April Declared Confederate Heritage Month in Mississippi (Barbour)

[barbaraann]

Special to the Item

As is customary across the South, Gov. Haley Barbour has declared April as "confederate Heritage Month" in Mississippi. In keeping with this important, public recognition of our valiant Confederate ancestors, the Margaret Reed Crosby Memorial Library, the Friends of the Library, and the Gainesville Volunteer (Sons of Confederate Veterans) are featuring a Confederate "Heritage of Honor" display in the library's foyer through April 12, 2004. The public is cordially invited to view the display during regular library hours. In declaring April as Confederate Heritage Month, Gov. Barbour said: "Whereas April is the month in which the Confederate States began and ended a four-year struggle; and, whereas, it is important for all Americans to reflect upon our nation's past, to gain insight from our mistakes and successes, and to come to a full understanding that the lessons learned yesterday and today will carry us through tomorrow if we carefully and earnestly strive to understand and appreciate our heritage and our opportunities which lie before us; now, therefore, I...,

http://www.picayuneitem.com/articles/2004/04/03/people/03library.txt


I picked this up from an FR thread with lots of confederate flag graphics. I wonder when the poor fools will look down and see that that stupid flag doesn't enhance their manhood.

[GOPisEvil]

1. Texas still "celebrates" Confederate Heroes Day.

State offices are open, but state employees can take that day off without pay, or work that day and earn 8 hours of comp. time.

It's January 19th, every year. (No holiday if that date is on a weekend.)

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Isn't that Martin Luther King day?

Just a coincidence, I suppose.

--bkl

[GOPisEvil]

15. Sometimes the dates coincide.

MLK day is the 3rd Monday in January, I believe.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. It's actually MLK's birthday

Again, the coincidence is ... interesting.

I could understand a Texas holiday for Sam Houston. Provided he wasn't a bona-fide jerk (sorry, I know very little about him), that would be quite cool. But a generic "Confederate Heroes Day" on Martin Luther King's birthday? Hmm ...

--bkl

[pfitz59]

48. Sam Houston opposed the Confederacy.....

He was internally exiled....
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/houston.html

[Bandit]

2. Let's all praise those traitorous rebels for a whole month even.

Treason is par for the course with these thugs so who is surprised. Let's celebrate armed insurrection against the USA. :crazy:

[arcane1]

3. ah, let's celebrate taking up arms against Americans

and honor our proud heritage... yea, if only we had not lost the war, we would not be part of America right now, and couldn't call all the librul "un-American" because WE would be the un-American ones instead..

I love confederate "logic". Seems they never grasp just how un-American they really are :evilgrin:

[monobrau]

5. What next, Timothy McViegh day?

How about presidential assasin week?

[arcane1]

7. "Lee/Jackson/King" day is a doozie, too

I've noticed that here on the west coast, it's called "Martin Luther King" day, but in my hometown in VA it's called "Lee/Jackson/King" day

gotta give the racist traitors their own holiday, and on the same day as a minority rights leader :eyes:

am I the only one sick of kissing the confederates' collective ass?

[tom_paine]

13. Those Busheviks LOVE their treason

Perhaps it's whythey've been committing treason so often and with so many different partners (Hitler, Bin Laden, the Viet Cong-Paris 1968, Watergate, Iran-Contra, sell ya' some missles, Mr. Terrorist as long as you hold those hostages until Jan 1981??? Pretty please?)

[arcane1]

18. Saddam and Noriega, too

it's what they do best

[htuttle]

4. A Modest Proposition

I'm thinking of suggesting that Wisconsin institute a new holiday: "Atlanta Burning Day" on November 15th.

In the words of 15th WI Infantry, aka the 'Scandanavian Regiment', commander Oberst Heg, "Don't MAKE us come down there again!"

Nobody thinks that would be too 'divisive' do they? After all, it's only celebrating our great Northern 'heritage'...

[Insider]

10. "don't make us come down there again"

classic. first laff o'the day

[HereSince1628]

27. Well, we Wisconsin blue-bellies, being winners must be modest

even if those other people decide not to be gracious in defeat.

[Redleg]

52. LOL!

Funny stuff- unless yer a confederate sympathizer!

[David__77]

6. I celebrate "President Grant Reconstruction Hero Day"

I celebrate freedom not treason against freedom.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. Agreed!

[Beetwasher]

11. Lovely, the Schedule of Events for the Day

9am: Clean shotguns
10am: Form Angry Mob
11am: Mob Begins hunt for Blacks
12N: Public Lynching
1pm: BBQ and Cross Burning
2pm til ?: Sleep off moonshine stupor

[jobycom]

12. Right, they should have dropped their weapons and cheered

When Republican presidents choose war over diplomacy and law, the nations being invaded should surrender immediately and welcome the invaders into their homes, no matter how many women and children were raped and murdered by the invaders. And the invaded nations should immediately accept the spin of the Republicans, and forever consider their ancestors to be traitors for defying the military-backed will of the invaders.

War is always war, and the spin of Bush and the Republicans now will become the accepted view of history taught to your children, just as the spin of the Republicans in the 1860s became the accepted view of that war. Read Gettysburg-- it says nothing about slavery. Our beliefs now will be relegated to footnotes on dissent and unread dissertations about misguided peace movements, and your children or grandchildren will be taught about how the great Bush-- who will be remembered as patient, virtuous and witty, aka Lincoln-- had the wisdom and leadership to fight for freedom the world over.

[alarimer]

14. personally

I think the response to secession should have been "bye-bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

[Zomby Woof]

16. and allowed slavery to continue?

Although ending slavery was not the first objective (or arguably not even an objective at all) of why the Union fought the Confederacy, it eventually moved front and center by war's end. Had Lincoln not made the preservation of the Union his goal, he could not have made the move to end slavery as he did. Allowing secession would have permitted the southern states to go their own way as you seemingly wish, how responsible is that viewpoint from a humane standpoint? The legacy of Jim Crow and segregation was, and even is, painful enough, but allowing slavery to have continued by sanction of law and custom for generations after the war would make you no better than Barbour and what he celebrates. I know you are better than that, unclouded by emotion.

[jobycom]

22. I'm looking at it the same way I see Iraq

Slavery had ended in most of the rest of the western world by this time, and it was not a solid institution in the South. Without the cotton industry, slavery becomes a financial burden. It would have ended soon enough. The rest of the world was already concerned with the South's atrocity, and would have turned economic pressure on them. Secession would have further alienated the South. Without the industry and consumer base of the North, the South would have been hobbled. The cotton trade dried up anyway because of the War, as the South's customers found substitutes. Once cotton dried up, slaves had to be supported with no real economic benefit.

If the North had tried to settle it in court (they still have never tried the case to see whether secession was legal), used diplomacy to pressure them, had refused to do business with the South, and had pressured other nations to boycott the South, slavery would have ended on just about the same schedule it had. Maybe a little later, but a lot of lives would have been saved.

The North, like Bush now, was faced with a choice of economic inconvenience or of invading and slaughtering hundreds of thousands, and they chose the latter.

Reconstruction: Might it, and the rest of American racial history, have gone smoother if the South had not been beaten into such poverty? You've seen the studies which suggest the link between poverty and scapegoat-segregation. And the South's poverty combined with its racism made it a single issue voting block, so that Woodrow Wilson could get elected by praising the KKK, and Harding could be inducted into the KKK on the White House lawn. The need for the Southern block of states is still a problem, and still causes compromises which should not be considered.

I'm not looking at it through emotion. I grew up being taught the same thing most people here spout (yes, in the South, we were taught that we were the bad guys). But after watching Reagan, Bush and Bush "liberate" other nations, using the same language I'd been taught, and never solving any problems, I no longer believe non-defensive wars can be good. Same rhetoric, same excuses. It always kills, and it never really amounts to much afterwards. Sure, Iraq will one day rebuild and may even become a better place, but anything Bush accomplished with a war he would have done better to try with diplomacy.

I simply can't believe that about Iraq and not about the South in the Civil War.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. "Soon enough" for you perhaps

Not for millions of African-American slaves in the South.

Slavery needed to end as fast as possible. Since the South didn't end it on its own, war was the best option.

[jobycom]

39. Do you feel the same way about ousting Hussein?

It's exactly the same argument Bush and his followers use. Do you believe that Iraqis are less human than the slaves were, that they deserve to be freed from tyranny less? If you support the actions of the North, how can you oppose those of Bush in Iraq? People even on DU have a disconnect between history and current affairs, because they have been taught history as it has been spun by generations of government officials, whereas when it is happening live they can see the difference. War is war, and it is no more noble simply because it has been reduced to statistics and the names of battles.

And you know as well as me that slavery was not the primary spark of that war, so "war was the best option" is just nonsense. The war was an attempt to preserve the Union. I believe that Lincoln saw the war as a way to end slavery, but not everyone did, and Lincoln even told the Southern states they could rejoin the Union and keep slavery, so he was ambiguous on the issue. It wasn't a war to free the slaves. It was a great atrocity that was used for a great good in the end.

As for your arrogant little "Soon enough for you, perhaps" crap, do you think generations of black Americans growing up in the South (and the North) would have chosen another couple of years of slavery in the 1860s in exchange for a century without segregation, lynching, government-enforced cycles of poverty and all the rest of the crap we are still trying to overcome? Because that's what I believe the price of the Civil War was.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Not the same argument at all

Slavery was AMERICAN and occurred in AMERICA. We had an obligation to fix living conditions for all of those in our nation.

We do not have a similar duty for the entire world. That would be unrealistic.

Lincoln only started out ambiguous on slavery. He came around on that point.

Your last point assumes that prolonging slavery would have bettered the lot of African-Americans. That is just pure fantasy. There was only one way to improve our lot and that was a better executed form of Reconstruction. But that asshole Booth killed Lincoln and prevented it.

[jobycom]

53. Not prolonging slavery, but a peaceful transition

First, our "nation" was not as singular as it is now, and was far more defined by the states than by the country. When the Conferacy was formed-- and the legality of that has never been disproven-- it was a different nation. America had thus ended slavery within its borders.

Second, we helped create Hussein, so some see him as our responsibility.

Now, my main point. Once the South seceeded, they could have been embargoed and blockaded into submission without an invasion. The South could not stand on its own, and if the North had used its military to blockade and used diplomacy on other nations to prevent trade with the Confederacy, slavery could have been ended more peacefully. It would have cost the North money, however, and even though the North had reaped the benefits of slavery for generations while not practicing it, they did not want to face the economic burden. In fact, their constant tariffs made the war more inevitable, and made slavery more profitable in the South, by driving up imports prices so that southern business had to minimize costs at a time when ending slavery would have required higher costs, at least short term.

The War was one of money. The North didn't want to spend what it would have taken to end slavery peacefully-- they wanted the South to bear the burden, though the North reaped much profit from the products of slavery. Eventually, both sides quit talking and started fighting.

A more peaceful transition would have preserved the Southern economy to some degree, which would have meant that black and white southerners weren't competing for the same non-existant pot, so that the animosity of poor whites would not have been as great towards poor blacks. It also would have meant that white southerners had not just lost a generation of sons, had not seen their lives go up in smoke, and their cities destroyed, and their wives and daughters raped. Their bitterness at the North, and by extension at the freed slaves, would not have been as extreme. Yes, it would have been better.

And for the record, I do believe Lincoln's heart was always against slavery, I do believe he was a decent fellow, and I do believe that Reconstruction would have been better if he had lived, and I have no problem with the outcome of the war-- meaning I'm not saying the South should have won, or any of that parochial nonsense. My point is anti-war.

War causes dramatic changes, and sometimes those changes can be good, but war does not create the changes. Wars happen during transitions, and sometimes speed transitions, but they always represent changing attitudes, anyway. Peaceful transitions are always preferable, when possible. When you are attacked, peace is not usually possible. But when you are the invader, it always is.

But none of that was what set me off in the first place. It's the south-bashing by self-righteous idiots who have just as filthy a history and try to pretend they don't. If the south shouldn't feel some pride in its own heritage-- while also acknowledging its grievous sins-- then the rest of our nation should not celebrate the Fourth, or any of its holidays celebrating a nation built on the bodies of the people we stole the land from, either. Neither should Christians, for that matter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. I don't bash the South

Heck, I live here.

Yes, the Civil War made our nation more singular. The world wars made it more so.

There is no need to debate the legality of the secession. Lincoln was president and opposed it -- rightly. And the legality was settled on the battlefield.

There is no guarantee an embargo or blockade would have succeeded. All it might have done is given the South the chance to build a mighty war machine and come North.

All wars are about money, territory, beliefs, ideology, etc. The Civil War was no exception.

I think you are fantasizing about a peaceful transition that the South just flat out didn't want.

From what I've read about Lincoln, he knew littel about slaves till he lived in Washington as a congressman. Then he realized how bad the institution was.

I know you are not pro-Confederate. That is obvious. But war did quickly what might have taken decades or even never happened and that is free my people.

[jobycom]

17. Personally

I agree. The South would not have been able to maintain its economy for long without the North's business, especially if Europe began to turn away the cotton business. Within a decade or less the South would have begged to return, and ending slavery would have been a condition of it.

The invasion was not necessary. It was turned to good, but it could have been avoided.

As for the South memorializing the Confederate soldiers who fought for them, why shouldn't they? As Barbour (may he rot in hell) said, it is a good time to remember the mistakes of the Confederacy and of southern heritage, as well as to honor the soldiers.

The Confederacy and its unique southern (white) heritage is a source of humility, as well as pride. It's a time to remember when we were wrong. Humility is good for the soul. The rest of America should be forced to remember its many sins, as well.

[Ripley]

20. I'll never understand why people are so one-sided

on this issue. Do they still really think all white southern men volunteered to fight that war? Do they not understand how many people in the south were against the war, but fought to defend their homes? Why should I erase the history of my relatives because someone else likes using stereotypes to describe all southern white people at that time?

Sheesh, I swore I wouldn't get into another south-bashing thread, but this pisses me off that everyone here seems to give the soldiers in Iraq a free-pass because evil George made them go. But when we talk about Americans defending their homes (like Iraqi's are now) to invading northern armies, we are to defile their memory and call them all traitors. HYPOCRISY.

[jobycom]

23. Nod

I made the same vow, but can't always keep it.

[northzax]

25. war sucks, no doubt about it

and I appreciate that there were many southerners who fought for varying, even noble personal reasons, but that does not excuse the overreaching aim of the rebellion of the southern states. There were many Germans who fought honorably and bravely in world war two, who fought for their country, for patriotism, to defend their fatherland and their heritage, even their homes from foreign invaders. You do not, however, see "nazi heritage day" in Munich. If your ancestors fought and died for their own personal reasons, you should honor them as you see fit, just as I honor my ancestors who died in every major war this country fought between the revolution and Korea. You may honor those individuals who fought for their own reasons, but it is not the place of the state to honor the group that they represent.

The elites who stated the Civil war in the south did so because they lost the political and legal battles as desribed in the consitution they signed on to (in fact that they had, for the most part written) they lost the political influence to continue their oppression of another people, saw the writing on the wall and, instead of dealing with it legally, took up arms against the state. THey lost the game under the rules, and them like a spoiled child tried to take their ball and go home. But they did it with arms. They convinced the populations of their states to take up arms against the consitution of the united states, a document thay MY ancestors, and likely yours, shed blood for. To honor that group is to honor Tim McVeigh, the Weathermen, and every two bit terrorist group that felt frustrated by the political process and. longing for a pastoral "time gone by" takes up arms to prevent change. To honor them is to legitimise Operation Rescue bombing Abortion Clinics (since you can't win within the system, it's ok to go outside it) to honor them is to tell the Jerry Falwells of this world that if they cannot win legally they can take any means neccesary to achieve their goals. To honor the act of failed is to honor the ELFs who burn down houses to prevent 'change' to honor the luddites who would prevent technological change from providing benefit to society.

Look, I'm sure that your ancestors were brave honorable men who did what they thought was the right thing, but history is riddled with brave honorable men who were duped by others into criminality. We have many brave, honorable men and women in Iraq today, and their individual acts are credits or debits to themselves, but it does not forgive the actions of the whole, which history will not look kindly on.

on edit: so is this "south-bashing?" perhaps you could read it that way, but it is reference to history. Yes, I will bash the South as a whole of 1860, a region that celebrated and was dependant on the ownership of human beings. And it will bash the North of the late 1800s, where the near-slavery of workers in factories made people millions and society looked away. There are many things to be critical of in our collective histories, and it's important to note that. But I will not honor those whoe chose to leave a political process that they had full involvement in and resort to violence to achieve their aims. Sure, if the South had been denied voting rights, or treated differently than the rest of the states by the federal government, then rebellion might be the responsible thing to do, but that was not the case. The South had the same rights as everyone else, more, in fact, since there was a large percentage of the population that was included in the census (at 3/5ths of course) that could not ovte, so the vote of one Southerner was worth more than the vote of one Northerner. And they still couldn't win legally, so they resorted to violence. Remember that is what your ancestors, in the grand scheme of things, willingly or not, were fighting for, cheap thugs and bullies who couldn't stand losing fair and square. Honor the individuals, privately, but don't honor the cause.

[CaptAhab]

30. Re: "Personally"

As for the South memorializing the Confederate soldiers who fought for them, why shouldn't they? As Barbour (may he rot in hell) said, it is a good time to remember the mistakes of the Confederacy and of southern heritage, as well as to honor the soldiers.

Um, are you actually familiar with Confederate history? Are you aware that the entire political and philosophical premise of the leaders of the CSA was that black people were inferior to white people? Ever read the Cornerstone Speech, delivered by CSA vice-president Alexander Stevens in Savannah? Below is an excerpt that ought to tell you something about this "heritage" bullshit:


Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man.
...
They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. For the record

The North and South did not truly disagree on the belief that black people were inferior to white people. Where they disagreed is holding us in bondage.

Yes, there were enlightened folks who saw us as equals, but mostly they did not. It took the Civil War and our dying by the thousand for that to begin to occur.

[jobycom]

41. Yes

As a former historian and a Southerner, I'm familiar with southern history, though it was not my specialty.

And I've read the speech you quoted. Woodrow Wilson said much the same thing while he was president while he was reviving the KKK. I suspect presidents and generals made speeches just as abhorant about Native Americans before we slaughtered them. Columbus wrote to his slave traders asking them to capture more women under twelve, because his men were growing tired of the old women they had been getting. Washington owned slaves and raped them, as did Jefferson.

We have a national holiday celebrating Washington, and Columbus. We celebrate Christmas and Easter, even though they represent one of the most atrocious (in the literal sense) religions in world history. America has no moral superiority over anyone.

That does not mean, however, that our entire heritage should be abhorred. That which is good about it should be remembered, celebrated, even honored. In many ways, I'd consider a celebration of Confederate history more sincere than the July 4th celebrations our nation goes through. At least the Southern states have had to admit their atrocities, and their celebrations are always tinged with that awareness.

Most Americans are oblivious to our own atrocities, and because of that, we keep committing them.

[jmcgowanjm]

42. 2 theories-FT Sumter was the stupidest thing the South did

No shots fired and the South would've seceeded quietly,
or been like Quebec.

2. Lincoln was shot because he was going to be benevolent
to the South. The Generals couldn't have that.

And finally, in a coincidence, yesterday I posted that
the current Federal Government would've been a CSA
wet dream. And that the South has been electing
Presidents since LBJ.

And I've been helped countless times by Blacks in the South.
My wife keeps telling me that I wanted to be born
Black.
But I judge each person on their own merits.

[sangh0]

49. The South attacked the North

Confederacy supporters only complain about a lack of diplomacy when it's the other side.

[jobycom]

54. No

The North invaded the South. Even Fort Sumter was in the South, so the troops were invading by even being there. Fort Sumter was just a big fireworks display that could have easily been ignored. There were no casualties to avenge, even. No further attacks had to follow. It's blamed for the start of the War because the North won, and the winner can never describe themselves as starting the war. If the South had won, Bull Runb would be remembered as the first battle. That's just post-war spin, no matter which side you look at.

The North brought the troops to the South. Every battle, including Sumter, but Gettysburg happened in the South. Attempts to describe that as anything other than an invasion is just an emotional reaction. You can argue the invasion was justified. Certainly you can argue the outcome was desirable. But it was an invasion.

[tabasco]

55. Huh?

You seem to forget the South was part of the Union before the insurrection, and remained a part of the Union throughout the war. That might explain why Union troops were in the South. It was an insurrection that the Union had every right to put down. If you think the South had the right to secede from the Union, there is nothing to debate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. Beg to differ

First off, the other poster is entirely right. The South started the shooting war when the North moved to resupply Sumter.

It doesn't matter how many enemy soldiers die. Once you start shooting, you start the war.

And, as for battles, what about battles in Maryland? Maryland had not seceeded. Antietam, Monocacy, and other battles in Maryland all represented the South invading the North.

[northzax]

58. does this mean that I can kill troops at the local army base

as long as they're from another part of the country?

[HFishbine]

59. Umm. What nation

was invaded during the civil war?

[CO Liberal]

19. And Here's One Of Their "Confederate Heritage" Events

[ikojo]

31. At the time the Klan was founded it was primarily

composed of Democrats. The Dems were the party of the Klan. Republicans were seen by many blacks as Lincoln's party and thus had earned their support for many decades, until the time of FDR.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/grant/peopleevents/e_klan.html

At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.

The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.

[CO Liberal]

32. And Now It's Switched

I'm sure that if you polled current Klan members, a majority of them would be Republicans.

[ikojo]

34. That might be true but if we are going to bring up the

history of the civil war then it is important to recall the role the Democratic party played in that history. If that history is not remembered then nothing will have been learned from its mistakes.

Also, from what I have read on the Klan and have listened to on shortwave radio, many of them do not consider themselves Republicans either. They see both parties as being controlled by the corporate elites.

[CO Liberal]

35. But...

...it's assholes like Sean Hannity who constantly try to connect the Klan to the Democratic Party. it's up to us to show them they're full of shit.

[polazarus]

50. Unfortunately

Southern blacks had no power, They were subjected to the black codes and Jim Crowe Laws. I have spoken to many who went through that. One of my friends, in order to go to the doctor he had to wait out back or in a separate waiting room until the doctor was finished with the white patients and then he would get seen. He had to wait for hours on a space available basis. This was 1977!

I am white and I grew up in the south. Even in the the Early 80's I could be walking down the street and a Nice Old Black Gentlemen would get off the side walk and let me pass. When I found out why he did that I felt so bad. After that I would make it a point that when I see an old black person walking down the street I would get out of his way.

What is really ironic is that I have met a lot of racist people from the north like Mass, Maine, Maryland, Penn, New York, while I was in the army. Some of them were so bad that they would not sit at the same table as a black person. Everyone also stereo-typed me because of my accent and would tell me how they really felt about black folks. Oh, we have learned to hide it well.

I do take offense to being called a Klan Member just because I am white with a thick accent. (as most of the southern haters here would call a "slack Jaw") I too take pride in my southern heritage. The food, the lazy days in the summer, the chirp of the locusts before the sun goes down. Sitting on the front porch swing shelling a bushel of Black-eyed peas and waving at neighbors as they pass by. Go for long walks in the country and floating down the river. That is part of being a southerner (did i mention the food!)

The Civil war was a Dark spot in history that will always need to stay in the history books so future generations will learn what not to do and how far we have come.

[polazarus]

44. EVERYONE

Take a close look at the patches on those Robes. Notice how "Similar" it is to the "Independant Trucking Company" logo. I do not let my children wear any clothes with that logo on it. The independent truck logo is the same as the KKK logo.



http://www.independenttrucks.com

[VeniceBeat]

24. South Republicania

is nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

26. Just think, "Northeast Elitists" such as I are attacked for....

critisizing DAS SOUTH!!! :wtf:

"Southern Pride"??? :wtf: :wtf:

There is NOTHING to be PROUD of!!!!

:puke:

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[LeftyChristian]

51. Too Bad

The North was hardly squeaky clean in the Civil War.

http://www.civilwarweb.com/articles/12-99/causes.htm

<snip>
"The majority of those that lived in the North, would, according to today's standards, be considered racists. They had little feelings towards the Negroes and considered them a sub-standard race, and had little feelings toward the issue of slavery either way. This can be exemplified by the fact that Negroes freed from bondage by Union forces were considered to be "contraband property", not free men. In the South, the majority of the populace never owned a slave, nor was it apt to. According to the census of 1860, there was only one Southerner out of ten that owned slaves. Approximately thirty-six percent of those that owned slaves, only had one or two. Yet, prior to 1830, it was the South that led the country in efforts to achieve gradual emancipation or recognize Negroes in Africa."

Please do the research on the Civil War before you make a gut reaction as to who should be proud of what.

Neither side had anything to be proud of for the events that led up to and including the Civil War. Maybe Southerners have the pride that they would not back then and will not today be pushed around by Northeastern elitests.

[moondust]

28. Break out the whips and the nooses.

What a grand old party it will be!

Wouldn't the Republican convention be the appropriate place for this?

[rfkrocks]

33. sometimes i feel if i am asleep-must wake up from NIGHTMARE

wtf! "4 year struggle" for slavery! What year are we in? April should be Lincoln Month all through the South to atone for his murder in that month -

[Joe Momma]

37. the North celebrates...

its heritage of liberation by packing blacks into ghettos and slowly killing them. Southern bashing is getting old.

[tabasco]

47. No, what's getting old is the celebrating the insurrection.

It was a mistake, people. Admit it and let it go.

[goforit]

38. Hell, If they want it so bad then JUST secede! And get the hell out!!!

They worship Slavery and hatred and guns......

then let them live in their own destiny of failure!!!

Sick people!!!

[polazarus]

60. As I recall

There was a such thing as a Salem Witch Hunt. But they did not float so that is ok. Huh. (attempt at humor)

[tabasco]

40. Traitorous, backwards insurrection that killed 700k Americans.

Great thing to commemorate, asshole.

[TheDonkey]

45. Now who is patriotic??? The confederacy were

traitors trying to split this country. But it's ok to still love their bigotted selfish culture... but heavens don't criticize the president nowadays or your an american hating commie.

[tom_paine]

46. Their "valiant" TREASONOUS ancestors.

I strongly dislike traitors. Even more strongly I dislike those who worship Treason and try to gussy it up as Patriotic.

:puke: :puke:

Still, it's a 98% free country...

[Rowdyboy]

61. If you asked 1000 people on the streets of Jackson Mississippi

when is Confederate Heritage Month, NOT A SINGLE ONE would have ever heard of it. I've lived in Mississippi for the last 50 years and I've never heard of CHM, nor of the governor's recent proclamation. There was no local media coverage, no coverage at all-except on DU.

Anything to poke a sharp stick into Mississippi's eye. Maybe we deserve it sometimes but this is really ridiculous.

BTW, the only white hooded klansman I've ever seen in my life was when they held a rally in Indiana some years ago. Go figure?

[saigon68]

63. only white hooded klansman in Indiana

This was in my home State of Wisconsin. The South isn't the only place that did this.

the Logo

"MEET US AT THE FIERY CROSS" I wonder how many ministers were there?

[Piperay]

62. Un-American and

un-patriotic to have a whole month dedicated to traitors. :mad: