NationStates Jolt Archive

Georgia is considering setting aside April as "Confederate history month".

Sen. Jeff Mullis' bill would dub April as Confederate History and Heritage Month to honor the memory of the Confederacy and "all those millions of its citizens of various races and ethnic groups and religions who contributed in sundry and myriad ways to the cause of Southern Independence."

So basically they're celebrating the efforts of people to abandon the USA. Nice. Real patriotic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17637260/

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

I fail to see the problem. What the fuck do you do during "X month"? Jack shit. Maybe color some pictures. They could recognize April as "Drug addicted Hippy Month" for all I care, school children would just end up coloring mushrooms and thinking the month had to do with Smurfs.

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

Because that would be pointless, offensive, and rude.

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

War Between the States, thank you. :p

Georgia is considering setting aside April as "Confederate history month".



So basically they're celebrating the efforts of people to abandon the USA. Nice. Real patriotic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17637260/

A whole freaking month?!?

The Confederacy existed between Feb, 1861 and April 1865! Do those measley four years deserve a whole freaking month?!?

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

Because, there are plenty of rednecks in the north and so we would be offending our redneck population. Let us not sunder the ties that bind this great nation, this great people, together!

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20041028southernman.gif

Also:

Sen. Jeff Mullis' bill would dub April as Confederate History and Heritage Month to honor the memory of the Confederacy and "all those millions of its citizens of various races and ethnic groups and religions who contributed in sundry and myriad ways to the cause of Southern Independence."
LOL

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

Because it'd be over by the time we finish saying the name.

I fail to see the problem. What the fuck do you do during "X month"? Jack shit. Maybe color some pictures. They could recognize April as "Drug addicted Hippy Month" for all I care, school children would just end up coloring mushrooms and thinking the month had to do with Smurfs.

With enough mushrooms it would be about the Smurfs...




You know what's great is in like two weeks this thread is going to resurface and that little check is going to be there and I'll be all, "What the fuck did I post in there?" and have to search the whole thread (because I'll never start on the front page) to see it was something off topic. It's like the universe's revenge...

I fail to see the problem. What the fuck do you do during "X month"? Jack shit. Maybe color some pictures. They could recognize April as "Drug addicted Hippy Month" for all I care, school children would just end up coloring mushrooms and thinking the month had to do with Smurfs.

Naw..I don't think school children nowadays know who the smurfs are.:p

Older people would know what Confederate History Month means. It is un-patriotic to want to celebrate those times.

It is also like a slap in the face when this decision days after lawmakers planned to ask for a public apology for their role in slavery.

I"m all in favor in remembering history and the South should remember its past so that the mistakes made there are never repeated again. To dedicate a month to it though is a tad over the top. I say make it a week.

Because, there are plenty of rednecks in the north and so we would be offending our redneck population. Let us not sunder the ties that bind this great nation, this great people, together!

One's in the Whitehouse! :p

It is also like a slap in the face when this decision days after lawmakers planned to ask for a public apology for their role in slavery.
As pointless as both actions are, at least a real argument can be made for Confederate History Month.

well it sounds more fun than black history month and holocaust memorial day put together :p

Though I think you should have a British imperialism month with free tea and (English) Biscuits for all!

well it sounds more fun than black history month and holocaust memorial day put together :p

Though I think you should have a British imperialism month with free tea and (English) Biscuits for all!

How about we put gravy on the biscuits and combine British imperialism month with a celebration of Southern culture? Two birds, one stone.

The South will come again[/apu]

I"m all in favor in remembering history and the South should remember its past so that the mistakes made there are never repeated again. To dedicate a month to it though is a tad over the top. I say make it a week.

Remember? They're celebrating it.

How about we put gravy on the biscuits and combine British imperialism month with a celebration of Southern culture? Two birds, one stone.

the adding of gravy to hobnobs is an atrocity of epic proportions...

Maybe we could put moonshine in the tea and have cotton picking classes :)

Remember? They're celebrating it.

Best four years of their history. Except for all the killing of course. :p

Remember? They're celebrating it.

Let him. Its part of their history. I'm not going to deny them their right to do so.

You guys remember when we could be racist and hate colored folks without any hassle? Yeah let's make a month dedicated to those times.

They have a right to celebrate their history, but so do Neo Nazis.

War Between the States, thank you. :p
War of Northern Aggression.

So basically they're celebrating the efforts of people to abandon the USA. Nice. Real patriotic.
So you're annoyed they define hemsevles as Georgians (or even southerners) rather than just Americans?

What difference does it make? I find I disagree with a lot of traditional "Canadian" positions, but out in Western Canada the culture more closely matches what I prefer, so I'm more often an Albertan or Westerner than I am a Canadian.

What's wrong with that?

So you're annoyed they define hemsevles as Georgians (or even southerners) rather than just Americans?

What difference does it make? I find I disagree with a lot of traditional "Canadian" positions, but out in Western Canada the culture more closely matches what I prefer, so I'm more often an Albertan or Westerner than I am a Canadian.

What's wrong with that?


Nothing's wrong with being proud of your state. What's wrong is celebrating the attempt to violently secede from the USA in order to keep slaves.

The South will come again[/apu]

The south never left. That was the whole point of the war.

Nothing's wrong with being proud of your state. What's wrong is celebrating the attempt to violently secede from the USA in order to keep slaves.
But when the federal government robs your state of its (perceived) culture and economic basis, they decided to fight back against tyranny.

Preventing them from celebrating that strikes me as a continuation of that saame tyranny.

well it sounds more fun than black history month and holocaust memorial day put together :p

Though I think you should have a British imperialism month with free tea and (English) Biscuits for all!

Only if we get an Irish Freedom Fighting Month with free alcohol and (Irish) stew... And a distinct lack of potatoes...

So basically they're celebrating the efforts of people to abandon the USA. Nice. Real patriotic. What's unpatriotic in abandoning the USA? If you feel that your patria is not the US but the CS, then it's just as patriotic.

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

I didn't think anyone bothered calling a war one of independencew if noone actually got independence out of it, like calling one the war of beer and jelly if there was non of said beer and jelly.

I fail to see the problem. What the fuck do you do during "X month"? Jack shit. Maybe color some pictures. They could recognize April as "Drug addicted Hippy Month" for all I care, school children would just end up coloring mushrooms and thinking the month had to do with Smurfs.

Kids these days dont know what a Smurf is.
I think theyve got Wiggles now or something. I stopped keeping track when I hit 7th grade :P

Good point though. The only thing I ever saw our local High School do during the 'Whatever History Months' was put up a few posters about "So and so did this". Oh, and Channel 1 ran a badly done and rather innaccurate biography of some famous person.

But when the federal government robs your state of its (perceived) culture and economic basis, they decided to fight back against tyranny.

Preventing them from celebrating that strikes me as a continuation of that saame tyranny.

Nobody can keep them from celebrating that. My personal opinion is that it's unpatriotic to celebrate it.

But when the federal government robs your state of its (perceived) culture and economic basis, they decided to fight back against tyranny.

Except that Lincoln did not fully care if slavery existed or not. "If I can save the union without freeing a single slave, I will...."

Seems to me all he wanted was to preserve the Union. It was the Confederacy that fired the first shots that started the Civil War.

Nobody can keep them from celebrating that. My personal opinion is that it's unpatriotic to celebrate it.
Right, because its so anti-American to defend states' rights.

Right, because its so anti-American to defend states' rights.

It's real patriotic to celebrate an armed revolt against your government. It's almost as good as celebrating 9/11.

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

I thought they called it "The War of Northern Aggression".

Except that Lincoln did not fully care if slavery existed or not. "If I can save the union without freeing a single slave, I will...."

Seems to me all he wanted was to preserve the Union. It was the Confederacy that fired the first shots that started the Civil War.
The south seceded because they saw that the Union was abandoning the values their culture held dear. Lincoln's election was the ultimate demonstration that the US majority did not value the same principles the south valued, so they decided to go their own way.

And good for them. Rather than beat their heads against the brick wall of democracy, they got out.

Because, there are plenty of rednecks in the north and so we would be offending our redneck population. Let us not sunder the ties that bind this great nation, this great people, together!

DON'T SULLY THE MULLET!

I thought they called it "The War of Northern Aggression".

WHich is funny since the South started it :D

One's in the Whitehouse! :p

Now now. In defense of the rednecks, he is a wannaberedneck. He was born in Connecticut.

;)

War of Northern Aggression.

For you, sir (http://limewoody.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg).

The south seceded because they saw that the Union was abandoning the values their culture held dear. Lincoln's election was the ultimate demonstration that the US majority did not value the same principles the south valued, so they decided to go their own way.

It did not help that the Democratic Party was split between like 4 different candidates. It was that split that opened the door for Lincoln's election. South Carolina split from the Union months before Lincoln ever took office.

Damn James Buchanan. SOrry excuse for a president.

It did not help that the Democratic Party was split between like 4 different candidates. It was that split that opened the door for Lincoln's election. South Carolina split from the Union months before Lincoln ever took office.

Damn James Buchanan. SOrry excuse for a president.

Bolded part QFT.

It did not help that the Democratic Party was split between like 4 different candidates. It was that split that opened the door for Lincoln's election. South Carolina split from the Union months before Lincoln ever took office.
Most of the confederate states seceded between Lincoln's election and Lincoln's inauguration.

WHich is funny since the South started it :D
You think the north was just going to let the south go without any shooting?

If not, it doesn't really matter who fired the first shots.

"all those millions of its citizens of various races and ethnic groups and religions who contributed in sundry and myriad ways to the cause of Southern Independence."

I think this is a reference to the Cherokee Indians, who joined with the Southern cause after witnessing the Federal Government gleefully murder and subjugate other Indians for the politically active settlers and railroads.

Most of the confederate states seceded between Lincoln's election and Lincoln's inauguration.

You are indeed correct. James Buchanan did nothing to prevent this. That is why people lable him the worst president of the United States.

You think the north was just going to let the south go without any shooting?

If not, it doesn't really matter who fired the first shots.

It does if you are going to call the war "The War of Northern Agression". The North did not start it. It was after Fort Sumter that Lincoln called for tens of thousands of troops.

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

We should do that.

Fort Sumter was in a confederate state. Trying to remove the military of a foreign power from your own territory is hardly aggression.

Sure, Lincoln said he had no plans to invade, but his insistence on holding federal propery (like Fort Sumter) was effectively the same thing. I won't invade, but I will have troops actively hold your territory. The only difference is in when the border gets crossed.

Georgia is considering setting aside April as "Confederate history month".



So basically they're celebrating the efforts of people to abandon the USA. Nice. Real patriotic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17637260/

Well, the governor considered it. Whatdaya expect from a guy who's parents were so creative they named him Sonny?

It does if you are going to call the war "The War of Northern Agression". The North did not start it. It was after Fort Sumter that Lincoln called for tens of thousands of troops.

For once I agree with you. You can hardly say that it's a war of the other side's aggression if you fired the first shots. The south fucked up even the slightest chance for a peaceful resolution when they attacked the fort. Yeah, it's all fun and games, just playing soldiers, a real great time, until Sherman's burning down your state.

War of Northern Aggression.

War of Southern Treason / Traitors' Revolt


They should commemorate it with a week where the first three days celebrate the three biggest confederate losses, the second three days the three best generals of the US army, and the seventh day should be devoted to burning confederate flags.

You are indeed correct. James Buchanan did nothing to prevent this. That is why people lable him the worst president of the United States.

Are you sure it was Buchanan at that point?

Fort Sumter was in a confederate state. Trying to remove the military of a foreign power from your own territory is hardly aggression.

An unarmed post. It had no weapons. It could not fight back. It was relatively defenseless. Lincoln did not want a war but when Sumter was fired upon, it was no holds bar.

War of Southern Treason / Traitors' Revolt


They should commemorate it with a week where the first three days celebrate the three biggest confederate losses, the second three days the three best generals of the US army, and the seventh day should be devoted to burning confederate flags.

Sounds like fun. If southerners are going to insist on calling it "War of Northern Aggression," I will insist on calling it "The War of Southern Treason." Thanks for the suggestion.

For once I agree with you. You can hardly say that it's a war of the other side's aggression if you fired the first shots. The south fucked up even the slightest chance for a peaceful resolution when they attacked the fort. Yeah, it's all fun and games, just playing soldiers, a real great time, until Sherman's burning down your state.

If the Confederates could have held on to Atlanta till after election day, we could very well be two different nations today. Atlanta's fall sealed the fate of the Confederates.

Fort Sumter was in a confederate state. Trying to remove the military of a foreign power from your own territory is hardly aggression.

Sure, Lincoln said he had no plans to invade, but his insistence on holding federal propery (like Fort Sumter) was effectively the same thing. I won't invade, but I will have troops actively hold your territory. The only difference is in when the border gets crossed.

Yes it was a Federal Fort so why would he want to hold on to it?

It could be he was looking for an excuse and Beauregard was dumb enough to give it to him.

If the Confederates could have held on to Atlanta till after election day, we could very well be two different nations today. Atlanta's fall sealed the fate of the Confederates.

We would be fifty different nations, if states left every time they didn't like the outcome of a presidential election.

Are you sure it was Buchanan at that point?

South Carolina seceded from the union in 1860.

South Carolina seceded from the union in 1860.

Well, yeah, I know it wasn't Lincoln yet, but I can never remember the couple presidents before him.

We would be fifty different nations, if states left every time they didn't like the outcome of a presidential election.

Won't argue there. During 1812, the Northeastern US nearly seceded from the Union.

We would be fifty different nations, if states left every time they didn't like the outcome of a presidential election.

More then 50. For example, I can see California splitting over water issues.

More then 50. For example, I can see California splitting over water issues.

Actually, yeah, California would split nearly instantly, probably into the traditional northern/southern parts. And yes, probably over water. And I'd be all for it.

And they're the ones who cry anti-patriotism against everyone else...

(pic)nvm...Rhaomi got it. :(

An unarmed post. It had no weapons. It could not fight back. It was relatively defenseless. Lincoln did not want a war but when Sumter was fired upon, it was no holds bar.
And it wasn't garrisoned at the time of secession. The union moved troops into Fort Sumter AFTER South Carolina seceded.

Let's go over this:

1. Fort Sumter sits vacant.
2. South Carolina secedes.
3. The Union moves a garrison into Fort Sumter

Who started this fight, do you think?

And it wasn't garrisoned at the time of secession. The union moved troops into Fort Sumter AFTER South Carolina seceded.

Let's go over this:

1. Fort Sumter sits vacant.

First off, it'll help if you had your history right. The fort was not vacant by any stretches. It had soldiers there Llwedor.

2. South Carolina secedes.

Who started this fight, do you think?

The south did when they fired upon the Fort. First rule of seceding is that you make the other guy fire first. They didn't. They fired the first shot and the war began.

As a southerner from the first state to suceed I'll add my $.02

1. "War of Southern Treason / Traitors' Revolt"
Does that mean the first war is "The War of American Treason?"
Does the United Kingdom have a holiday devoted to bruning American flags?
Does the United Kingdom celebrate The Battle of Charleston?

2. I feel many people do not truly understand what is being remembered here. Its not just a war, a lifestyle or anything else, its the end of an era. That doesnt make me proud to have relatives that owned slaves, but it does make me proud to have relatives who fought for what they beleived in, even if it wasnt my beliefs.

The south did when they fired upon the Fort. First rule of seceding is that you make the other guy fire first. They didn't. They fired the first shot and the war began.
Fired by Edwin Ruffin of Virginia. So VIRGINIA started it all:p .

2. I feel many people do not truly understand what is being remembered here. Its not just a war, a lifestyle or anything else, its the end of an era. That doesnt make me proud to have relatives that owned slaves, but it does make me proud to have relatives who fought for what they beleived in, even if it wasnt my beliefs.

That is indeed what they are remembering. THanks for bringing it to light in a non-threatening manner :)

2. I feel many people do not truly understand what is being remembered here. Its not just a war, a lifestyle or anything else, its the end of an era. That doesnt make me proud to have relatives that owned slaves, but it does make me proud to have relatives who fought for what they beleived in, even if it wasnt my beliefs.

I'm sure people in Germany are proud to have their parents and grandparents serve in WWII.

Fired by Edwin Ruffin of Georgia. So GEORGIA started it all:p .

" Edmund Ruffin, a soldier and secessionist from Virginia, " (wikipedia)

That is indeed what they are remembering. THanks for bringing it to light in a non-threatening manner :)
Oh you would bring that back up
*Okie gets a torch

Oh you would bring that back up
*Okie gets a torch

*grabs the civil war modern rifle*

I'm sure people in Germany are proud to have their parents and grandparents serve in WWII.
As are Japanese

War Between the States, thank you. :p

The version I'd heard was "The War of Northern Aggression":rolleyes:

You know what really started the Civil War? Some guy yelled "BOOM! HEADSHOT!" and everyone just figured someone had fired and took someone down so both sides just opened fire.

:p

And it wasn't garrisoned at the time of secession. The union moved troops into Fort Sumter AFTER South Carolina seceded.

Let's go over this:

1. Fort Sumter sits vacant.
2. South Carolina secedes.
3. The Union moves a garrison into Fort Sumter

Who started this fight, do you think?

"The Union" did no such thing. The commander in charge of the federal garrison at nearby Fort Moultrie was worried about possible Confederate attack, so he moved his men to Fort Sumter, which was a much safer position and in better shape than Fort Moultrie.

It was also far from a full garrison, not really much of a threat. Fort Sumter "was designed to house 650 men and 135 guns in three tiers of gun emplacements, although it was never filled near capacity."

Major Robert Anderson's force numbered "85 men, 13 of them musicians." They were already there, just at a different fort in the harbor. Sorry, but they wren't "sent" down from the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

*grabs the civil war modern rifle*
ZOMG THREAT THREAT
*Okie hides under Fris and Kat

Georgia is considering setting aside April as "Confederate history month".



So basically they're celebrating the efforts of people to abandon the USA. Nice. Real patriotic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17637260/
So the state I was born in is once again acting like a bunch of hypocritical idiots. What a fucking shock.

Frankly, I never liked you Georgia. You are too humid, too hot, too full of racist bigots and my relatives, who are also racist bigots, and far too damned annoying for me to ever like you.

So the state I was born in is once again acting like a bunch of hypocritical idiots. What a fucking shock.

Frankly, I never liked you Georgia. You are too humid, too hot, too full of racist bigots and my relatives, who are also racist bigots, and far too damned annoying for me to ever like you.


.....hug?

So the state I was born in is once again acting like a bunch of hypocritical idiots. What a fucking shock.

Frankly, I never liked you Georgia. You are too humid, too hot, too full of racist bigots and my relatives, who are also racist bigots, and far too damned annoying for me to ever like you.
That was angry wasnt it. Do you have family issues? I mean seriously that was a hard rant:confused: .

Someone over there didn't hear that the South lost that war. Why celebrate a boondoggle?

.....hug?
Anytime. I like hugs.
That was angry wasnt it. Do you have family issues? I mean seriously that was a hard rant:confused: .
No, I don't have family issues per se. I just don't like my southern relatives, which often bugs my mother since they're all her relatives. She's the youngest of six, and she's almost fifty, so you can imagine how many relatives from her side I might have.

On the other side I have all of one Aunt, whom I love, and who lives just down in Denver to boot.

But, anyway, as I said, no real family issues. I just don't like them and I've always hated visiting Georgia. Luckily when my family goes to visit them this summer I'm not joining them.

Someone over there didn't hear that the South lost that war. Why celebrate a boondoggle?

I think you people overestimate "whatever months."

Fort Sumter was in a confederate state. Trying to remove the military of a foreign power from your own territory is hardly aggression.Considering that the United States government either owned or leased the land, that's a question of international law, and a position that you might want to reconsider if Cuba decides to really press the issue of Guantanamo Bay...

And it wasn't garrisoned at the time of secession. The union moved troops into Fort Sumter AFTER South Carolina seceded.

Let's go over this:

1. Fort Sumter sits vacant.
2. South Carolina secedes.
3. The Union moves a garrison into Fort SumterLet's go over this... in more detail.

1. South Carolina secedes, and Major Robert Anderson realizes he's sitting in the completely indefensible Fort Moultrie. For safety's sake, he moves his troops to Fort Sumter.

2. The Union does nothing aggressive, but they do want to continue supplying the Fort while they seek a peaceful resolution.

3. Southern forces repulse supply ships to Fort Sumter.

4. Lincoln attempts to send more supplies, and notifies South Carolina in advance in order to avoid hostilities.

5. South Carolina ignores him and asks for the immediate surrender of the Fort.

6. Anderson offers to surrender, but only after his supplies run out. Basically, he's just taking a "dignified" out for a military commander--you don't just throw down your guns, but you admit that when you have no food, there's no point hanging around.

7. Confederate troops open fire.

Georgia is considering setting aside April as "Confederate history month".



So basically they're celebrating the efforts of people to abandon the USA. Nice. Real patriotic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17637260/

You may not agree with it, but it's still American History.
At least, that's how it was taught in my high school.

War Between the States, thank you. :p

I prefer the more genteel, "Late Great Unpleasantness." ;)

You may not agree with it, but it's still American History.Being American history does not, alone, make something worthy of positive commemoration.

Should we have "Native American Genocide Month" while we're at it? That's American history, too.

Being American history does not, alone, make something worthy of positive commemoration.

Should we have "Native American Genocide Month" while we're at it? That's American history, too.

Actually, why not? I wouldn't put it in quite those terms, but yes, people should be very aware of what was done to the aboriginal peoples who had their land stolen from them.

So the state I was born in is once again acting like a bunch of hypocritical idiots. What a fucking shock.

Frankly, I never liked you Georgia. You are too humid, too hot, too full of racist bigots and my relatives, who are also racist bigots, and far too damned annoying for me to ever like you.

I'm here too! That makes it better, right? =)

Actually, why not? I wouldn't put it in quite those terms, but yes, people should be very aware of what was done to the aboriginal peoples who had their land stolen from them.Yes, people should be aware.

But does "awareness" require commemoration? No. Should we honor the soldiers who died invading Native American land? No. Should we erect monuments to the generals who massacred Native villages? I think not.

Should we honor the soldiers who died fighting to preserve a social and economic system that was itself little better than genocide? I think the answer is obvious.

If you want to have "Slavery Month" in which we reflect on the atrocities of the period, be my guest. But don't try to sell me on the honorable memory of the Confederate war effort. It makes me sick.

(By the way, since we're sharing, I'm originally from Virginia.) ;)

Yes, people should be aware.

But does "awareness" require commemoration? No. Should we honor the soldiers who died invading Native American land? No. Should we erect monuments to the generals who massacred Native villages? I think not.

Should we honor the soldiers who died fighting to preserve a social and economic system that was itself little better than genocide? I think the answer is obvious.

If you want to have "Slavery Month" in which we reflect on the atrocities of the period, be my guest. But don't try to sell me on the honorable memory of the Confederate war effort. It makes me sick.

(By the way, since we're sharing, I'm originally from Virginia.) ;)

Funny, they didn't say "Slavery Month", they said "Confederate History Month". Perhaps people are so convinced that there is NOTHING positive to commemorate because it's been painted as white hat/black hat simple?

(By the way, I'm from New York).

Yes, people should be aware.

But does "awareness" require commemoration? No. Should we honor the soldiers who died invading Native American land? No. Should we erect monuments to the generals who massacred Native villages? I think not.

Should we honor the soldiers who died fighting to preserve a social and economic system that was itself little better than genocide? I think the answer is obvious.

If you want to have "Slavery Month" in which we reflect on the atrocities of the period, be my guest. But don't try to sell me on the honorable memory of the Confederate war effort. It makes me sick.

(By the way, since we're sharing, I'm originally from Virginia.) ;)
Which is obviously why we should have Confederate History Month. There is so much incorrect bullshit from the rednecks and from the omg-those-are-rednecks crowds that who knows the actual facts.

Funny, they didn't say "Slavery Month", they said "Confederate History Month". Perhaps people are so convinced that there is NOTHING positive to commemorate because it's been painted as white hat/black hat simple?

(By the way, I'm from New York).

In my opinion? No, no there is not, there is nothing positive about confederacy, or at least, nothing positive that is unique to it and not shared buy the rest of our national history.

The Confederacy did nothing to deserve commemoration. It should be remembered only as a lesson of things never to happen again.

Which is obviously why we should have Confederate History Month. There is so much incorrect bullshit from the rednecks and from the omg-those-are-rednecks crowds that who knows the actual facts.If what we're interested in are the facts, and awareness about the facts, then why not "Civil War History Month"?

"Confederate" History Month certainly seems to commemorate positively the confederate war effort. Indeed, the legislator quoted earlier in this thread says precisely that.

So don't pretend this is an ideologically neutral commentary on "history." It is, very explicitly, a commemoration of the Confederacy.

If what we're interested in are the facts, and awareness about the facts, then why not "Civil War History Month"?

"Confederate" History Month certainly seems to commemorate positively the confederate war effort. Indeed, the legislator quoted earlier in this thread says precisely that.

So don't pretend this is an ideologically neutral commentary on "history." It is, very explicitly, a commemoration of the Confederacy.
So? It was still history, especially for the south and should be recognized as history.

Why would anyone celebrate something that brought us the death of Captain America?

So? It was still history, especially for the south and should be recognized as history.Yes. As history. Indeed, as a very negative history.

The argument here is about a campaign to positively recollect the Confederate war effort. I have no problem with simply remembering the history of the Civil War.

I'm here too! That makes it better, right? =)

Ehh...yes...yes it does.

Let's go over this... in more detail.

1. South Carolina secedes, and Major Robert Anderson realizes he's sitting in the completely indefensible Fort Moultrie. For safety's sake, he moves his troops to Fort Sumter.

2. The Union does nothing aggressive, but they do want to continue supplying the Fort while they seek a peaceful resolution.

3. Southern forces repulse supply ships to Fort Sumter.

4. Lincoln attempts to send more supplies, and notifies SOUTH Carolina in advance in order to avoid hostilities.

5. SOUTH Carolina ignores him and asks for the immediate surrender of the Fort.

6. Anderson offers to surrender, but only after his supplies run out. Basically, he's just taking a "dignified" out for a military commander--you don't just throw down your guns, but you admit that when you have no food, there's no point hanging around.

7. Confederate troops open fire.

Fixed for accuracy. :)

Fixed for accuracy. :)Thanks. :p

Must have been some sort of Freudian slip due to my thinking about another conversation with a friend from North Carolina.

Why would anyone celebrate something that brought us the death of Captain America?

Heh, heh.

"The Union" did no such thing. The commander in charge of the federal garrison at nearby Fort Moultrie was worried about possible Confederate attack, so he moved his men to Fort Sumter, which was a much safer position and in better shape than Fort Moultrie.

It was also far from a full garrison, not really much of a threat. Fort Sumter "was designed to house 650 men and 135 guns in three tiers of gun emplacements, although it was never filled near capacity."

Major Robert Anderson's force numbered "85 men, 13 of them musicians." They were already there, just at a different fort in the harbor. Sorry, but they wren't "sent" down from the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
I didn't say they were sent. I said the Union moved troops into the Fort.

And they did. Major Robert Anderston was an agent of the Union.

Let's go over this... in more detail.

1. South Carolina secedes, and Major Robert Anderson realizes he's sitting in the completely indefensible Fort Moultrie. For safety's sake, he moves his troops to Fort Sumter.
Right. After secession, the Union moved troops into Fort Sumter.
2. The Union does nothing aggressive, but they do want to continue supplying the Fort while they seek a peaceful resolution.
A delaying tactic.
3. Southern forces repulse supply ships to Fort Sumter.
Smart.
4. Lincoln attempts to send more supplies, and notifies South Carolina in advance in order to avoid hostilities.
Posturing.
5. South Carolina ignores him and asks for the immediate surrender of the Fort.
Smart.
6. Anderson offers to surrender, but only after his supplies run out. Basically, he's just taking a "dignified" out for a military commander--you don't just throw down your guns, but you admit that when you have no food, there's no point hanging around.
Another delaying tactic.
7. Confederate troops open fire.
Necessary. They'd given the Union an ultimatum; South Carolina needed to carry out their threat to maintain credibility.

The South gave the Union every opportunity to surrender that fort peacefully, a fort that the Union had occupied AFTER secession. The Union forced the South's hand.

The South gave the Union every opportunity to surrender that fort peacefully, a fort that the Union had occupied AFTER secession. The Union forced the South's hand.

A fort that the Union owned. This was no different than a mugging.

I didn't say they were sent. I said the Union moved troops into the Fort.

And they did. Major Robert Anderston was an agent of the Union.

Moving from one Union fort to another Union fort. From an indefensible position to a defensible one. That my friend is not an act of war.

Right. After secession, the Union moved troops into Fort Sumter.

Which was still a Union fort and owned by the Union.

A delaying tactic.

Prove it!

Smart.

For whom? Repulsing ships belonging to the United States trying to supply one of its own forts is an act of agression. So was it smart or fool hardy?

Posturing.

Really? Or was it diplomacy? He gave full notice on what was happening and that is prescribed. He did the right thing by notifying South Carolina of what he was doing. So tell me how was it posturing?

Smart.

Stupid actually.

Another delaying tactic.

Again, prove it.

Necessary.

And look what happened to South Carolina. It got burned.

They'd given the Union an ultimatum; South Carolina needed to carry out their threat to maintain credibility.

And they did not even attempt negotiations. They gave a demand that was really unacceptable and instead of negotiating, opened fire on the fort thus sparking the Civil War.

The South gave the Union every opportunity to surrender that fort peacefully, a fort that the Union had occupied AFTER secession. The Union forced the South's hand.

A fort that still belonged to the Union. They issued an ultimatum without full course of diplomacy of negotiation and fired unprovokedly. You sir, really need to understand the finer points of how International Law deals with such things.

Right. After secession, the Union moved troops into Fort Sumter.

The forts were under the command of the Major. He acted within his rights and rather wisely at that.

The South gave the Union every opportunity to surrender that fort peacefully, a fort that the Union had occupied AFTER secession. The Union forced the South's hand.

They were stupid. Anderson was no threat to Charleston.

You might want to read up on the affair a tad more:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?

A) Because Americans spell and pronounce it "ass."
B) I'm pretty sure they call it the War of Northern Aggression. Though they may have changed it because these days they think that unbridled aggression is a good thing.

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?
Becuase last time I checked it wasnt as ass kicking, as the Union lost far more soldiers than the Confederacy. The Union won by taking the war to the Southern people but it was by no means an ass kicking.

Why doesn't the North just implement a national "We Kicked Your Arses And You Lost The War Rednecks - Oh, And By The Way It's Not 'The Southern War Of Independence' It's 'The American Civil War'" Month?
Becuase last time I checked it wasnt as ass kicking, as the Union lost far more soldiers than the Confederacy. The Union won by taking the war to the Southern people but it was by no means an ass kicking.

Hello!

Let me introduce you to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm)

I will reserve my opinion of the Confederacy until the South rises again.

Don't hold your breath for my opinion, in other words.

:D

Has anyone else noticed that main defender of the CSA in thread is a Canadian?

Has anyone else noticed that main defender of the CSA in thread is a Canadian?

Indeed.

He is also a libertarian and they can't help themselves when they think its against the ebil government!

Indeed.

He is also a libertarian and they can't help themselves when they think its against the ebil government!

I wonder how he'd feel if someone from the US defended Quebec Separatists? Same difference, n'est-il pas?

Has anyone else noticed that main defender of the CSA in thread is a Canadian?

I have noticed that.

Indeed.

He is also a libertarian and they can't help themselves when they think its against the ebil government!

I am libertarian (be it a bit more on the moderate side) and you do not see me defending the south...