I have a feeling Virginia is going to regret electing a far right-winger like McDonnell as Governor. He is also the guy who changed a law that protected discrimination against gay state workers to now allowing them to not be hired or to be fired based on their sexual orientation. Way to go, Virginia!

“Understandably, many in the media are now up in arms over the glorification of slavery, racism, and treason,…” – France Martel -

I’m glad to see that liberals continue to be blind to history. There are millions of Americans whose ancestors fought and died for states rights. But, due to left-wing indoctrination through the mess that is public schooling all left-wing elitists see is slavery. It must be nice going through life with such narrow-minded perspective. And yes, Robert E. Lee is a patriot. You should read his “definition of a gentleman” sometime. I challenge you to show me anything that proves Robert E. Lee wasn’t an American hero & a patriot.

Lee opposed secession and stated he wouldn’t take up arms against the union unless it became necessary to defend his home state. At about the time he was ready to take command of the union army, his home state seceded and his loyalty (very common back then) was to his home state.

But, I don’t expect you to know any of this, Francis. Afterall, it’s much easier to say “confederacy, slavery, racist, traitor” (ding!). Oh, and he commanded the confederacy with much more honor than the union showed towards southerners.

There is no way of overstating how offensive a celebration of secession and intra-national collective murder is.
This is not “celebrating”, it is recognition and honor for people who participated in a seminal historical period in our Country, and their State. For someone to automatically equate the word “Confederate”, or a flag, with the “glorification of slavery, racism, and treason” is sophmoric.

But since Bob McDonnell has you so upset with his actions here Frances there are a few other States you should avoid visiting:

> April (4th Monday) – Confederate Memorial Day for Alabama and Mississippi.
> 26 April – Confederate Memorial Day for Georgia and Florida.
> 10 May – Confederate Memorial Day in North Carolina.
> 30 May – Confederate Memorial Day in Virginia.
> 3 June – Confederate Memorial Day for Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee.

Also, you better not be anywhere near Arkansas this Sunday Frances:

Arkansas Code Annotated, Section 1-5-107, provides as follows:
(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as ‘Confederate Flag Day’ in this state.
(b) No person, firm, or corporation shall display an Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America.
(c) Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

This had been in effect before, and after, Bill Clinton’s term as governor, by the way. And just to further the outrage there is this very controversial Confederate proclamation made April 1985, not by Bob McDonnell, but then Governor Governor Bill Clinton. He signed Act 985 into law, making the birthdates of Martin Luther King Jr. AND Robert E. Lee official state holidays — on the same day!

“Gasp and swoon, I’m getting thuh vapors from alla this outrage!”

TREASON is the ACLU’s “John Adams” Project – and when the GOP takes control of Congress in November THE ACLU TRAITORS WILL BE PROSECUTED – and the other traitor, Eric Holder, will not be able to stop it!!!!!

stoogedudes, not even close. If he were such a conservative, he wouldn’t have added the erroneous paragraph claiming, in clear liberal fashion, that the War was caused by slavery. As evil as slavery was, it was hardly a primary cause of the War. Rather, it was simply Lincoln’s political move to try to bolster a flagging Northern war effort. The War, itself, was nothing short of a power grab on the part of the North, aided and abetted by Federalists intent on killing the only thing that truly stood in the way of total federal gov’t domination – States’ Rights. Lincoln’s unconstitutional distruction of individual and States’ Rights was obviously successful – to all our loss. The only good thing to come out of it, and even it was tainted by his naked power grab and its consequences, was the beginning of the end to slavery – which, of course, actually ended in the South before it was ended in the North.

Three cheers for the Governor of Virginia.
I came upon this when I was looking for info about “Confederate Memorial Day”, I didn’t know such a holiday still existed anywhere.
In that search, I saw a piece written by someone who was complaining about it being a holiday, let me quote some of what they wrote;

“I understand that Southerners want to recognize their kin who died, but they can do that on Memorial Day. Some states celebrate Confederate Memorial Day on the same day as the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday. What are they trying to say? Oh wait; I get it. They have nothing to be ashamed of. Unfortunately, they do. As a black taxpayer, I should refuse to pay for this. If you are an outraged taxpayer, you should refuse to pay for it, too. It shouldn’t be a legal state holiday. It should be taken off the law books, the past should be left behind…….”

Let me answer: Wrong, they have nothing to be ashamed of. See what “VirginiaBorn” wrote for starters.
Then some consideration might be given to the fact that the Confederates fought and died for something they believed in, whether you agree with it or not, (and more might be more likely to if they would stop saying the war was about slavery, thank you Mr. Lincoln for giving the war that legacy).
“the past should be left behind” the above quote says. Okay, I’ll buy that if we can stop hearing about slavery. You want us to leave the past behind? Right?
Oh wait, I get it too, only some of us are supposed to leave the past behind, while some can continue to throw the past in others faces whenever it suits their needs.

Why is it okay for one group to have a history month, a holiday that celebrates their hero, but not another. Or are equal rights only for one select group – never mind, I already know the answer to that.

I have ancestors who fought on both sides in the Civil War…and actually I have more Confederate-soldier ancestors than Union-soldier ones. (Another ancestor bred Lee’s famed horse Traveller and sold him to the Virginia infantry.) But the fact remains, no matter how much you try to sugar-coat it in talk of “heritage”, that the Confederacy was an armed rebellion against the United States. In what possible world is that not treason?

Thus, I am against all commemorations and glorifications of the Confederacy, in Virginia and in any other state.

The race baiting currently being perpetrated by the left is designed to stifle intelligent debate. When the left is forced to address facts and logical thought, they NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have a leg to stand. They attempt to change the subject or randomly claim racism for no apparent reason. It is a little like turrets syndrome, racism just pops out of their mouth randomly. America is wise to this. Racism does not carry the meaning it had a year ago.
Racist is now defined as the following
rac•ist [rey-sizt]
-adj
1. any American who’s beliefs differ from that of the current Communist President’s administration or has lunatic liberals followers

AmericanCowboy, I don’t know why I’m responding to trollbait like you, but:

–who’s changing the subject? I’m addressing the proclamation of Confederate History Month in Virginia (and by extension, other attempts to glorify or commemorate Confederate treason.) You’re the one changing the subject by moaning nonsensically about “the current Communist President.”
–Likewise, I made a logical point. You’re not doing much to address it.
–did I mention racism? I did not.
–grammar and spelling count. It’s “leg to stand on”, “Tourette’s”, and “whose.”

“the Confederacy was an armed rebellion against the United States. In what possible world is that not treason?”

Apparently, in our world.
The American revolution was an armed rebellion fighting for freedom, but that’s not considered treason. Why? Because the revolutionaries won.
The Confederacy was an armed rebellion fighting for freedom, but some call it treason. Why? Because the Confederates lost.
That IS the ONLY difference.

The American Revolution was by definition not an “armed rebellion against the United States.”

I have no doubt that George III considered the revolution to be treasonous, and he’d be right under British law at the time, particularly the Treason Act of 1351 — which says that anyone levying war against the sovereign’s forces or the country is guilty of high treason.

Similarly, Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says in part that treason shall consist of levying war against the United States. The CSA did that. Therefore, the CSA were treasonous. What part of the logic aren’t you following? I ask my original question again: “the Confederacy was an armed rebellion against the United States. In what possible world is that not treason?”

I have no doubt that the Confederates, if they’d won the war, would not have defined their conduct as treasonous. But they didn’t win the war, did they?

The revolution of course, couldn’t have been am armed rebellion against the U.S., since it didn’t exist yet, at that time, the colonies belonged to England, and they revolted against the government that ruled them for their own freedom.
That is just what the Confederates did.

You mention the constitution having an article against treason, right after stating that British law also had their own “article” against treason.
How can two groups, both fighting for their freedom, both acting against their government’s articles of treason, then say it is different? One has committed treason, and one hasn’t?

You have helped make my point that it is the same thing, but then say it’s different?
So it’s my turn to ask, where is the logic in that?

Your last statement is what it really boils down to, the old saying, “to the victor go the spoils”.
That includes the labeling and the telling of the tales and writing history, but that doesn’t make it an incorrect comparison, it only makes incorrect, what people have come to accept.

Of course the victors absolutely get to label the losers. Read what I said, will you? It doesn’t at all change the fact that the Confederacy committed treason against the United States, and my point is that is why I oppose any commemoration or glorification of the Confederacy now, especially by governmental bodies in the United States.

dbcooper, you seem to be arguing that because we Americans don’t consider the American Revolution treasonous (i.e., we won — and yes, I acknowledge that the British would undoubtedly consider it to be high treason — see also Franklin’s maxim about all “hanging separately”), then therefore the Confederacy wasn’t committing treason. I fail to see your logic. Are you saying that the victors don’t get the spoils? The establishment of a Confederate History Month is inappropriate: not just because of the Confederacy’s stance on slavery, but also because the Confederacy lost.

“Of course the victors get to label the losers”? And that’s supposed to be the end of the discussion?

The logic is quite so painfully simple: I am not arguing because you’re not calling the revolutionaries treasonous, I simply stated that the confederate struggle for freedom was the same as the revolutionaries struggle for freedom, and said the only difference is the confederates lost.
You said before in your previous post, if they hadn’t lost, they wouldn’t be called treasonous, once again, adding to my point – the only reason it’s called “treason” is because they lost.
Your “logic” is what is not understandable. In your own posts, you make points that reinforce what I’ve been saying – then say say I’m wrong. Are you a politician?

And if you want to get started on slavery, I only have one question;
Are you politically correct, or just historically stupid?
What people don’t know about that issue would fill a book, actually, it’s filled a number of books, but I’m sure you wouldn’t really want to know anyway. The north won, the victors get to teach just what they want known, and you’re obviously okay with that. there’s no need to see past that.
Good, you be happy with your narrow little view of things, I’ll be happy not to waste my time anymore.
Besides, you do a better job of making my point for me than I do.

Bye.

Wow, you are remarkably unpleasant to argue with, and I’m not sure why you’re flying off the handle. Was I rude to you? I don’t believe that I was, other than asking you to read what I wrote (if that qualifies as rudeness.) I thought that it was always liberals who are accused of being unreasonably angry, but apparently that’s not the case here. Or are you just a petty little jerk who wouldn’t know real argument if it bit him on the nose?

To go back to the reality-based discussion:
I said: “the Confederacy was an armed rebellion against the United States. In what possible world is that not treason?”

You responded with “Apparently, in our world.
The American revolution was an armed rebellion fighting for freedom, but that’s not considered treason. Why? Because the revolutionaries won.
The Confederacy was an armed rebellion fighting for freedom, but some call it treason. Why? Because the Confederates lost.
That IS the ONLY difference.”

You are correct that I am agreeing with you on the concepts that a.) whether a particular group is depicted as treasonous depends on who is making the characterization; and b.) it’s largely the victors that get to make that characterization. We also agree that George III and contemporary Americans would disagree on the question of whether the American Revolution was a treasonous act

Where we differ, apparently, is on the question of whether the Confederate rebellion was treasonous. (For me, this is an important concept, because it’s the linchpin of whether it’s appropriate or not to declare a Confederate History Month or otherwise glorify or commemorate the Confederacy.) I argued that it was treasonous and that commemoration of the Confederacy is therefore inappropriate. You argued that it wasn’t…and your justification for the Confederate rebellion as NOT being treasonous was — well, I’m not really sure what it was, other than your say-so that it was “incorrect.”

You ask “where is the logic” in my assertion that the Confederacy was treasonous. Since you agreed that a.) the victors get to label the losers as treasonous (or at least have a much greater chance at getting that label to stick), and you presumably agree that b.) the Confederacy was a rebellion in violation of the Constitution’s definition of treason and c.) the Confederacy lost the war….then Q.E.D: the unsuccessful Confederate rebellion can be labeled by the victorious United States as treasonous. I’m a proud citizen of the United States, and I accept the characterization of the Confederacy as treasonous.)

You said “my point – the only reason it’s called ‘treason’ is because they lost.” I’m not sure you’re inaccurate there; the Union won the war. You seem to be arguing tautologies here. I agree with you on some of your assumptions, but I don’t see why you’re arguing that the Confederacy was not treason. We’re living in the country that won that war. What’s your basis for the idea of a non-treasonous Confederacy, and more importantly one that’s worthy of celebration?

And if you want to get started on slavery

See my quotes from the Declarations and Ordinances of Secession from various Confederate states, as well as from the CSA’s Constitution that address that. It was absolutely about slavery, and that’s reflected in those primary sources which I cite.

However, you apparently get your jollies by arguing like a petulant three-year-old. I’m sure that I can dig up some insults and invective if you’d like that better.

The discussion and observation of the Confederacy in the Southern States in nothing to get upset over – it happened and many Americans on both sides were suckered into it. What upsets me, is the actions of the idiot interviewer, Don Lemon, against a black guest that had some interesting insight coming from the Coonfederate side of the discussion. Lemon cut him off constantly, with no credibility except that he read some books in school. His guest had plenty of reference and obviously knew what he was talking about, but Lemon was afraid to let him talk. Don’t forget – the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Southern States – when the blacks from th North tried to inlist – thay were told to get back in the fields. At the same time – Southern Blacks could and did inlist for both sides in their own free will. Some 90,000 black sodiers – both slave and free – fought for the Confederacy. How about let’s celebrate them, or are they terrorists?
This war became another rich man’s war when any Northerner who could afford it was allowed to pay for another man to take his place in the draft. Immigrants were snached and forced to serve in the Union. The Southern engineers of the war were also exempt, if they owned a certian number of slaves and property. We still celebrate President’s day, but Washington and Jefferson owned slaves – are they terrorists?
Don Lemon, let your guests speak – you may learn something you can you can actually refer to besides some books you read once.