Virginia’s McDonnell Declares Confederate History Month

confederate-capital-markerMy governor has opened up an old wound, declaring April Confederate History Month.

Anita Kumar and Rosalind S. Helderman seem to have broken the story for WaPo’s Virginia Politics Blog:

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has quietly declared April 2010 Confederate History Month, bringing back a designation in Virginia that his two Democratic predecessors — Mark Warner and Tim Kaine — refused to do.

Republican governors George Allen and Jim Gilmore issued similar proclamations. But in 2002, Warner broke with their action, calling such proclamations, a “lightning rod” that does not help bridge divisions between whites and blacks in Virginia.

This year’s proclamation was requested by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A representative of the group said the group has known since it interviewed McDonnell when he was running for attorney general in 2005 that he was likely to respond differently than Warner or Kaine.

[…]

“As I read it, this proclamation is more designed to get people to study the issue rather than simply being a tribute,” he said. “We would like everyone in the state to honor the sacrifice of the brave men who went out and died in battle. At the very least, we’d like them to study why they went out and did it. And I think the proclamation could be construed either way.”

The expand upon their report for the legacy edition:

McDonnell left out anti-slavery language that Allen’s successor, James S. Gilmore III (R), had included in his proclamation.

McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because “there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.”

The proclamation was condemned by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it “mind-boggling to say the least” that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia’s struggle with civil rights in his proclamation. Though a Democrat, Wilder has been supportive of McDonnell and boosted his election efforts when he declined to endorse the Republican’s opponent, R. Creigh Deeds.

[…]

McDonnell had quietly made the proclamation Friday by placing it on his Web site, but it did not attract attention in the state capital until Tuesday. April also honors child abuse prevention, organ donations, financial literacy and crime victims.

Matt Yglesias titles his post on the subject “McDonnell Moving Virginia Backwards, Celebrating Slavery and Rebellion” and observes,

It’s important to note that this isn’t simply someone going along with a longstanding abhorrent bit of symbolism that’s traditional in his state. Mark Warner, rightly, broke this tradition and refused to grant wink-nod symbolic affirmation of the idea of unleashing massive violence in defense of the principle that white people should own black people as property. Tim Kaine upheld the new status quo. And now McDonnell’s ondoing it, which is offensive on its own terms and will also raise the political cost to any future governor who wants to do the right thing.

I agree with McDonnell and SCV spokesman Brandon Dorsey that the legacy of the Civil War is complicated and I understand the desire to honor the sacrifices of one’s ancestors and to remind people that the war was about more than slavery and that, in any case, the men who fought it — on both sides — were motivated by other issues. Even in the north, the war was about Union, not abolition.

But proclaiming Confederate History Month, much less after it had ceased being customary, reopens old wounds while doing next to nothing to heal them.  The classic Simpsons answer, “Slavery it is, sir!” is what people will remember about the war.  And flying the Confederate flag and otherwise glorifying the war is simply offensive to most black Americans and quite a few others.   And, as Hardy Jackson, as ardent a lover of the South as any man alive, taught me, it’s simply bad manners to go around hurting people’s feelings for no good reason.

Further, while I voted for McDonnell and generally support his policies, taking this action in the way he did was simply cowardly.   If you’re going to issue a proclamation, then, damn it, have the gumption to Proclaim it.   How does timidly posting it on the website and hoping no one will notice advance the stated goals?  How the hell is it supposed to increase tourism or promote reading of history if no one knows about it?

As it turns out, a tremendous number of Civil War battles took place in the Commonwealth and Virginia has preserved many of the sites and has monuments to most of the others.   There are dozens within day trip distance of me.   And, of course, Richmond was the Confederate capitol during most of the war.   And Virginia’s Robert E. Lee surrendered at the Appomattox, Virginia Courthouse (well, actually, at a nearby private residence).  These places already attract quite a bit of tourism.  If McDonnell wants to entice more visitors to come down and see these sites, I can’t imagine anyone would object.   And doing so would be a much more productive use of his time.

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. sam says:

    Seems to me that if he was really interested in promoting tourism, he could have proclaimed Civil War History Month.

  2. J.W. Hamner says:

    Or “Virginia History Month”… anything but “Confederate History Month”. There is certainly a lot to celebrate and discuss and learn about Virginia history… that obviously includes the Confederacy… but there is nothing about the CSA specifically that is worth celebrating at all.

  3. wr says:

    The South declared war on the United States to preserve the rights of rich white men to own other human beings. Complicated? Not so much.

  4. DC Loser says:

    That the Virginia governor is limited to one term means McDonnell doesn’t really care about his legacy unless he has national aspirations. I’m sure more than a few people who voted for him who bought his “I’m a moderate” campaign ads are having buyer’s remorse.

  5. floyd says:

    The Idea that the Confederacy was all about slavery and racism is woefully ignorant and illustrates the need for a Confederate History Month.
    I suggest to anyone who doesn’t choose to perpetuate undeserved stereotypes to start their education with the works of Shelby Foote.
    Although his works focus on the Civil War, they are fleshed out with details which reflect 50 years of research and dedication to veracity.
    His work is unvarnished and clearly not for those who wish to perpetuate myths from either side.
    This is a three volume set of over three thousand pages, so it is likely not for those who are big fans of Wikipedia or those who “earned” a degree on CliffsNotes and beer.
    It is however an opportunity to grasp our nations greatest struggle for what it was, without simply buying the bias of textbook sellers and continuing to regurgitate the same lame answers that you new would be on the exams.

  6. J.W. Hamner says:

    The Idea that the Confederacy was all about slavery and racism is woefully ignorant and illustrates the need for a Confederate History Month.

    That’s true, it was also about treason.

    While the war was indeed complex, there is just no argument against the idea that the Confederacy was primarily formed to defend the practice of slavery from an abolitionist party taking the Presidency.

    None.

    To act like it was about the Commerce Clause or whatever is just offensive.

  7. Alex Knapp says:

    I agree with McDonnell and SCV spokesman Brandon Dorsey that the legacy of the Civil War is complicated and I understand the desire to honor the sacrifices of one’s ancestors and to remind people that the war was about more than slavery and that, in any case, the men who fought it — on both sides — were motivated by other issues. Even in the north, the war was about Union, not abolition.

    This is missing the forest for the trees. But for the institution of slavery, there would not have been a Civil War. But for the election of a President from an Abolitionist Party, there would not have been a Civil War. It’s true that the primary Northern motivation was preservation of the Union, but abolition was a strong minority view, and towards the end of the War the Union cause became the Abolitionist cause.

    As for the South, the states that seceded from this country, including Virginia, explicitly did so because of the institution of slavery. Allow me to quote Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy:

    But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

    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.

    The cause of the Confederacy is not seperable from the cause of preserving slavery. Period.

  8. James Joyner says:

    The cause of the Confederacy is not seperable from the cause of preserving slavery. Period.

    I don’t doubt that slavery was the proximate cause of the South’s secession. But there was a decades-long power struggle between North and South on other issues from economics to the power of the central government. Slavery tied those two together, of course, but there were major differences apart from it.

  9. Alex Knapp says:

    James,

    But there was a decades-long power struggle between North and South on other issues from economics to the power of the central government.

    Slavery was the root of that struggle. It was the South that demanded federal laws that superseded state laws re: fugitive slaves. The economic differences were tied to the fact that the North was industrial while the South had a slave economy. It all goes back to slavery.

  10. DC Loser says:

    So it’s safe to have a “Third Reich Day” in Germany because WWII had nothing to do with Jews?

  11. James Joyner says:

    So it’s safe to have a “Third Reich Day” in Germany because WWII had nothing to do with Jews?

    Actually, WWII had very little to do with Jews. Hitler simply used the occupation of foreign lands to extend his domestic policy of rounding up and killing them.

    But, otherwise, comparison of the US Civil War and the German role in WWII is offensive. The South seceded and lost a war for its independence. It’s not remotely comparable to invading foreign countries, much less perpetrating a Holocaust.

  12. Rick DeMent says:

    I agree with McDonnell and SCV spokesman Brandon Dorsey that the legacy of the Civil War is complicated …

    Sure as all conflicts are, but the role of slavery as a front and center cause of the shooting isn’t. If you want to argue any of the Confederate apologists alternate views of the cause of the war it always leads back to slavery.

    If you think the cause was “States rights” fine but the only “State Right” the south was willing to get into a shooting war over was Slavery.

    You want to talk about the conflict over economics? what was the overriding feature of Southern economics with which it could not do without (or so they thought)? Slavery.

    If Norther oppression is your reason well the only thing the North could oppress the South with was economics and well (see previous comment).

    No anyone who deals out this nonsense that slavery was not at the central cause of the Civil War is delusional.

    The Idea that the Confederacy was all about slavery and racism is woefully ignorant and illustrates the need for a Confederate History Month.

    Case closed.

  13. DC Loser says:

    I guess the definition of “offensive” depends on which side you sympathize with.

  14. DC Loser says:

    And I find both to be offensive.

  15. UlyssesUnbound says:

    This announcement boggles the mind. I can only read it as a pandering to the very conservative elements of his base. If this announcement was truly to bring in tourism, CSA History month is really limiting your audience. As Sam suggested above (and was my first thought when reading this), why wouldn’t you just announce a Civil War History month? You’d be much better to capitalize on a tourism drive around that.

    But if its pandering to his base, then why? He is term limited, so its not like this will help in a state re-election bid. It certainly wouldn’t help for a Presidential run in 2012. Perhaps a Senate race? I would think this announcement would really alienate independents in such a race.

    I’ve lived in the south, in South Carolina no less, and outside of Charleston where there is a LOT of CSA pride. That said, those who are really taking pride in it, and may be moved to support someone by such announcement, are generally those who vote Republican anyway. Minorities, youth, independents, and of course liberals would all be turned off by an announcement such as this, and would probably drive them to support a different candidate.

    All around this is an incredibly stupid announcement, both for its content and as a political move.

  16. JKB says:

    The secession of the Southern state and formation of the Confederacy was neither a rebellion nor treason. Having voluntarily joined the United States, the States exercised their right as republics to leave the association. The states remaining in the union disagreed. Who knew before the War between the States that joining the United States was like joining the mafia, you could never leave.

    And yes, slavery was the proximate cause for the secessions. But do not be bemused that the northern states were anti-slavery. Slavery wasn’t practiced in the north for the simple reason that is was not economically viable. Yes, an abolition movement was growing. But the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate states that had not rejoined or were under Union control by Jan 1, 1863. Slavery was still permitted in states and counties loyal to the Union or under Union control. It was more of a tactical maneuver to preclude a negotiated peace and to secure black troops for the Union.

  17. Richard Bottoms says:

    If you ever wonder why blacks despise the GOP, just remember Virginia’s Bob McDonnell.

    Congratulation, you’ve ensured no black man or woman in their right mind will consider the GOP as having any sensibilities whatsoever when in comes to issues affecting our community.

    To Hell with the GOP, McDonnell, and the Confederate loving state of Virginia.

  18. sam says:

    @floyd

    The Idea that the Confederacy was all about slavery and racism is woefully ignorant and illustrates the need for a Confederate History Month.

    Yeah, right. Maybe not all about, but mostly about. From the Confederate Constitution:

    Art. 1 Section 10

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.

    Art IV, section 2:

    No slave or Person held to Service or Labour in [one State] any State or Territory of the Confederate Slates under the Laws thereof, escaping or unlawfully carried into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    Art IV, section 3

    The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

  19. DC Loser says:

    I’m sure Michael Steele’s all over this.

  20. sam says:

    Oh, and floyd I have read Shelby Foote’s history of the Civil War and rank it among the highest. He includes some very telling quotes, and the one that’s always stuck in my mind is Jefferson Davis’s epitaph for the Confederacy, which could well be adapted to the modern Republican party if it follows McDonnell. Davis said that on the tombstone of the Confederacy they should write, “Died of a Theory”.

  21. PD Shaw says:

    sam, UlyssesUnbound, the term “Civil War History Month” is too controversial in some quarters. Virginia may need to compromise on “War of Northern Aggression Month.”

  22. sam says:

    Yeah, I’d first written that, PD. But then I thought, Why supply the “victim” more grist for the victimhood mill?

  23. Michael Reynolds says:

    Not to get overly nuanced but the war was not so much about preservation of slavery where it already existed, but the desire of slave owners to extend the institution into lands recently stolen from Mexico by President Polk ably assisted by Generals Taylor and Scott.

    It’s true that the north didn’t particularly care one way or the other about slavery in Mississippi. But they cared a great deal about the prospect of slavery in California and Oregon. Extending slavery into new states would upset the careful balance between slave and free states and result in the US politics being thoroughly dominated by slave-owners.

    The abolitionists played a supporting role, obviously. Many good people understood that slavery was an atrocity.

    But a perhaps larger role was played by businessmen and politicians concerned for their profits and powers. Southern wealth was largely in the form of slaves — ending slavery therefore would impoverish many wealth slave-owners. At the same time, refusing to extend slavery into the new states and territories meant a long, slow decline of their potential for future profit and an eventual loss of political power.

    The notion that states had a right so secede was claptrap used as a veil to conceal the real interests at play. The Confederacy never granted a right of secession to its own states.

    Likewise the idea of state’s rights: it was as pointed out in a comment above, the southern states who were pushing to extend federal powers and limit the rights of states to support abolition, to harbor slaves, to send abolitionist writing through the mails, etc…

    The average soldiers on both sides fought well. But the ones in the north fought for what was at least a decent and reasonable cause: the preservation of the union and the ending of slavery’s attempted expansion. The soldiers in the south fought for rich slave-owners’ cynical lies in defense of a monstrous system.

  24. sam says:

    The soldiers in the south fought for rich slave-owners’ cynical lies in defense of a monstrous system.

    As I said here before when we discussed the Civil War, the supreme political accomplishment of the Southern Plantocracy was its success in convincing poor Southern whites that slavery was in their interests.

  25. Wayne says:

    If my memory serves me right, the North declared war on the South supposedly over an attack on a disputed fort. It was an isolated group that attacked the Fort not a Confederacy attack.

    No one seems to ever be concern about Black History month and such events being divisive.

  26. floyd says:

    “Died of a Theory”.

    Sam,
    I think you may be right… there is no place for honor in politics, the price is too high and the prize is too valuable.

  27. Michael Reynolds says:

    Wayne:

    As usual your memory does not serve.

    Fort Sumter was a United States army facility. It was bombarded for more than 30 hours by troops under the command of General Beauregard and after seeking the approval of the Secretary of Defense for the CSA. It was not accidental, or insignificant, or minor, or any of those dismissive modifiers.

    No one seems to ever be concern about Black History month and such events being divisive.

    What exactly is divisive about black history month? We celebrate black history month and not confederate history month for much the same reason that we do celebrate Holocaust survivors and not SS appreciation month: we tend to prefer the unjustly oppressed to the murderous oppressors.

  28. Michael Reynolds says:

    Wayne:

    While we’re at it, you’ll notice we also don’t celebrate the Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee or the Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American War or the Seminole war or the Philippines war.

    We celebrate the wars where we were on the right side, not the wars of oppression or imperialism.

  29. magoo says:

    James isn’t coming off so well in this post. He tried twice, weakly, to mitigate the anti-Virginia viewpoint.

    But the point that 3rd Reich month is valid. To have a 3rd Reich month would be to deliberately pick an evil political party and celebrate its ‘nuanced’ and oh so complex contribution to Germany. Then just make the argument that they helped Germany industrialize or whatever. The rest is noise.

    But James conflates two things – it is true that Germany invaded other countries. So what? The South were traitors to the constitution. They were traitors to the ideals of the Declaration, with Calhoun explicitly arguing that all men weren’t created equal.

    The comparison to having a 3rd Reich month was not based on the difference that the Nazis were invading other countries and the Southerners were enslaving native US residents. Nope.

    The comparison was based on ‘celebrating’ or ‘acknowledging’ an evil political entity, regardless of where its evil aggression was aimed.

    James, always the bland, water-is-wet blogger – his typical weak tea is just not going to cut it this time. Alex Knapp has got it; the regional differences were driven by fundamental economic differences based upon slavery, period.

  30. PD Shaw says:

    michael is correct on the particulars of the attack on Fort Summter, but I believe Wayne may be conflating some of the events preceding the attack. There were some irregular squirmishes beforehand, particluarly by cadets from the Citadel that fired on a relief ship sent by James Buchanan. I don’t believe the partisans at the time, nor historians since, considered these squirmishes to be the start of the war or the start of the Battle of Fort Sumter.

  31. floyd says:

    Magoo;
    Your “vision” is legendary!

  32. UlyssesUnbound says:

    The Washington Post had an interesting* blog post about how a good portion of Virginians wouldnt’ have supported a CSA history month even during the war.

    I was going to quote a few lines, but the entire post is interesting.

    *First time in awhile I’ve used “interesting” and “Washington Post” in the same sentence.

  33. Wayne says:

    Michael actually you are wrong once again. There are “Trail of Tears” remembrance events.

    Re “What exactly is divisive about black history month?”

    It separates the country in two groups, blacks and non-blacks. Many of the events, celebrations and rhetoric pit blacks against whites.

    Re “we tend to prefer the unjustly oppressed to the murderous oppressors”

    In U.S. Civil war, the North were the murderous oppressors. They insisted on keeping territory and arm forces in the Southern states.

    Confederate History Month doesn’t celebrate slavery but many of the South philosophy and traditions. Traditions like limited federal government, states and individual rights, not having to bow to the “king” and individual reliance. Many don’t realize this, but many blacks in the south fought for the Confederacy. When some of them were ask why, they said they were fighting for their rights.

  34. Wayne says:

    As for who started the war, it was the same old story as with most every war. Many events lead up to many other events which resulted in all out war. It is like claiming the U.S. hands were clean before Japan bomb Pearl Harbor for no reason at all.

  35. anjin-san says:

    It separates the country in two groups, blacks and non-blacks.

    Lets extend your “logic”.

    St. Patrick’s Day. It has to go. Separates the country into Irish and non-Irish.

    Veteran’s Day. Has to go. Separates the country into vets and non-vets.

    Need I go on? Tell me Wayne, is it postulate a stupid concept week?

  36. anjin-san says:

    South philosophy and traditions. Traditions like limited federal government, states and individual rights

    Hmmm. Wonder how the slaves felt about the south’s dedication to individual rights.

  37. Michael Reynolds says:

    Wayne:

    You’re an imbecile. Also historically uninformed to a degree that would embarrass a middle school kid. But mostly an imbecile.

  38. floyd says:

    Michael;
    I can’t imagine a more fit description of you than the one you just applied to Wayne! [lol]
    You are truly a wordsmith when it comes to abrasive and asinine remarks.

  39. anjin-san says:

    limited federal government

    Yes. Imagine that uppity federal government telling the south that its citizens could not own, murder, torture, rape, beat, and mutilate other human beings with impunity. The federal boys obviously needed to have their wings clipped.

  40. wr says:

    Wayne — Blacks fighting for the Confederacy? You got some evidence for that? You might want to tell The Atlantic about it… http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/07/the-myth-of-black-confederate-soldiers/21370/

  41. Wayne says:

    The North didn’t go to war to tell the South to end slavery. Lincoln even stated before it started that he didn’t intend to end slavery in the Slave states.

    Everyone is Irish on St. Patrick’s Day. For most it just an excuse to get drunk much like Cinco de Mayo. Even the true believers have an inclusive atmosphere for those events.

    Veterans Day is an opportunity for “all” people to show their appreciation for veterans. It is not a month long process saying how great veterans are while cutting down non-veterans.

  42. Wayne says:

    It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks

    http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

    http://www2.netdoor.com/~jgh/mobile.html

    Google it and you will find a great deal of information on blacks serving in Confederacy.

    WR you may want to stay away from those propaganda sites that make such stupid claims like if there was no black regiments then blacks didn’t serve. They make you look foolish.

  43. anjin-san says:

    The North didn’t go to war to tell the South to end slavery

    Where exactly did I claim that they did? What the Union did do, was during the course of the war, tell the South that they could not continue to have slavery.

  44. floyd says:

    “”What the Union did do, was during the course of the war, tell the South that they could not continue to have slavery.””
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    Not actually true, the 14th amendment was not passed until 1868, And the emancipation proclamation did not apply to states under Lincoln’s purview.

  45. anjin-san says:

    Not actually true, the 14th amendment was not passed until 1868, And the emancipation proclamation did not apply to states under Lincoln’s purview

    It did not apply to the border states. But it did apply to the southern states. Like I already said. Are you trying to tell us what the definition of “is” is? History classes are available at the local JC Floyd. Check it out.

  46. Wayne says:

    Anjin
    Perhaps you need to spend more time educating your liberal friends like WR and MR who claim that blacks did not fight on the Confederate side.But they are your liberal friends so I guess it is OK for them to get history wrong.

    Back to celebrations, how often have liberals try to change Christmas festivities to holiday festivities because it was so call “non-inclusive” and divided Americans? Personally I don’t see a problem celebrating Christmas, black history month or Confederate History month. However if one opposes one due to divisiveness then they should oppose them all.

  47. Wayne says:

    The first Emancipation Proclamation executive order didn’t apply to sates under Lincoln’s control but those states that refused to return to the Union by a specific date. The second one specified 10 specific states which amazing enough didn’t include Union slave states like Missouri and Maryland.

    Sounds like you the one that needs to take some history classes.

  48. anjin-san says:

    The first Emancipation Proclamation executive order didn’t apply to sates under Lincoln’s control but those states that refused to return to the Union by a specific date.

    It applied to southern states, which is what I said. The fact that you have reading comprehension issues does not mean that I have not read my history. BTW, what are sates?

  49. anjin-san says:

    which amazing enough didn’t include Union slave states like Missouri and Maryland.

    See, this is where actually reading history books comes in handy. Missouri and Maryland were “border states” IE: slave states that were politically aligned with the Union – aligned pretty much by a thread. Lincoln at one point threatened to burn Baltimore to the ground to intimidate Maryland into staying in line with the Union.

    So no, the Emancipation Proclamation did not include the border states. It was a war measure, and he was making war on the south. As I said in the first place, the federal government told the south it could not continue slavery.

    Lincoln, like all Presidents, had to deal with political reality. There is nothing “amazing” about it. Maryland eventually amended it’s constitution to prohibit slavery, and slavery in Missouri was ended by the ratification of the thirteenth amendment. Sorry, but you don’t have a “gotcha” here. You just have a thin grasp of history. Recommended reading:

    Lincoln – Gore Vidal

    The Complete Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant -Ulysses S. Grant

    Actually doing the work WILL require more effort that listening to Glenn Beck & Rush…