honest, some scum, who fought well for a cause they believed in. However, the cause was wrong. Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Local Coverage   by borkus       at Fri 27 Dec 9:09am score of 1     The Times Dispatch ran the story yesterday morning. Bowling's comments are pretty far down in the article. Nothing showed up in the paper this morning. The Style Weekly article didn't even mention him. There is a vocal minority obsessed with Confederate Heritage. However, most people realize that the statue and other Civil War attractions appeal more to tourists than to locals.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  OT -- Read this in the voice of Lewis Black   by BatGuano       at Fri 27 Dec 10:12am score of 1     Okay, here's what we do. We get all those Yankee idiots who reinact the Civil War every weekend, and set them against all the fuckheads who wish the South would Rise Again. They can only use 1860-era weapons. A couple of Shilo's and they'll all put the past behind them and SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! your radio friend, Bat Guano   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  poisoned by antique spin   by snut_rucket       at Fri 27 Dec 10:56am score of 1.5 compelling     I think we're all still victims of political spin from 1865. Amazing how these things persist, isn't it? Those guys with the funny facial hair were every bit as canny as Karl Rove. In their own quaint half-crazed simian-looking way. Carl Sandburg did an awesome job making Lincoln into a saint sprung from the prairie soil. Most Americans "know", in the way you "know" emotional things, that God gave Lincoln to America to save America, and that he was destined for that assassin's bullet, and it was all necessary, and everything turned out for the best. How could a butt-ugly dude from downstate Illinois be that articulate without a miracle? America's own Jesus. (The South had a Jesus too, Robert E. Jesus. "and his mighty horse Challenger!" C'mon, give me a break.) This child's picturebook story of the Civil War as a Northern moral crusade, led by the gentle and wise and martyred St. Lincoln, fought solely to help oppressed blacks out of slavery, sounds fishy to me. It sounds fishy. If this was a war of liberation, then, uh, what happened after the war was over? Was there a big liberation and parties and equality? (Uh, we don't talk about that.) All this high-minded moral bluh-bluh-bluh sounds exactly as fishy as Mr. Brag Bowling of Richmond Virginia going on and on about the valor of Confederate soldiers fighting this doomed Lost Cause. Mr. Brag Bowling is poisoned by antique spin. Maybe the South was left out of the industrial revolution, maybe it really was about the Commerce Clause and the expansion of federal power, I don't know. I just can't visualize those Union senators taking on this great risky crusade because they were motivated by the suffering of an underclass. That's not realistic. Just seems more likely that it had to do with money, with slavery as the best political cover you could ever hope for. Easy political points. .....Because who could ever be for slavery?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Re: poisoned by antique spin   by toothless joe       at Fri 27 Dec 11:44am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 43     Because who could ever be for slavery? People who own slaves. » born » tagged » tattooed » pacified »   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: poisoned by antique spin   by imoose       at Fri 27 Dec 12:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     .....Because who could ever be for slavery? My guess: the white members of a slaveholding society, whether they personally owned slaves or not. Why? Because in that society, no matter how low-down evil, stupid, or poor you might be, you're still "better" than the brightest, richest, slave-or-not black anywhere. Abolishing slavery meant new measures would be required, and opened the possibility that one of them could be better than you. Rather than allow that possibility, they elected to fight and die to preserve a social order they knew and liked.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: poisoned by antique spin   by natophonic       at Fri 27 Dec 1:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     I just can't visualize those Union senators taking on this great risky crusade because they were motivated by the suffering of an underclass. That's not realistic. Just seems more likely that it had to do with money, with slavery as the best political cover you could ever hope for. agree, strongly. the emancipation proclamation wasn't issued until well after the war had started, and it didn't even free slaves in border states fighting on the union side, or southern states that were already under union control. the primary goal of any war is economic in nature. the civil war was not about ending slavery. WWII was not about saving jews from speedfreak german anti-semites. war is the oldest, crudest tool available for increasing or preserving economic interests. if you want to motivate the majority a nation's citizenry to fight in a war, wrap it in some high-minded, moral cause. i mean, you probably wouldn't send your son or daughter to die fighting to preserve american oil companies' interests in kuwait, but you might get riled up about iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in kuwati hospitals (even if it never happened). What we do is never understood but merely praised or blamed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  It sure was about ending slavery   by zanzibar       at Sat 28 Dec 1:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     the primary goal of any war is economic in nature. the civil war was not about ending slavery The two issues are one and the same. The issue of slavery was entirely economic, at least for the South. The war started because many Northerners failed to realize how desperately true this was (or they realized it and didn't care.) So if what you mean to say is that Lincoln didn't go to war to emancipate the slaves, you'd be right. But it was precisely the perceived threat to the business of slavery, by and large, that caused the South to secede. Remove that threat and you don't have a war. Hence the civil war was all about ending slavery. Just not in the straight-line manner that some elementary-school history textbooks would like you to believe.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: poisoned by antique spin   by sglover910       at Fri 27 Dec 1:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     I think you're arguing with caricatures more than anything said here. Nobody with even a superficial knowledge of American history is going to deny that there were economic tensions between North and South prior to the war. At the same time, you'd have to be pretty ignorant if you think that the war was only about commercial rivalry. Abolitionism was primarily a moral cause, and Lincoln's writings clearly show that he viewed slavery as unjust. Do you really believe that simple profit and loss calculations explain much of history? An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  Re: poisoned by antique spin   by snut_rucket       at Fri 27 Dec 2:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 69     Do you really believe that simple profit and loss calculations explain much of history? Nope, I only meant to say that the politicians of the day were far more likely to be motivated by practical self-interest (dollars, hearts, stars, or whatever) than by correcting the moral crimes of strangers. I only meant that they probably thought like we do. yes it is no it isn't yes it is   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   118.  political pressures   by zanzibar       at Sat 28 Dec 1:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 74     Nope, I only meant to say that the politicians of the day were far more likely to be motivated by practical self-interest (dollars, hearts, stars, or whatever) than by correcting the moral crimes of strangers. I only meant that they probably thought like we do. But ultimately it was the moral crimes of strangers that put those politicians into a situation where dollars, hearts and stars were at stake. That is to say, if the abolitionist movement had never existed, there would almost certainly not have been a need for secession and war, ditto if the South hadn't been dependent on slave labor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

51.  We hold these truths   by philipkd       at Fri 27 Dec 12:40pm score of 2 clever     There's this assumption that's given to us when we're studying history as kids that the North's victory in the Civil War was a justified victory. To make this more simpler and digestable, they make us believe that "we" fought the war to fight slavery (obviously assuming that "we" means we identify with the righteous North). This makes sense because we're a government by the ppl, for the ppl. So the South, being stubborn on disenfranchising blacks, doesn't represent the ppl. As a result it is our moral imperative to fight them. However, we know the Civil War was fought over states' rights. If this is the case, what "moral" justification does the North have, then, for fighting the South? Maybe it's to preserve the "Union." But was there ever a real union outside of a collective for fighting a common enemy? We know the Revolutionary War was not a popular one for Americans. And I remember that our "Enlightened" politicians basically just kept promoting and propagandizing the Bill of Rights and Constitution all around the states until it was shoved down our throats enough to make us accept it. This is why I find the reactions of Americans funny when they hear that the people of the South still cherish the Confederate flag, still say stuff like what Lott said, and worship people like Jefferson Davis. When you hear stuff like that, it contradicts with our pre-supposition that the South was wrong--and as a result--should have atonned for their "sins." It shouldn't surprise us if the South continues to uphold the Confederacy. The lack of real moral imperative in most wars should make the following points clear: 1) the losers will always be yearning for a second chance. 2) the leadership has to invent a moral imperative to unify its people to support war. Good lessons to keep in mind when thinking about this war on Iraq. - philipd ... With a plan to ambush this Bush administration ... NOTE TO CARNIVORE: this is from a song. I have no plan. Sheesh Philosophistry   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Re: We hold these truths   by stankow       at Fri 27 Dec 12:43pm score of 2 helpful   in reply to comment 51     It's absolutely amazing how many people are apparently taught that the Civil War was just the Union saying, "Slavery is bad!" and then fighting the evil slaveholders, considering that I've never met a single person who was taught that. I don't know, maybe I hang out in more intellectual circles, but every single conversation I've ever had about the Civil War has not only included the "It wasn't about slavery" argument, but also the "Despite what everyone learns in school" part. And yet, no one's ever said, "It wasn't about slavery? Arrrooo?" P.S. Sure, it was about states' rights. The right of states to allow slavery.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: We hold these truths   by philipkd       at Fri 27 Dec 1:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 52     While I wish I could fish up some statistic to point out that you are correct in that you probably hung out in the intellectual circles. This is better: Citizenship Examiner: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War? Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter - Citizenship Examiner: Wait, wait... just say slavery. Apu: Slavery it is, sir. Much Apu About Nothing Two other reasons I believe that people still think it's about slavery only: 1) People wholeheartedly believe that the 9/11 attacks were an attack on our "freedoms." 2) Most people don't even know when the Civil War was fought. I know, it's hard to believe #1. But anybody who was adamant about not asking "why do they hate us," anybody who put up a jillion American flags on 9/12, anybody who had a instinctual response to enlist their children, and anybody who believes blindly in this administration probably would fit into the #1 category. - philipd ... Till you fuck around get an anthrax napkin ... Philosophistry   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  You're right and wrong   by zanzibar       at Sat 28 Dec 1:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     Citizenship Examiner: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War? Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter - Citizenship Examiner: Wait, wait... just say slavery. Apu: Slavery it is, sir. You seem to miss your own point in there somewhere. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that slavery, and primarily slavery was the issue that led to the Civil War. Yes, there were economic factors (many the result of slavery), there were international factors, etc. etc. But it's not unreasonable at all to assume that the Union would probably have held together if it weren't for the clear and present threat that the Abolitionist movement held for the South. Now, where I agree with you is that yes, Lincoln did not rally the Union forces against the South because he wanted to emancipate the slaves. He wanted to reunify the country, and it's much harder to find a clear-cut justification for that, so "Lincoln emancipated the slaves" is often thrown up as a cover. But your citizenship examiner is probably right. It was the issue of slavery, both in the moral and economic senses, that led to the civil war, and all of the other conflicts were subordinate to that. When people say that slavery was the cause of the civil war, they're not too far off the mark. When they say that slavery was the reason the North fought the war, they're mostly wrong.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   131.  Re: You're right and wrong   by sglover910       at Sun 29 Dec 11:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 119     Lincoln explicitly stated that preserving the Union was always his priority, and that he would have (unhappily) tolerated slavery if seccession could have been avoided. This is nothing new. But unlike post-bellum Confederates and their latter-day sympathizers, he was never disingenuous about it -- the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't say, "Um, well, I know we said we're preserving the Union, but here's what we really meant." An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: We hold these truths   by nathanTeske       at Sat 28 Dec 12:50am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 51     And I remember that our "Enlightened" politicians basically just kept promoting and propagandizing the Bill of Rights and Constitution all around the states until it was shoved down our throats enough to make us accept it. You're going to take these legal irrevocable guarantees of your basic rights and you are god damned well going to like it! [/sarcasm] But can you hit me with your bust of Kant and at the same time will it a universalizable maxim?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  OT: Minor nitpick   by Ajax       at Sat 28 Dec 3:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     You're going to take these legal irrevocable guarantees of your basic rights and you are god damned well going to like it! [/sarcasm] Almost, but not quite irrevocable. The Constitution can both be amended and unamended. Which means that someday (if enough state and federal legislators agree) you might find yourself suffering in State-imposed silence (First) as the thirty National Guardsmen bunking in your living room (Third) write up a Bill of Attainder (Fifth, Sixth) and have you executed for refusing to change the channel back to Road Rules. "Coca-Cola® and Armageddon® / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

86.  An interesting flame thread on an interesting arti   by NewsGuy       at Fri 27 Dec 7:02pm score of 1 incoherent     From this flame thread, and others I've read about similar articles elsewhere, it seems like after 140-some years, Americans are still fighting the Civil War. *DUH* It's not just The SCV that gets riled up by this, otherwise their grievances would simply be ignored. But because so many just can't resist trying to shout them down with torrents of "redneck" and "cracker," it's obvious that EVERYONE, or at least most, gets riled up about this. Well, how about, in a good Liberal tradition, we try to understand their culture and attempt to see history from their point of view? A stretch I'm sure, but one that Liberals are just so good at. Hmmm, perhaps Liberals are only able to achieve this state of higher consciousness when it's politically expedient for them? Imagine what an upside-down world we would be living in - hard-right conservatives being intolerant towards supporters of Southern Heritage, and far-left liberals being all "open-arms" towards them, fighting to uphold their place in society. Heh, we've got already in a sense, because as it's been pointed out here it's OK to use the word "cracker" but not "nigger." After this whole Trent Lott thing, it seems we're already halfway there.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

88.  The Honored Dead   by Prexaspes       at Fri 27 Dec 9:25pm score of 2 brilliant     Some Confederate apologists here have opined that the war was not one to rid this nation of the scourage of slavery, but one over "states rights." What, quite frankly, were these "rights" all about? SLAVERY!!!!! When ONE MILLION SLAVES broke their bondage and fled to the Union forces, what was the war then about???? SLAVERY!!!! When 200,000 of those one million joined the GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC (as I argue, it was a general slave revolt by that time), what was the war about???? SLAVERY!!!! When states like Georgia and South Carolina seceded from the Union, what did their manifestos talk about protecting???? SLAVERY!!!! When the Confederate government debated recruiting slaves to fight in their armed forces at the close of the war, what was the lament of those who opposed such (most of the members of the Confederate Congress I might add)???? That it would undermine the very system that the Confederate government was put into place to defend - the SLAVE SYSTEM!!!! The entire economic and much of the social system of the South was built upon slavery. Any threat to it was a threat to that system. Which is why abolitionist tracts were not allowed to pass through the mails in the slave holding states prior to the Civil War. Which is why abolitionist speakers would have been shot if they ventured into those states. Which is why every slave holding state legislature was dominated by slaveholders. Which is why nearly every slave holding state Governor's mansion was occupied by a slave holder from 1800-1860. Which is why of the nine million individuals in 1860 in what would become the Confederacy over four million of them were SLAVES!!!!! Which is why over half of South Carolina's population was enslaved!!!! Many white Southerners (I am one BTW), tend to dismiss the role of slavery in the Civil War, largely because they know they cannot win the "debate" on that subject. The debate being the same silly claim that was made as early as 1866 - that theirs was a "lost cause" based on a government which favored "local control." If such was the case, then why prior to the Civil War did nearly every Southern politician try to and succeed in ramming through legislation that undercut the ability of the free states to go their own way vis a vis slavery? Why did they praise Dred Scott? "States rights'" is a lie created in the aftermath of the war to justify politely the evil which Southerners who fought for the Confederacy defended both by their actions and by their words. Perhaps someday they will put a statue of Frederick Douglass next to Lincoln. It is men like Douglass and units like the Massachusetts 54th and the Maine and Vermont units that defended their positions at Gettysburg that we should honor, not slave holding and defending filth like JEB Stuart or Robert E. Lee. Good riddance to them all! Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

99.  Absolutely correct   by sglover910       at Sat 28 Dec 12:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 88     It is amazing to see what semantic games and logical inversions people use to evade the real, blindingly obvious reasons for the Civil War -- slavery, and the rejection of the federal system, the Union. One minute's search on Google will bring up original documents that show quite clearly that the South was defending slavery. There was never one redeeming aspect of The Cause; one has to wonder what really motivates all the special-pleading for "our Southern heritage". An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

89.  all I have to say   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 27 Dec 9:39pm score of 0.5 compelling     Thank God the North beat the South. Thank God that spelled the end of slavery. Thank God for Abraham Lincoln, who - if he did nothing else in his brief life - at least did that, which would make him a hero in any age. Because if the South had not been defeated - a most just and deserved defeat, that was - who knows what kind of oppressive and evil apartheid regime would have overtaken it. Because, judged by its consequences - the end of slavery - the Civil War was as just a war as any that has ever been fought by any people in any age. Long live the USA, which the soldiers of the North fought and died to save.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

94.  This isn't as easy...   by eduardo       at Fri 27 Dec 11:31pm score of 2 clever     ... as it seems at first. What is the nature of Lincoln's relationship to the South? Is he a former President? Or is he a former enemy leader? He's both, and that doesn't compute very well. Would it be proper to build statues of Stalin, Truman and Allied generals in post-WWII Germany, Italy, and Japan? More importantly, would someone who argues that building such statues is in poor taste be automatically arguing against the righteousness of the Allied position? Or does it make sense that such statues may be offensive to people who (or whose parents) were shot at by Allied troops? Even as these people realize that the Allies were right and Hitler (et al) were horrible people, erecting a statue of former enemy commanders may not be the right thing to do. On the other hand, Lincoln is considered to be a great American President, and it is odd that anyone would have an issue with erecting a statue to a great American president. I guess that's the trouble with Civil Wars, it's hard, sometimes, to know which side is "ours." This issue isn't so simple, for the reasons above. if you're a Southerner, is Lincoln a former president or a former enemy? He's both, and you can't get around the fact that these two things do not compute. If someone is pissed off at Lincoln because he freed the slaves, that's racist and idiotic. If someone merely recognizes the historical fact that Lincoln used to be the enemy Commander in Chief... there's some merit to the notion. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

103.  Re: This isn't as easy...   by nathanTeske       at Sat 28 Dec 12:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 94     Yes, but do these same people use pennies or a $5 bill? But can you hit me with your bust of Kant and at the same time will it a universalizable maxim?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   104.  Re: This isn't as easy...   by mjackso1       at Sat 28 Dec 1:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 103     or, heaven forfend, fifty-dollar bills?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: This isn't as easy...   by Prexaspes       at Sat 28 Dec 1:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 94     I am a Southerner - my family colonized North Carolina in the 1650s. We also colonized Alabama in the 19th century. The latter is an especially bloody chapter in American history, given the nature of the Indian removal at the time, and boom in cotton production that led to an influx of slaves to exploited with the lash ever more heavily in order to increase production for the burgeoning English textile industry (people tend to forget that England imported far more cotton than New England did). To me Lincoln is a hero!!!! Quit trying to essentialize what it means to be a Southerner. Tens of thousands of Southeners fought the Confederacy in the Civil War - especially Southerners who harkened from places like eastern Tennessee and the western Carolinas. And let's not forget about West Virginia!!!! Down with the Confederacy and the Neo-Confederates!!!! Long Live The Republic!!!! Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: This isn't as easy...   by adamrice       at Sat 28 Dec 5:54pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 94     Actually, MacArthur was revered in Japan as head of SCAP: "When MacArthur departed from Japan, there were calls to make him an "honorary citizen" and suggestions to erect a massive statue in his likeness beside Tokyo Bay." if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

114.  Sheesh   by LafinJack       at Sat 28 Dec 10:56am score of 1     Yes, Confederate soldiers fought bravely, I commend them for that. But they were still fighting for the wrong damn side. LafinJack - we are building a religion/a limited edition/we are now accepting callers/for these pendant key chains..   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

120.  Enslaving the Confederacy   by phooze       at Sat 28 Dec 2:44pm score of 1     It's very easy to get caught on the slave issue. We could just group Brag and his fellows with Lott and Strom and their ilk, but we have to remember that the war broke out over the sovereignty of the Confederate states. The Confederate states did not want a large, federal body controlling their state governments. Therefore, my question for Brag: was the Union's supposedly oppressive federal domination any different than the slaveowner's oppressive ownership of the slaves themselves? phooze "the only thing people really ever do is pick things up and then put them back down again," [zach newman]   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

121.  Re: Enslaving the Confederacy   by Prexaspes       at Sat 28 Dec 3:04pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 120     Bullshit. This is more "lost cause" revisionism. It is also a canard. What, quite frankly, was the Union doing to oppress Southerners in 1860? The institution of slavery was secure - look at the make-up of the Senate and the SCOTUS and see how many slaveholders held positions in both bodies in 1860 if you don't believe me. There was no active federal resistance to the institution of slavery. Federal troops protected the slave states against slave insurrections (SEE John Brown's raid). The federal government allowed the slave states to ban abolitionist literature from the mails of those states. The federal government, when requested, would not protect abolitionists if they ventured to speak in slave states. If anything, it was the slave-holding states who held the decided advantage against those states that did not favor slavery, not vice versa. The former had the weight of Constitution and federal law at their side vis a vis escaped slaves. The former had been able to create crisis after crisis in the Republic so as to cater to their interest of expanding slavery westward and keeping the number of slave holding states equal to the number of free states (think about why the Missouri compromise occurred, who boosted the Mexican-American war, and who won the 1850 compromise, as well as the Dred Scott case). The slave holding states made the mistake of fucking up the good deal they had. There was no oppression of the slave holding states prior to the Civil War by the federal government - if anything, it was the interests of the free states that were trodden upon. Of course after those slave holding states that became the Confederacy lost their bid for nationhood, they created this canard that they were "oppressed" by the federal government and thus were "compelled" to seek nationhood. Its a good post facto excuse, but it is nothing like the truth of what actually happened. Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  For the n-th time -- Read some history!   by sglover910       at Sun 29 Dec 11:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 120     If you take some time to consult Google, you will have found ample sources that thoroughly refute your egregiously wrong idea that "The Confederate states did not want a large, federal body controlling their state governments". Search for "articles of seccession". If you're feeling ambitious, look up who was governing the seceding states, and consult their writings. You will invariably find that first among their grievances was Northern abolitionism. You will find that the primary "liberty" they sought to defend was the liberty to own another person. That's it. Everything else, all the gas and chatter about states rights, was only a forlorn post hoc attempt to justify their bastard cause. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

128.  Southern folk love Jeff Gordon   by dave007       at Sun 29 Dec 9:41am score of 1     Just put Jeff Gordons jacket on Abe and the people will praise it like a god and this will all go away.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

129.  teachers   by msobhan       at Sun 29 Dec 6:33pm score of 1     So in 8th Grade English (8 years ago), our teacher was a woman (in her 50's most likely) from Arkansas. She was extremely proud of Clinton, and had Clinton banners everywhere in her classroom (I think that was around his second race?). Oh, and this class was taking place in a major city in Saudi Arabia in the school I attended. So she decides to share an experience, while I believe we were getting introduced to some Harlem Renaissance poetry, of her own life back in the segregation era. She was in a mall standing next to a water fountain waiting for a friend. Overcome with thirst, she began drinking from the fountain. Her friend came, and pointed out she was drinking from a "Blacks Only" fountain. My dear teacher explained, she puked almost right away. And after saying this, she was immediately very apologetic and making sure everyone understood that she does not presently think of segregation as a good thing, but when she was a young woman, her perspective was very different. I admired her courage to explain this. Because she wanted to illustrate something negative about the past, which was also her past. Some others did not. An acquaintance, classmate who is an African American, was one day complaining about the grade she received in a paper to some friends. Then I sort of joined in to listen. She thought she should talk to the teacher and find out why she received the grade. Before she was satisfied of her decision, she suggested that our English teacher was a racist, and probably graded her low because of that. And up sprang murmurs between she and her friends using the teacher's recollection as fodder to brand her a racist. Oh, 8th grade was more interesting in many ways. Many of the American kids were from the south. The school was very "multi-cultural" in makeup (Ethnic, citizenship, & language). Our US History teacher was a American Northern Caucasian former-hippie (still somewhat hippie) outspoken feminist atheist who showed us hours of videos on the Civil Rights movement and talked about her years in China. My geography teacher, an American Caucasian male from Kansas, who spent a quarter of each class joking about "fags" and "Jews" and how funny they were (I was in the Qur'an-belt of the Middle East where anti-semitism is trend du jour, and Jews are as rare as Unicorns), and occasionally poking fun at Minnesota. The two teachers were good friends. All of this was rather confounding to me at the time. And still is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]