This is so well done it merits an EP. If it does I do offer body guard services..:)
rated with hugs

John, I agree with the sentiment, but it's not just southerners. They are all over this country. Militia's in the Pacific North West, your state California, and just about anywhere there is enough land to hide and do crazy shit. I agree it's stupid and dangerous, but it is everywhere!

John, since we had V-E and V-J celebrations at the end of WWII, why not V-D Day? (I dropped the "S" to keep it consistent in length with the others.) Since you came up with the idea of the celebration we will nominate you as Grand Marshall of the parade down Fifth Avenue.

I forgot to mention that the "D" is from Deep South.)

John--

Please--don't stir them up.

The South has produced some good writers but not much else.

Have you been reading the ongoing Civil War series in the NYTs? It's fascinating, really great. This practice of revisionist history as it relates to the "State's rights" thing has been well-addressed there, and wholly discounted too.

Even up here in the Pacific N.W., you can see The Confederate flag flapping in the breeze attached to a radio antennae on mud covered 4 wheel drive rigs. I figure those have to be the stoopiderest guys around.
Yes to celebrating Appomattox Day !!

There is a large confederate flag on a barn down the road. I don't understand it. R

When we conquered them, we should have claimed the hush puppy for our own. I hate that there are no hush puppies in Boston.

RWNutjob thinks the South is gonna rise again. hahahahaha!

RW, I love fantasy stories so I need to ask, under what conditions do you envision Round Two beginning and all us libtards being dealt with in an appropriate manner? Will you and your buds from the local KKK chapter stage an armed insurrection? I'm dying to know how this thing's gonna go down.

States' rights isn't a huge defense considering the main issue was the states' rights to keep legal the owning of other human beings. A "you can't tell us what to do" rebellion sounds pretty petty on that score.

The NY Times has been running a series on secession, including the specific texts of the articles of succession of various entities. Slavery is very prominently mentioned; states' rights, not so much.

Or wait RW, let me guess, all the Tea Partiers will don their Glenn Beck t-shirts, grab their deer rifles and their walkers, and mount a coup d'état, is that it? Heaven help us!

If the North celebrated Appomattox Day, there would be a 2nd civil war. Why don't we reenact the Holocaust? Or Pearl Harbor? Or the genocide of the Native Americans? - oh wait, tiny population.

We should also take back control of American history books. Try to justify it however you like: The Civil War was fought over slavery.
As someone descended from men who fought for the Union and who never owned slaves, I'd like to see our contribution to American history celebrated and not just shrugged off as some fluke of fate that the South continues to deny happened.

As someone born and raised in the south I find the whole celebrating the confederacy counter productive. Slavery was stain on the history of this country. Because the founders of this country did not deal with it we had to fight a bloody civil war because of it.

Truth is if most of the founders including Jefferson and Washington were alive during the Civil war they would most likely fought on the side of the South. The civil war should not be celebrated by either the north or south. Instead it should be remembered as the correction of a problem that was ignored by the founders of this country.

Great idea, blu.
I'm whistlin' the Battle Hymn of the Republic already...while grinning.

rwnj--
Given that the new Southern slave is a white male high school dropout who watches Fox News...wouldn't the South rising again be a slave insurrection?

Ah, the irony! Fust y'all feah a slave revolt, then y'all is one.

That doesn't mean I'm against Southern Succession. After all, it would give America a big boost in those global education stats.

After the Civil War, the consensus was no, because we wanted to re-integrate ex-Confederates into the body politic and heal the nation's wounds. As such, many concessions were made to Southern elites along these lines. Despite the horrors of Reconstruction, the US was still rather lenient toward the South for the remainder of the 19th century.


That said, modern Southerners have taken-up the cause of the fallen Confederacy to promote newfound and deep-seated animosity against the Federal government and liberal policies regarding minorities, gays, religion, women, taxation and big business.

I think that if we "abolish" CSA celebrations, we provoke a backlash. As such, the best solution would be what you suggest. These were very common in the US during the late 19th century, with organizations such as the Grand Army of the Republic.

This way, we can highlight the higher morality of the Union Cause and the gvt it created, and indirectly cast scorn on the CSA as well, without overtly banning their celebrations.

This is a good idea, I think. rated

Yeah, there's this pervasive sentiment among a lot of Southerners that they fought the good fight and should be recognized for it.

I think it starts with "Birth of a Nation" and then progresses into "Gone with the Wind." Both of those fairy tales paint the South as the aggrieved party. Bull Pucky!

A couple of years ago I visited Appomattox Courthouse and on the way stopped at a tiny little fenced off graveyard of about 24 graves, each with a tiny Confederate flag sticking up from it. Then I noticed that the plot was maintained by something called "the Daughters of the Confederacy."

I just thought, Wow! These people never quite got over the fact that they lost the damnable war and are now Americans. I view them as ignorant. (I guess someone's got to balance out the bell shaped curve. )

John, I think at this point it is a Southern Pride thing. Many Southerners today feel folks in the north look down on them with the assumption they are backwards and all racists. Also, it's quite common for people to affect a southern accent when they are imitating a person of low intelligence. There are bitter feelings on both sides, and many come from legitimate gripes.

And remember Ablonde, the South gave us music unlike anything that has ever been invented. Many brilliant artists have come out of the South. BTW, I am from Kansas, Easterners consider me Southern, and Southerners call me a Yankee.

As far as I can see, the only thing to celebrate about the Civil War -s that emancipation -- at long last -- forced America to begin to live up to the Founders rhetoric that "all men are created equal". Sad to say, as both a de jure and de facto matter in much of America, that promise remained only a promise 200 yrs after our founding and a 100 yrs after the Civil War.

Even sadder, in the minds of too many Americans racism still eats away at the body politic -- as the vile Southern Strategy of Lee Atwater, et al, makes clear, and as does the horrific and violent rhetoric aimed at our first black President makes all too clear.

Yes, the Civil War produced many heroes on both sides, but the truth about the South's "Lost Cause" was best expressed by US Grant upon General Lee's surrender at Appomattox. :

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause thought was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

Those who erroneously and feloniously claim the war was about slavery – or frankly that is was its cause -- are advised to acquaint themselves with the words of Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederate States, who said:

"slavery ... was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
http://lonniebruner.blogspot.com/2010/04/alexander-stephens-slavery-was-major.html

Then there's the South's greatest hero, Robert E Lee, who said of secession:

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact ... It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government"

Lee said of slavery:

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country."

"I wish I owned every slave in the South, for I would free them all to avoid this war."

Case closed

We should all celebrate the defeat of slavery no matter what they choose to call it. R

My parents like to re-enact many of their greatest arguments.
R

Born and raised in the South, the DNA of confederate soldiers coursing through my veins, still, I don't get it either. Simply put, money trumped morality. My region, also known for its density of Christian churchgoers, rather than admit to its moral transgressions toward others of our species and seek forgiveness, continues to gloss over the obvious motivations. It is an exercise in our ability to frame our most serious collective sins in such a way as to ignore them, an elephant our living room. Go figure.

i do love Luling Texas and Boston Cream Pie; i'm so conflicted.

SLavery was the immediate cause of the war. But when Lincoln tried to stop the cessession of a few slave states in the deep, deep south, he inadvertantly caused a constitutional crisis that caused a bunch of other sideline states to join the fight against him. This is why Virginia joined. Otherwise, it may have supported him. Also dont forget many slave states supported Lincoln, like West VA, Kentucky, parts of Missouri--border states, and Maryland was half and half.

Slavery ignited it and the rest took on a life of its own. I doubt that all the gringos who fought for the CSA did so for slavery. They were duped by other, abstract, silly ideas like "states rights" which was a non-concept.

Civil war celebrations as national holiday, hmmmm. Here are some other days worthy of national celebration.

Pearl Harbor Day
Richard Nixon Resignation Day
JFK Assassination Day

I live two miles from a border state, and I've never been able to figure this out, that and the preponderance of Confederate flags everywhere. Great post, John. RRR

Yes. Let's all celebrate the deaths of the of the confederates by reinacting their battles and when we're done burning their flags, we can all spit on their graves, do an about face and do it again! ;)

I never once heard "The War of Secession" growing up in Georgia, but I certainly heard "The War of Northern Aggression" over and over....
defeated sides in most wars are still pissed, right or not.

Living here in the deep south as it is often called, I can't wait to leave! These nitwits just can't understand that THEY LOST the Civil War. They are still pushing states rights, in the form of overturning "Obamacare". Ever wonder why tornadoes seem to hit Baptist churches?

The Confederates may have lost the war, but they won the peace. I guess that's why they're celebrating.

A fascinating read - and the comments are quite eye opening.

My kingdom for a comment editor!!!

Those who erroneously and feloniously claim the war was about slavery – or frankly that is was its cause -- are advised to acquaint themselves with the words of Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederate States, who said:

in both instances, was should obviously be wasn't

Well, if they promise to reenact the March Through Georgia and the burning of Atlanta, count me in!

Otherwise, I think Norwonk is right: the USA is looking more like the CSA every minute. William Faulkner had it nailed: "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past."

I really liked this. Thanks. As an Arizonan, I wonder if the next turn of our state legislature (after outlawing abortion rights and the citizenship of children born here without a citizen parent and requiring that we all carry guns) will be ---secession. There's talk of it, and I'd be amused if some hotheads really give it a try. We might (sniff, sniff) lose some of them in battle. (I feel snarky today). R

Speaking as a Southerner who is progressive, by Southern standards (actually, I am a moderate), I am offended, too. The war was a tragedy for both sides. The was should be remembered, and there should be a day each year of deep reflection all over the country. Of course, there is shocking duplicity in the notion that the war was not about slavery or prejudice.

Down here in Tampa at the junction of I-4 and I-75 flies a gigantic Confederate flag. City officials originally banned it until the Sons of the Confederacy bought a piece of property and now the flag flies on private property. Has nuttin to do wid slavery, racism, treason. It's all about honoring our history.

Make sure it is seen on TV during the Republican Convention.

R

The real reason is that the issues of the Civil War were not "settled",in the political sense. The North "won" by reinventingsomeof the worst features of modern imperialist warfare, such as making war on civilians. (Professional soldiers have always been against that.) Revivionist history is pretending that the war was about freeing slaves. Remember the Draft riots, and what they were about? Fearing the ever growing power of the central government is still a hot issue, but the pattern was instituted by the "Victory" of declaring that Secession was treasonous, rather than cancelling a bad marriage. There is a straight line of succession in sending Northern troops South, to our present state of sending Northern troops to 150 countries around the world.

The ignorance being displayed in comments around this era of history is...shocking...er, unfortunately, ...not shocking.
Read up, people.

You have misused the term "begging the question", but in light of the other affronts to history and rhetoric, I guess it's a minor thing.

Several of my gradeschool classmates - those who are still ambulant; the others cheer - gather every November 17 at 11:15 a.m. to re-enact the snowball fight we lost on that day and time at recess in 1947 when a superior force packed gravel in their balls and essentially whacked the pee out of us. It does bring back the agony of defeat and roar of vengeful intent most poignantly.

I always think of the Family Guy episode where they go into witness protection in the deep south. The local town holds their Civil War reenactment in which Lee knocks down a drunken Grant, who then surrenders, thus the south wins. Its pretty much the same thing.

They learned absolutely nothing from Pickett's last words to Lee at Gettysburg.
Unfortunately, they keep owning a different type of division, a moral one.

And, if that isn't enough, how'd you like to be a woman living in Mobile and try to buy a sex toy?

The Brits love a good holiday. How about celebrations for Dunkirk, Gallipoli and the Charge of the Light Brigade?

First off, thanks for the insightful comments. I was hoping to get a little debate going here. Everybody loves kudos, but this is more interesting, at least to me.

@scanner: Unfortunately, you are right.

@rwnutjob: I think the activities the abolitionists like John Brown and W.L. Garrison made it abundantly clear to the South that slavery was a significant issue. And forget the machines -- slaves were property, pure and simple.

@M Todd: Granted, Washington was slaveholder and a typical gentleman racist, but during his second presidency, he came to see the virtues of the abolitionist cause (his great friend Lafayette was an influence here) , and it's become clear that he knew the equality clause was nonsense. Also, he freed his personal slaves after he died and rejected the idea of splitting up families. Not an excuse, I know, but considering the direction in which his mind was heading and his growing disdain for Virginia, I'm not so sure he would have fought for the South. He was far more terrified of secession which would have destroyed the union forever and slavery wasn't really an issue in that dilemma.

@Gary: In some ways, Southerners have created the impression we have of them. Think of the KKK, the lynchings and the South's unwillingness to accept equality as late as the 1960s.

@Tom: Unfortunately, Lee was dragged to the southern side by his allegiance to Virginia. Beyond that, I never thought he was much of a supporter of the Cause, whatever it was. He fought valiantly, but he was a soldier through and through going back to West Point and Mexico. It's a shame though -- if he'd fought for the North, he would have been elected President.

@ Ernesto: Many southern states had been threatening to secede long before Lincoln became President. Andrew Jackson, for one, was bedevilled by it and did his best to prevent it during his two terms.

@shawn: Sherman's March took place at the end of the War and, although despicable in many ways, it seemed to be the only way for the north to win. (And let's not forget Andersonville) . Most of Lincoln's early picks for general (McClellan, Burnside) just didn't have the will or the guts to win. Let's not forget that much of the war was fought near the Potomac in the beginning, perilously close to Washington and that Lee did get as far north as Gettysburg.

read, appreciated, rated

Excellent post. Yes, we definitely should. I lived in Florida, and was surprised at how many Civil War references come up in regular conversation (25 years ago), like in an office, one woman said of another: "She just marched in here like Sherman through Georgia, and snatched that form off the corner of my desk!" We really do need to celebrate this. They need to come to reality.

I am the great-grand-daughter of 2 confederate soldiers and I cringe whenever I see a confederate flag. Regardless of the cause of the war (I believe it was slavery, not "states's rights) the flag has come to mean only hateful and hurtful things. It is clear what the confederate flag symbolizes to our African American citizens. Why would states fly it if not to flaunt disagreement with the entire progress of civil rights in this country since the Emancipation Proclamation? It makes me ashamed to be a Southener.

There certainly should be a celebration of Appomattox Day. I think that's a great idea. It's important to remember that the Slave South was an enormous moral abomination that was worse than South African apartheid and scarcely less of a monumental evil than Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union. Defeating the Slave South in the Civil War should be celebrated the same way that other major events in the history of overturning slavery and segregation should be celebrated. We should have national days of celebrsation for the establishment of William Lloyd Garrison's Liberator, Lincoln's election in 1860, the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, and Lee's surrender at Appomattox. All of these events have established our national character as a country that has worked to overcome the horrible crime near the center of our founding and has become a much better country as a result.

They're right about one thing; it is a States Rights issue. States rights to have slaves and do other unsavory things. Oy.

I haven't read all of the serious comments, so maybe I'm being redundant, but I wonder if the Southern sentiment doesn't have parallels in other lands where no matter who won what, the sides retain a bitterness in their DNA. I'm thinking of Northern Ireland and England, the Basques and Spain, the Kurds and Iraq. Granted those are ethnic or religious divisions, but there's a cultural divide between the states of the old Confederacy and those that remained in the Union. Not just slavery, either, altho that "curious institution" and the economy it supported had a lot to do with it.

As with most wars, it was a lot of poor people who ended up dying. People who didn't own slaves. Which is why I can't understand why anyone down here would want to fly that flag. Maybe it gets mixed up with pride in one's heritage and culture, and I guess it's also a symbol of defiance, since so many Yankees regard all southerners as stupid, inbred racists. But flying the flag and celebrating the war doesn't do much to correct that image, does it?

And Ablonde, the south has produced a hell of a lot of great music too!

I've often wondered why the north doesn't celebrate its victory, unless it has something to do with not wanting to humiliate the south. I've always wondered about that. I also find it quite remarkable that we sometimes celebrate the great general Grant, but then quickly forget that he almost died penniless, tricked out of his money by a charlatan of a banker/investor who stole so much money from so many well-to-do people of that period who were way too trusting of their fellow man.

I wonder who would try to claim ownership of World War I. That would be a mishmash of bragging and shame rights. Incidentally, HBO will be airing an 8-part series called "To Appomattox". I heard it will be later this year or early next.

I'm fine with us Northerners celebrating our defeat of the Southerners -- except that the Southerners continue to be thorns in our asses to this day. It seems as though letting the red-state dipshits secede would have been the wiser course of action, except for the fact that slavery HAD to end.

I never did quite undertand tose people. As evil and vile as the Third Reich was, at least the Germans Their government and most of them, anyywa) have spent the last 60 years trying to make right the evil the caused. We sure don't see that with our Southern states.

I don't pretend to know all I should about American History, but hell you make it so funny and educational..Thjank you. Great post buddy.

John: Good point to say someone would do something or not does not account for change of heart. Washington may have very well considered splitting the union a greater evil than keeping his slaves. When this nation was formed the issue of slavery was debated and to keep the wealthy land owners on board they did not address the issue. It resulted in a war killing thousands and creating a riff that remains to this day. There were other issues of states rights, tariffs and the struggles that ensued as the nation moved into the industrial age, which all got rolled into the slavery issue.

Most do not realize that the majority of southerns fighting in the war did not own slaves, but were compelled by the leaders with financial motives. Nothing changes and today we are in two wars because we trusted our leaders. If there is a moral to all of this it would be choose your leaders carefully.

it was part of Lincoln's genius that he did not bate the confederacy upon their losses. the war was a shame for all the nation based on an institution (slavery) that no longer matched the highest ideals. there is a piece in this weeks NY REVIEW OF BOOKS that quotes one of Lincoln's great speeches in which he sets this course, comparing it to Obama's similar attempts at appeasement.

it is the "high road" and while it is incredibly frustrating to those who expect more given their ideology, it is the mark of great leadership, and the hope is the few who really get the significance are not dismissed in the stampede by the mob wishing for yet more blood.

if the allies had that sort of leadership after WWI, there is a great consensus among historians that WWII would not have happened. let the recidivists crow all they want, it isn't what matters.

Some look to "win the future"

Some mull and prevaricate over losses long past- these are known as losers.

I did not find this offensive nor, contrary to your assertions, did I stuff cotton in my ears during history classes. I do find it funny that even though I was born and raised in Texas, I was never aware of a yearly celebration of the beginning of the Civil War in the South.
I do however congratulate you upon receiving the coveted EP. Upon reflection though the title alone was probably enough to get on the front page....well done John.

At first, I was afraid to read this. My only beef is people's attempts to bury the issue of slavery as if it was not the main point of that war for a lot of us.

Now, I'll burn a Confederate flag every day for four years! Congrats on a well deserved EP.

When I was a schoolgirl in Kansas in the 1960s, we celebrated Kansas Day every year with a play called "Free State." (We were far from Missouri so we could safely do that.) It wasn't exactly gloating over the Northern victory, but we all got the message that we should be proud to be Free Staters.

They were defeated? Then how come I get the Country Music Channel, whether I want to or not? And what about Larry the Cable Guy...could we defeat him somehow? Hm?
r

This is top-drawer multimedia here; entirely well done and rated.

Much of revisionism came out of the reunion of the Northern and Southern Brass, classmates and Mexican War comrades all, as they allowed their old friends the ability to retain face.

It's the Cavalier way ...

I don't think that's an entirely fair premise. You say that every year the former confederate states celebrate seceding, but that's not wholly true. You will find people here and there, and any such "celebrations" are more isolated than not, and probably more backwater than anywhere else, but as whole, that's an unfair characterization. People don't just go break out the old confederate flag, hoot and holler, and rebel yell about damn yankees at the drop of a hat.

Not denying that there are still people all excited about what you say, but I would say that it's even blander today than it was twenty years ago. For all the kudos, it's kind of a weird post. It's fairly annoying to be part of some grand generalization like that. Southerners ignorant this and southerners racist that.

A small group of wealthy people managed to get large numbers of poor people to fight for the right to treat other people like shit.

Gee, good thing people are smarter than that these days.

This was really well done, blumenthal. But I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that it's been awhile since we've had a good banterfest, so I was wondering if you and O would consider doing a reenactment of "A Streetcar Named No Desire"? We could surely rewrite awesome history.

@cartouche: I don't know. When O and I banter, the war is seldom civil.

Blu at his best!

This was great! I like when you're serious. ;)

We Brits actually do have a little dry sherry in celebration of your "Independence" each 4th of July. As the kind children on the campus walkway were telling me last week, the Queen and the Pope still run your country, the former mostly through the international drug trade. Only their guru Lyndon LaRouche can save you, and you aren't listening.
This guy is giving away some of the secrets.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/mi6-are-the-lords-of-the-global-drug-trade/218/

Indians celebrate certain defeats too, although the North takes the victory of ALL AMERICANS too lightly.
If the United States was no longer united, we would be a play toy of European powers, plus China, Japan, and now India.
Just careful how you celebrate the victory, as salt in wounds is risky too.

I can't believe we discuss this 'states rights' bullshit every year as if it's true. I'm from Tennessee. I know how determined they are over this way to re-write the history on this one. It WAS ABOUT SLAVERY. SLAVERY. Say it with me. SLAVERY. The states' rights were over SLAVERY. That status of new states over SLAVERY led to the South starting the war.

And yes, it's completely stupid to celebrate a war we freaking lost. It's downright embarrassing.

Sorry, forgot about jazz.

Born and raised in Northern California, I was completely unaware of such a celebration.

I hardly know what to say. You did it. :)

"Every April 9th (the day of surrender in 1865), we could find a guy with a grayish beard, put him in a gray uniform and watch him hand his sword over to a bearded guy in a blue uniform. "

That'd be awesome!! And it'd be ANOTHER holiday te Feds could take off cause they work so hard!! ~:D

"Civ-a-War day is biased! We's wuns the Reals Wur!!! The South Will Rize agan!!!"

:D

nice one, john. good article and -- damn -- look at the commentfest going on. wooot! this is fun.

and i think we oughta have a celebration on the winners' side - but only because i'll take any excuse to take a few hours away from work, watch a parade, eat great food and party. maybe it should be june 30th and we'll have a four-dayer, ending on the 4th of july? i'll call the newspapers ...

I never thought about the fact that they celebrate LOSING the war. Ooops, gotta run. Going to a Seattle Mariners party tonight. They're celebrating having the worst record in baseball last year. Should be a humdinger!!!

Was slavery an issue in the fighting of the war? Of course it was. Was it the issue that the war was started over? No.

For those of you who think that President Lincoln wanted to free the slaves let us take a look at a few of the things that President Lincoln said and please tell me why you think he was the “great emancipator”.

Lerone Bennett, Jr., of Ebony Magazine, has pointed out that “ On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860 Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race.”.

In the September 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas in Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln insisted vigorously that:

“I will say that I am not...in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with while people...Anything that argues me into his (Douglas's) idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse.”

Lincoln also supported deporting them and colonizing them. In his Cooper Union speech on February 27, 1860 Lincoln advocated the peaceful “deportation” of blacks so that “their places be...filled up by free white laborers.”

During his first inaugural address Lincoln stated “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

If President Lincoln didn't think he had the right to interfere, nor did he want to, what happened? It was all about money.

There was a secret meeting on April 4, 1861 between Lincoln and Colonel John Baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention. At that meeting Baldwin learned that Lincoln had already committed to taking some military action at Fort Sumter, SC. Baldwin tried to convince Lincoln that military action against SC would mean war.

Baldwin went on to try to persuade Lincoln that if the Gulf States were allowed to secede peacefully that historical and economic ties would bring them back to reunite with the North.

Lincoln had a decisive response. It was “and open Charleston, etc. as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff? WHAT THEN WOULD BECOME OF MY TARIFF?

It's clear that President Lincoln didn't care about what happened to the blacks that were here. He wanted them gone. His own statements make it clear he wanted tax dollars from the south and that was all he cared about.

On another point. I like the way you showed the “Confederate Flag” at the beginning of your piece. Granted it is seen quite a bit but you didn't seem to realize that what you pictured is the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

If they aim to celebrate, I can see why they picked the war's outbreak over its conclusion. Perhaps many of the celebrants believe they're only honoring some of the region's old culture and not necessarily slavery. But at the very least it's gauche to overlook that. It it were me I'd just hope that everyone forgot about it.

Great post blu.

@Catnlion: There is plenty of evidence, found primarily in letters between Lincoln and Joshua Speed, that indicates Lincoln's early abhorrance of slavery. Clearly, he was no abolitionist, but he was also a political pragmatist and I think, to a degree, that explains at least some of his apparent ambivalence. Plus, it's clear that, over time, he changed.

In spite of that, as I said in an earlier comment, the outcry and influence of northern abolitionists prior to the War, made it fairly clear to the south that slavery was indeed a critical issue.

As for your conspiracy theory purporting that Lincoln was primarily worried about tariffs and went to war for money -- balderdash.

The flag represented is indeed the Battle Flag of the Confederacy. I believe it started out as Virginia's (one of several) and was designed by Gen. Beauregard.

"balderdash"?

Three days before President Lincoln marched 75,000 troops into SC he was offered a plan that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. He didn't seem worried about holding the union together. He didn't reply what about all those slaves. Nope, he replied what about HIS TARIFF. Let's face it, even today the military couldn't march that many troops into SC without a plan already being in place and those troops being deployed into the area. Back them I'm sure it was a major event to move that many men.

Your belief is that the "northern abolitionists" wanted the union to go to war over the fact of slavery. Is that correct?

While I'm sure that the northern abolitionists did want slavery to end, what else would an abolitionist what? I can't find anyplace where they are calling for an attack on the south to bring it to and end. Do you have any info that they thought a civil war over the issue was a good idea?

What I can find, and at this hour you are going to get the readers digest version, is that the general population of the north didn't want the blacks there either. If fact the 1st Thirteenth Amendment, the Corwan Amendment, which was signed by President Buchanan, was ratified by 3 northern states before it was forgotten. They were Ohio, Maryland and Illinois. While there is a question was Illinois vote for it legal, the fact still remains that they did pass it.

Here is a fun fact for you. The Corwan Amendment is still active and awaiting approval by states. Congress never withdrew it.

If you want, there are other things like where did the underground railroad end? Why in Canada and not the north? Because the people of the north didn't want the blacks either. It's late, so if you want more info just ask, but the only people in the north who were calling for the end of slavery was the abolitionists, not the general population.

So while some, not all, of the north thought slavery was a bad idea, to dismiss President Lincoln's statements about tariffs just 3 days before sending in a massive amount of deployed troops to SC when he was offered a peaceful solution you are going to have to address with more than "balderdash" please.

As long as nobody celebrates Sherman's burning of Atlanta, we're fine.

I was 17 when I was moved from Long Island, N.Y. to North Central Florida. I used to play with a little Civil War set that re-enacted the Battle of Gettysburg. My mom was from the Bronx but my father was down here, as they say. It isn't so much the balmy weather it appears in the South as it is that great heritage that foolishly seceded from the North so that it could keep its institution of slavery.
My father had no qualms about telling his northern sons that slavery was a just institution and should still have been continued. That was in the '60's when he also admitted he would vote for Goldwater rather than Johnson.
I didn't know they didn't celebrate the war in the North. There are lots of celebrations. My Polish Uncle goes to a Polka festival in the summer or used to last time I talked to him. He needs a chair now to get around so maybe he doesn't. But is it the legacy of immigration that keeps the north from getting all high and mighty about winning? The Union, somewhat like the New York Yankees, are viewed to have had the most money and therefore they won, down here. Johnny Reb had superior military men and sharpshooters but still somehow managed to lose. Few will give you the morality of the cause being a problem just like many will say the legalization of marijuana is not a just cause today.
Being unemployed and dependent on others who really don't have any means themselves makes me think of slavery, being owned by someone, obligated to do what they desire because my life and living depend upon it. I would relish the North taking up the celebration of victory over the South though I am sure the South will claim the brave heroes of the Second World War are being overshadowed by such a foolishness. It seems to have little to do with learning history and more to do with who's ass you kiss.
Yeah, shit why shouldn't the North celebrate? They paid the price.

Catnlion, you are the worst kind of amateur historian, cherry picking facts to support your ideological agenda. Nobody with brains and a little sense of history is suggesting that all Northerners were moral saints and abolitionists and the Southerners were Evil with a capital E. People are people.

In fact, most Northerners weren't abolitionists, a specific group who wanted blacks to be given full, instant, and equal rights. Most Northerners simply wanted them not to be slaves and thought they needed to figure out some weird middle position for blacks. In fact, there was a time when many of them, Lincoln included, thought they should be shipped off to Liberia.

This argument about whether the civil war was about states rights or slavery is just plain silly and a semantics game. It's true that federalism was a major issue for the South. They wanted to determine their own economic affairs and didn't like the feds interfering but you cannot extricate the reason for their anti-federalism. Their economy was wholly dependent on slave labor, period. From the Revolutionary period until the CW period, the anti-federalist sentiment of the Southern politicians was due directly to the disagreement b/t the North and South about slavery.

And btw, the Underground RR--which is much more amorphous and flimsy and, well, romanticized than most people think--ended up in Canada only after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Prior to that, safety was over the Ohio River in Cincinnati and other such forays into northern states. The passage of the FSA is indicative of the extent to which the feds were willing to compromise with the South over the fate of blacks and toward the goal of a stronger union. Dred Scott, too, was a compromise to get the South on board to bring in more western states. In other words, it's true that in some ways blacks were pawns for the North, and a stronger centralized government was the priority.

In looking at this from the lens of the North, you can almost make your argument. The North wasn't nearly as unified in their opposition to slavery as the South was organized and unified in their support for it. And they fired the first shots, both figuratively in their secession and literally at Ft. Sumter.

Excellent! Well said. I also don't think anyone should be celebrating war at all - whether won or lost - so much suffering and death and destruction.
r

Lainey,

You say cherry pick, I say cherry pie. This is one of those discussions where I guess it depends on what point of view you are looking from. How about a truce with the understanding that most people don't have a clue on any of the issues that were going on at the time?

When you grow up and live in the South it's hard to miss the landmarks of the war that still are around. I grew up along the New River and have been to the shot tower. I lived not far from Appomattox and in Danville. When I was in grade school we would take a field trip to the old house at the end of town to see the cannon ball that was still in the wall. The history and grave markers are everywhere. The people who are buried here, from both sides, are our families. There were families torn apart where sons fought on different sides.

Like it or not, this is our heritage. When you watch the SoCal news you see people flying the Mexican flag, you go to Oktoberfest. The Polish and Greeks and just about everybody else has their heritage. This is ours.

As for the North having a celebration, why not. They paid the same price in blood and bodies that the South and the nation as a whole did.

I have felt the same way for some time.
Celebrating a bloody war in defense of slavery? A lost but valiant cause?
For a century and a half, the Gone-with-the Wind mythology has made us believe that the Southern cause was that of a noble, gallant, chivalrous civilization, which fell victim to the ugly and rapacious North. Ha! Maybe Italy’s neo-fascists can start celebrating Mussolini’s lost and gallant cause, too...
Tom Kando
http://european-americanblog.blogspot.com/

Catnlion, thanks for your gracious response. I get myself all riled up sometimes and was rude to start out the way I did. Truly, I have no idea what it's like to live in the South, and I can imagine a mindset that says, Well this is who we are, flaws and all. I still think this is different from actually celebrating the war, but it's not that different from people like me who continue to participate in a religion that appalls me much of the time. I define myself as Catholic culturally because it had such a profound influence on who I am. Anyway, my own comment got me to thinking that the whole argument about slavery vs. states rights really does have a lot to do with whether you're looking at it from the lens of the North or the South. I think what I said is true, that the North was very interested in preserving the Union and the South was very interested in preserving slavery. I think for each of them, that was the priority. It's food for thought.

Boy. some of these comments are just plain hateful. If you celebrate people's deaths and spit on their graves are you better than they were at their worst? It is interesting to note that the first slave owner in this country was black and from Virginia (not exactly the deep south). Further investigation reveals that Lincoln was a Republican. Can't we all do our research and get interested in facts and not the same old left and right blame game? Is everyone on the left good and everyone on the right bad? I think not. But I do think that anyone who spits and celebrates on people's graves might want to do some introspection!

Being from the South, and being one who had relatives that served and volunteered under the Confederate Flag (not the "stars and bars" that hate groups have now embraced as their own), but the flag of the Confederate States of America I have a slightly different personal take on this issue.

While stationed in the U.S. Coast Guard I spent most of my time in N.E. ports; Boston, and New York.

Most "Yankees" only truly KNOW that they WON the "War of Northern Aggression." That it ended at Appomattox, Virginia.

It didn't.

The Reconstruction Act of 1867 DID treat the South as a "occupied" territory up until the early to mid 1870's.

Look at the comments that have been posted here.

That's proof enough of what I'm about to share.

After the defeat of the Confederacy the "civil war" waged on for years. But it wasn't on battle fronts that Walmart would come along and try to build Super Centers on a century later, but within communities, villages, towns, and counties throughout the South.

People who were not only tired of war, or who had lost dearly because of it, who now just wanted to go on with their lives.

There are those here, and even to this day, proclaim to continue to fight it.

But the bloodshed between Americans continued for years down here in the South, despite the outcome of Appomattox.

The KKK, and other such groups were a hate filled response to the oppression that continued under the Reconstruction Act of 1867.

Oh, and the North wasn't the least bit blameless in this.

They turned a blind's eye.

Slavery was abolished to be sure, but it was only replaced with a "second class status" for Blacks.

See SCOTUS Plessy v Ferguson, and the history behind that ruling and you'll see what I mean.

As Americans we're all complicit in that War.

The North shouldn't celebrated the defeat of the Confederacy, any more than the South should celebrate it's losses.

We should honor those Americans, on both sides in my opinion, who gave their lives for a principle that they were willing to give their lives for.

And my question to those who think that "rebels" were fighting for "Slavery" why would so many men give their lives for an institution that only benefited 10% of the Southern Population at the time?

And for the record this "Southern Democrat" never left the party of JFK, or LBJ.

If you want to look for a member of the Klan, you only have to look to Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to find them. ;)

had not heard of about the confederation celebration (huh?)...(walking away trying not to barf)

Wow--Somehow I missed this post. I have now lived in NC for 2.5 years. What I've noticed that others in the US may not know is the huge influx of those from the North, particularly NY, NJ. Where I live outside of Charlotte, the accent is not southern, it's New York-en. Despite the fact that this new demographic has filled the coffers of small towns and municipalities resulting in great schools and infrastructure, many from the South resent it and see it as destroying their "culture." So I expect those in the South to really play up the defeat this year as a way of holding on to their disappearing "heritage."

So, I think I have the Appomattox day tree figured out, burn the old christmas tree and then hang little coffins and amputated limbs on it. The meal is one I am having trouble with. The holiday meal is as American as apple pie so we'd need two of them. One for the victorious north and one for the south. The south is a cinch since they were eating grass and sticks by the end of the war. The north would have to figure out what to have. Maybe bourbon chicken in honor of General Grant? How about pancakes with Log Cabin syrup? You know for Lincoln? Or an even better idea, get people to look at the reality of wars and stop thinking there is one damned thing to celebrate about any of them. Especially one as bloody and disastrous as the U.S. civil war.

Ablonde,

Not just jazz. Blues, ragtime, rock 'n' roll. Where would we have been without Elvis? Or B.B. King?

One of the greatest football coaches of all time, Bear Bryant, was born in my home state of Arkansas.

There are a lot of things about the South to be proud of. Before anyone in New England wants to throw stones at us, please justify the 17th century witch hunts.

The South is not the only place that celebrates its defeat in a war. Catalonia does it also on September 11th, the day that Castillian forces commanded by the Spanish king Felipe V invaded us.

Personally, I like the idea of a Appomattox Day. As an amateur history buff and a former history teacher, there is a lot of truth that remains untold. I just read the book, "American History in Black and White" in which the progressives are exposed for not having told the truth in our history books which are largely published in the North, but usually follow the trends of Texas. I'm from Tennessee, and applaud the idea.

In 1776 the Confederacy was born and lasted until 1788. Our founding father's government was good. With the influx of Europeans and an agenda a new government was birthed by the wealthy with an agenda of dominion. But the new nation of a constitutional government in 1788 was one that could be changed in congress to suit.

Time passed and people joined. State rights were still in existence. By the 1840's with people getting burned out with an oppressive government and wanting to TAKE freedom and property and all the Indian's land; states wanted to pull out of such a government. After all the founding fathers government was correct.

The CSA was born [why not use a Confederate flag?]. You are displaying a Navy cross and Southern Cross; they were battle flags of the Navy and Army respectively - not CSA flags.

Since the state joined voluntary they should be able to leave the same way; by vote.

I am a Christian and Southerner. Not an Irish Catholic immigrant. So the Illuminati wins. Look at what you have today; illiteracy higher now than before the civil war. A nation with the highest divorce rate in the world; highest violent crime and murder rate and more people in prison that Russia and China combined. Plus the number one polluter in the world. Does you proud.

If only the world would surrender to Jesus and follow Him; all ills would be cured.

In the end this is pointless. It re-ignites a conflict that is better off being put behind us. Half these posts refer to the south as "they" as if anyone below the Mason-Dixon line is a citizen of another country. We are ALL part of one country, one nation. This idea would simply create a division among the people of this country during a time when we need to be united. With major issues such as economic crises and war why worry about something that ended over 150 years ago.

So much anger directed at the South in these comments. That war was 150 years ago. A very small minority of Southerners (and as pointed out, people in other regions) won't let it go. What did the rest of us do to merit all this anger? It's enough that we have to put up with humidty, gnats and all these high talkin' yankees living among us.

Ok, I'm from the South. and I agree, slavery was and still is a bad idea. But, they didn't know better. The mindset of the time was that blacks were lower than humans. Yeah, it is stupid, but that was how they lived at that time.

Now, alsoknownas, you said you see guys driving their 4 wheel drives with mud slung on it and the antenna with the Confederate flag on it. What about that bothers you?

“If there had been no secession, no civil war, and no confederate defeat, there would have been no end of slavery in 1865"

Black Agenda Report editor and columnist Margaret Kimberley

If we defeat the G8 would we celebrate V8 day as well.

Erensto - silly ideas like "states rights" which was a non-concept.

States rights are a non concept? What world do you live in?
Try reading the Constitution. And try reading history. The Constitution exist for one and only one reason. To preserve states rights to the degree that was necessary for the states agree to form the union with out giving away more rights than they we comfortable with. If the framers would have tried to come colse to your notion of it being a non concept there would have been o agreement to form a union. Many if not all states would have refused under your notion. Maintaining States rights were paramount to the forming of the union.

I guess you are one of those that would abolish all states rights now.
Yep lets just have the feds control everything. The purpose of states and the rights of states is to give people a choice the
live the way they want except for the few rules granted to the fed gov. Like the right to have a state income tax or not. The right
to set state criminal code and punishment. To define its own branches of gov and qualifications of candidates. To decide the age of a driver. To require insurance or not to drive. The right to license the carrying of a concealed weapon. To determine speed limits on residential and state roads. To make littering a crime or not. To declare fire danger days ans restrict campfires.
The list can go on and on.
HTF do you come to the conclusion states rights are a no concept.
But that is a non concept to you. To create reciprocity between other states it chooses when recognizing a drives license or hand gun license. To decide how it wants to send its tax revenues.
To toll roads nor not. To decide on auto emissions or not.
To require a car inspection when and how.

I guess you are one of the people that would like all these policies to be nationalized. So no state would be different.

You are simply wrong. A huge amount of consideration and debate on the forming of the union was all about the limited fed gov. and the preservation of states rights.

Gary - "Many Southerners today feel folks in the north look down on them with the assumption they are backwards and all racists

Yes considerations statements like this

From John. Since it's Texas, I must ask -- did they spell everything right?

From Ablonde - The South has produced some good writers but not much else.

What a boat load of false and bigoted statements these are.
And as usual the authors know the statements a BS but they love to post crap they know is not true. Keeps them in the Salon in crowd.

Considering it is 2011 and not 1860 just why are you guys so affraid
of a succession? Well its pretty simple. The mass you need to support you collective policies will decline. The individual mandate wont work so well without the south on board.
It is not about human rights anymore. It is about control.
Why are you afraid of a peaceful split. I can live with it. Why cant you. Why do you need to force me to stay in your club when I a happy not to be. My guess is that if thre was a succession, many
northerners would join us. We could run the south without unions
and big gov. but you cannot survive your big gov ideology
without force me to remain in young club. Any organization that cannot survive on voluntary membership is no club at all.
You need the conservatives masses to make your literalism work.
Vice versa is not true. We are happy to stand without you even i t it is hard going for a while. If you let us go peacefully no one would have to die and we could focus our energy on creating a working
country of our the we like. And you will be left with a entitlement gov that will fall apart.

Pretty sary for you so of course you would resist in every way and
possible be willing to fight to maintain your unsustainable
policies

Why wont you simply let us leave in peace. Because yoi canot do without us.