VA Gov. McDonnell Angers Civil Rights Advocates with Declaration

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | April 6, 2010 at 07:29 pm
574 views | 39 Recommendations | 26 comments

Photos

VA Gov. McDonnell Angers Civil Rights Advocates w Confed. History

VA Gov. McDonnell Angers Civil Rights Advocates w Confed. History

see larger image

uploaded by Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Virginia Governor Robert F Mc Donnell has angered civil rights leaders with his revival of Confederate History Month 


Conflict follows on Gay workers' protection controversy


GOP Gov. Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia has declared that April will be Confederate History Month in his state.  By doing so,  he has revived an eight year old conflict and angered civil rights leaders.  

Honoring those who fought for the South in the Civil War,  the month proclamation is said to be mainly symbolic.  Two previous Democratic governors had refused in their terms to acknowledge the month.   

Reviving a Tradition of Controversy

 McDonnell  has revived a tradition begun  by Republican Governor George Allen in 1997. McDonnell,  though,  has gone a step further than his predecessor,  leaving out   anti-slavery language that Allen's successor, James S. Gilmore III (R), had asked be  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."

Sovereign States Rights 

Within the 7 pages of the Declaration,  Virginians are asked to understand the sacrifices of confederate leaders and soldiers during the Civil War crisis.  

April also honors child abuse prevention, organ donations, financial literacy and crime victims in the state.  McDonnell had the proclamation posted on his Governor's website last week,  when it became noticed by media today.  

McDonnell and State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli were embroiled last month in a controversy when they attempted to remove special gay rights protections for state workers in public colleges and universities.  

The proclamation could change that view among Republicans who believe appropriate respect for the state's Confederate past has been erased by an over-allegiance to political correctness, observers said.

Some academics and political conservatives have applauded McDonnell for his action,  and say that it supports the fight for states rights and energizes his conservative base.  

The  NAACP of VA along with Virginia's legislative black caucus called the proclamation an insult to a large segment of the state's population,  especially with the tacit approval of slavery.  

"Governor McDonnell's proclamation was offensive and offered a disturbing revision of the Civil War and the brutal era that followed," said Del. Kenneth Cooper Alexander (D-Norfolk), chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. "Virginia has worked hard to move beyond the very things for which Governor McDonnell seems nostalgic."

Richmond served as the capital of the Confederacy during the Civil War and many of its statesmen were slave holders.  Since the Reconstruction period's beginning,  the state in 1989 made L Douglas Wilder the first African American governor.  

 McDonnell's is eager to attract companies to Virginia in order to re-energize the state's economy.  Some say that corporations   might begin to perceive McDonnell's proclamation -- preceded by Cuccinelli's decision to sue the federal government over health-care reform legislation and his advice to state colleges and universities that they remove sexual-orientation language from their anti-discrimination policies -- as behaviors that may become liabilities for them and their employees.  

McDonnell's proclamation comes just before the April 17, 1861, anniversary of the day Virginia seceded from the union.

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
5
Paul Conneally

For many it will seem a little like modern Germany holding events to celebrate some of Hitler's actions - this couldn't happen in Germany though as it would be illegal.

Maybe a better tourist attraction would be a The Virginian theme park. The TV series is still running and for many it's all they know of Virginia that and the tragic Virginia Tech shootings.

I'm here in the UK but am thankful to Virginia Tech who at their Center for Digital Discourse host an archive of some of my work: haikumania



1
Rory Cripps

"For many it will seem a little like modern Germany holding events to celebrate some of Hitler's actions - this couldn't happen in Germany though as it would be illegal."

Unfortunately you're correct. The problem is that it's a major stretch to compare the extermination of 6 million Jews with the plight of American slaves or to compare the 600,000 Americans that died in the war between the states with the millions that died in WWII as a result of Germany's aggression.

2
Paul Conneally

Hi Rory - i see what you're saying - but that Specials song "War Crimes" comes to mind: "the numbers are different, the crime is still the same" - that song was inspired by the Israeli attacks on Beirut - I don't know enough about the American Civil War to say too much that's informed but the sentiments of the song sit well with me around most oppression. The ordinary guys that fight in wars usually do so at behest of some power-monger or another and at some point we get beyond 'celebrating' former wars to grieving the dead and the fact they ever happened or had to happen...

3
YankeeJim

I had to add a story to complement SMK's good reporting.  I anticipated this yesterday when I posted about General Lee contemplating surrender. His actual surrender will occur on April 9th (1865) and he wrote his signature in disappearing ink. So, they had to track him down a couple of days later and make him sign it again with real ink. That's a true story. Can't trust them Rebs.

4
Chris Cooper

Well, we should not compare tragedies at all. But I don't think that Paul is out of line with his comparison of the Holocaust and the 100+ years of African Americans being viewed as cattle. Many killings were not recorded and no opposing army came in to count dead bodies. I highly doubt that there was full disclosure from plantation to plantation as to the number of murdered slaves over the subsequent "generation". So lets not act as if the two events should not be mentioned in the same breath. Every other nation in the world puts the two events in the same hat except the country that was responsible. So, lets be a little more understanding of Paul's point. 

1
Rory Cripps

Chris Cooper (not verified): Good try . . . is that really your name? : )

It seems like any sincere and contrary response to a topic such as this is not welcomed. Indeed,  there's no room for an opposing voice here, because the choir is singing from the same songbook . . . .

4
Karen Hatter

From the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, enumerated under Section 9, Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights, adopted on March 11, 1861:

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The vision of the Confederate States of America hinged on the continued enslavement of the nearly 4 million enslaved persons of African descent in America during that time period, located primarily in the southern states, with the Confederacy distributing printed money with idyllic and pastoral imagery meant to portray slavery as a wondrous existence.

Numismatists have long known about the bills' imagery, but historians have recently begun taking a closer look at it as a statement of the South's economic priorities during the war. An Internet exhibition created last year by the United States Civil War Center at Louisiana State University has more than 75 engravings of slavery from Confederate paper money. The exhibition can be seen at Beyond Face Value.

At the time, money was printed both by the Confederate States of America and by the banks of the individual Southern states. Several scholars who contributed to the online project noted that Southern banks enshrined slavery in their monetary system to remind those who came in contact with their bills that the institution was the region's economic bedrock

"Slaves were the capital of the South," said Henry N. McCarl, an economics professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a numismatist who contributed an essay and part of his collection to the online exhibition. "Cultures put on their money objects that are important to them and their economy, and the South had an interest in showing to the world that the slaves were well treated and happy.

There are, of course, no scenes of slaves being mistreated on the bills, and in a few close-ups they are smiling as they move in ragged clothes and bare feet through the cotton fields. In one scene painted by Mr. Jones from a South Carolina $5 bill, a white overseer supervises a group of slaves from his horse with his whip in his hand; in another, a white man and woman gaze down at a quartet of bent-over slaves working with scythes in a wheat field.

Protection of individual states rights was the cry as the profiteers of the highly profitable business of slavery sought a cessation of all attempts to prevent the centuries long, legally sanctioned, inhuman practice.

Governor Robert McDonnell's explanation for why he did not mention slavery in his proclamation was an attempt to dismiss the cultural and monetary significance slavery played in the development of the United States, particularly at the time of the Civil War in the southern United States, can only be described as dishonest.

1
YankeeJim

A call for impeachment is not out of order. Doing so, however, might ignite the Tea Party right into secession, don't you think?

1
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

No doubt about that.  And they would likely be glad for the opportunity, YJ ; )

2
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Thanks so much for all of that, KH.  Yes, McDonnell is up to something,  it has been clear to me for some time now....

2
Karen Hatter

You're welcome, SMK.

A few facts about slavery in Virginia:

SLAVE LAWS PASSED IN VIRGINIA:

1640-1660: The Critical Period: Custom to Law when Status Changed to "Servant for Life"
  • 1639/40 -- Blacks excluded from the requirement of possessing arms.
  • 1642 -- Black women counted as tithables (taxable).
  • 1662 -- Possibility of life servitude for Blacks.
1660-1680: Slave Laws Further Restrict Freedom of Blacks and Legalize Different Treatment for Blacks and Whites
  • 1667 -- Baptism does not bring freedom to Blacks.
  • 1669 -- An about the "casual killing of slaves" establishing that "if any slave resist his master and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, that his death not be accompted Felony."
  • 1670 -- Servant for life: the "normal" condition judged for Blacks.
  • 1670 -- Forbade free Blacks and Native Americans, "though baptised," to own Christian servants.
1680-1705: Slave Laws Reflect racism and the Deliberate Separation of Blacks and Whites. Color becomes the Determining Factor. Conscious Efforts to Police Slave Conduct Rigidly.
  • 1680 -- Prescription of thirty lashes on the bare back "if any negroe or other slave shall presume to lift up his hand against any Christian."
  • 1680's -- Development of a separate legal code providing distinct trial procedures and harsher punishments for negroes.
  • 1680's -- Status of the child is determined by the status or condition of the mother.
  • 1680's -- Severe punishment for slaves who leave their master's property or for hiding or resisting capture.
  • 1691 -- Banishment for any white person married to a negroe or mulatto and approved a systematic plan to capture "outlying slaves."
  • 1705 -- All negroe, mulatto, and Indian slaves shall be held, taken, and adjudged to be real estate.
  • 1705 -- Dismemberment of unruly slaves was made legal.

On February 24, 2007, the state of Virginia's lawmakers voted unanimously on a resolution to express "profound regret" for the state of Virginia's role in the enslavement of people of African descent.

The resolution was introduced as Virginia begins its celebration of the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, where the first Africans arrived in 1619. Richmond, home to a popular boulevard lined with statues of Confederate heroes, later became another point of arrival for Africans and a slave-trade hub.

The resolution says government-sanctioned slavery "ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation's history, and the abolition of slavery was followed by systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding."

In Virginia, black voter turnout was suppressed with a poll tax and literacy tests before those practices were struck down by federal courts, and state leaders responded to federally ordered school desegregation with a "Massive Resistance" movement in the 1950s and early '60s. Some communities created exclusive whites-only schools.

The apology is the latest in a series of strides Virginia has made in overcoming its segregationist past. Virginia was the first state to elect a black governor _ L. Douglas Wilder in 1989 _ and the Legislature took a step toward atoning for Massive Resistance in 2004 by creating a scholarship fund for blacks whose schools were shut down between 1954 and 1964.

 

3
bpulhem

McDonnell and Company have been up to something for some time now. In short- as has been written millions of times, The South will always fight the Civil War. They do have some history in their Confederacy and some of the multitudes who rose up against the North but, the North has always dominated the south in terms of educational awareness which allows for civil debate. The South it seems has always regarded education as a side issue. Many of the Southern States have the lowest educational levels in the nation, It is little wonder that to spice the tea of Southern Constituents so called leaders advocate confrontational and divisive tactics amongst it peoples. The Tea Party Movement is a clear example of the uneducated following a southern donkey swinging honey from its rear instead of normal donkey droppings. I would have no problem if the entire Southern States did secede along with Texas. Take their poor uneducated people and the pittance they donate to the federal Government and let them eat tea leaves.

2
jo an

I think the comparison to observing Hitler's regime in Germany is correct.I can not think of one reason to honor the Confederate which was a criminal. The worst part is that instead of being tried for WAR CRIMES they were allowed to set up JIM CROW laws all over the South and further punish the BLACKS which had been held as slaves.This is a total disgrace and every conscious Virginian should have this stricken from the books. The governor should be recalled,

1
Rory Cripps

jo an (not verified):

"I think the comparison to observing Hitler's regime in Germany is correct.I can not think of one reason to honor the Confederate which was a criminal."

There are millions of Americans descended from those that fought on the south's side during the war between the states.And their  forefathers not only fought in the Civil War, but they fought in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and throughout the Middle East. The slavery issue was the main impetus behind the war. But most of the Confederate soldiers that fought, didn't see it that way. They saw the war more in terms of defending their homes and families against encroachment by the federal government. Keep in mind that virtually all of those that fought on the confederate side during the Civil War never "owned" a slave.

Read some Bruce Catton books about the Civil War. Those books serve as a good primer for those , such as yourself, that have no knowledge of American history.


3
Karen Hatter

Rory, your statement that most Confederate soldiers were not fighting for slavery is partially true, in that the soldiers themselves did not see themselves as fighting for slavery.

However, with the 5%-6% of southern slaveholders organizing the seceded states into the Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis himself being a slaveholder, whether 'most' of those soldiers realized or acknowledged it, their fight for states' rights, " .... defending their homes and families against encroachment ....", theirs was a rebellion against the elected United States' president and government, with those secededing states doing so because an anti slavery leaning President Lincoln had been elected.

The history of the Confederate States of America as citizens defending their homeland is a fictional, romanticized rendering, offered to re-write history.

The valor and bravery on both sides should be acknowledged as, in war, soldiers are called upon to fight on the side with which, for the most part, they have affinity. In this case, one side was engaged in treasonous acts against the government.

The average non slaveholding soldier drafted into the Confederate Army, or volunteering, had little control over the politics in which he now found himself.

Just as those engaged in the abolition movement to free the enslaved, while slavery was still the law of the land, were criminals, those fighting in the Confederate Army in opposition to an elected U.S. government were also engaged in unlawful actions.

Jefferson Davis' Views on Slavery

Jefferson Davis was a Jeffersonian Democrat and was "dedicated to the principle of state rights under the Constitution." The ideas he held concerning slavery, or that "peculiar institution" as slavery was often referred to, inherited from his father and George Washington, dictated that slavery was a "stepping stone" for the Negro to become perfect. Evidently, meaning to become more like the white man, the same concept held towards attempts to civilize the Native Americans.

0
Rory Cripps

Karen: I would like nothing better than to have an open and honest dialogue with you. However the last person that attempted that didn't fair too well and we all know what happened to him . . .don't we? 

But I ain't him! With that said, I'll dare to say this: The first comment to this post set the tone. And when I see confederate soldiers equated to NAZIs and comments defending that equation, it tells me that I should just hush up and sit down . . . .

3
Royneededremoval

what happened to him . . .don't we?Long overdue and a valid editorial decision. He should have been cut off a longtime ago as he has been from several other sites. A cancer in the community needs to be surgically removed for the greater health of the host. Please don't blame Karen for that. It was an editorial decision and a damn fine one in my opinion

0
Rory Cripps

Royneededremoval (not verified): HA! That's funny! Well he sure was removed in more ways the one!

But please don't blame me or others for refraining from commenting on and recommending stories that contain a racial component vis a vis African Americans. After all, no one wants to be deemed "a cancer in the community".  If the choir is happy singing from the same page of the same song book over and over again so be it. The problem for the choir, however, is that people will get tired of hearing that same song over and over again and ultimately stop listening.

4
Royneededremoval

Hi RoryDiffering opinions are the lifeblood of debate. Your comments are civil, rational and frequently data supported. I fully support your rights to express contrary opinions to the writer. Roy was in a whole other category of hate speech, obsessive observations, distorted understanding and circular logic. He needed to go for the greater good, You I would want to encourage to stay and comment for exactly the same reason. You are a positive force in he NP community, Roy was a diseaseThanks and I look forward to your future observations

0
Rory Cripps

Royneededremoval (not verified): Oh what joy!

"Differing opinions are the lifeblood of debate."

Yes! That's precisely my point! But I don't see any differing opinions here! They're all of the same mindset! You're familiar with yin and yang I'm sure. Opposing forces that ultimately merge and become one in the same. What that translates into is balance.

It is oh so predictable that any time someone posts a story about America's institutions, culture, values, mores, etc. virtually all comments invariably contain invidious and absurd comparisons to America and fascist and dictatorial regimes such as Hitler's Germany. And one of the interesting things about those that make these comparisons is that they never compare America to Stalin's Russia in which millions upon millions were murdered and literally starved to death. And the reason why they don't make that comparison is obvious--because in many respects, they subscribe to Stalin's ideology.

The facts are that in NAZI Germany, an entire race of people (Jews) were marked for literal extermination as if they were nothing but mere insects. And virtually all non-Jewish German citizens went along with it. Six million Jews were murdered by any number of means. And the extermination would have continued until there was not one Jew left on the face of the earth had countries such as America, Britain, and yes, Russia, not gone to war against Germany. 

Had America sat back and done nothing during WWII, the face of Europe would have been completely different today. And those Europeans that just love to go on about what a terrible country America is, wouldn't even be allowed to express their views in speech and in writing.

Slavery was the impetus behind the Civil War. And the war would have occurred much sooner had President Andrew Jackson  not prevailed in preserving the Union. Brothers fought against brothers in that war. Generations were destroyed. Homes were burnt to the ground. Union troops murdered, raped, looted and pillaged. Hatred and animosity lingered for decades upon decades. But the facts are that the overwhelming majority of Confederate soldiers (those that fought for the south) did not own slaves. And in their minds, their fight against the Union transcended the slavery issue. They believed that they were fighting for a nobler cause.

I've said it before and I say it again: People need to cast off their ideological blinders and crack open some history books. Only then will they stop seeing things merely in terms of black and white . . . .



3
Karen Hatter

In fact, Rory, only about 25% of those fighting in the Confederate Army during the Civil War were slaveholders.

As far as blinders go, there is a need for many Southerners to come to grips with the fact that DESPITE their ancestors' most likely highly PERSONAL motivations for fighting on the side of the Confederacy, the war waged was waged on behalf of those states that proclaimed they no longer belonged to the United States of America, seceding in an attempt to continue slavery and the way of life of which those who owned slaves had become accustomed.

It's not a Black thing or a White thing; it's a history thing.

To pretend the war wasn't about the desire of the seceding states to withdraw from the United States because they wanted to preserve slavery as a system, with those states claiming their states' rights to maintain the system of slavery, is ridiculous.

As far as a correlation between Nazi Germany and the Confederacy and its fight to preserve the system of chattel slavery, in relation to the dehumanization, torture, neglect and murder of an entire people, a reasonable comparison can be made.

Chattel slavery had progressed in parts of the so called New World to the most deplorable realization that it was cheaper to work an enslaved person to death and replace him or her than to maintain his or her life.

As in Nazi Germany and its officially enacted policies, the policies related to chattel slavery in the United States in the southern states were the legally enacted legislation of the states.

By 1619, more than a century and a half after the Portuguese first traded slaves on the African coast, European ships had brought a million Africans to colonies and plantations in the Americas and force them to labor as slaves. Trade through the West African forts continued for nearly three hundred years. The Europeans made more than 54,000 voyages to trade in human beings and sent at least ten to twelve million Africans to the Americas.


 

2
Karen Hatter

The unresolved contradictions that existed before and after the War Between the States, a.k.a. the Civil War, has resulted in various factions discussing the secession of almost half of the states in the United States of America as if those states had existed as independent entities, not of the U.S., who were unjustly attacked and forced to defend themselves.

That is not the reality of the circumstances.

Southerners had compromised in 1850, when the first crisis occurred. And at that time they had said, "We're going to compromise this time, but this is it. We're not going to yield again if this onslaught against slavery continues." Well, it continued and culminated in the election of a sectional President in 1860. And that was the fact that brought on the Civil War. There's no doubt about that. Southerners don't like to admit today that slavery was the cause of secession, which led in turn to the Civil War. White southerners do not like to admit that. You go to Sons of Confederate Veterans meetings and so on, and they talk about states' rights and economic differences and all that. But that's nonsense. Every scintilla of evidence that can be adduced from the correspondence and the editorials, that's what the issue is: slavery. And that caused secession. That does not mean, however, that Confederate soldiers thought they were fighting for the defense of slavery. Only one white family in four in the South owned slaves; three-fourths of the white families owned no slaves. And the bulk of the Confederate Army is made up of these non-slaveholders. And they're fighting for home and family and country and honor and the same things that soldiers fought for from time immemorial and still fight for, not for slavery. But that's the cause of the war. That's what triggered secession. Secession triggered the war. No doubt about it.

The compromise spoken of in the above highlight was the Compromise of 1850, a series of bills which included the Fugitive Slave Act.

On January 29, 1850, the 70-year-old Clay presented a compromise. For eight months members of Congress, led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, debated the compromise. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills that would make up the compromise were ushered through Congress.

According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.

Of all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law.

For slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to the neighboring country. For Harriet Jacobs, a fugitive living in New York, passage of the law was "the beginning of a reign of terror to the colored population." She stayed put, even after learning that slave catchers were hired to track her down. Anthony Burns, a fugitive living in Boston, was one of many who were captured and returned to slavery. Free blacks, too, were captured and sent to the South. With no legal right to plead their cases, they were completely defenseless.

After the Civil War began:

In the South, most slaveholders were convinced that their slaves would remain loyal to them. Some did, but the vast majority crossed Union lines as soon as Northern troops entered their vicinity. A Confederate general stated in 1862 that North Carolina was losing approximately a million dollars every week because of the fleeing slaves.

Numbers of white southerners also refused to support the Confederacy. From the beginning, there were factions who vehemently disagreed with secession and remained loyal to the Union. Many poor southern whites became disillusioned during the course of the war. Wealthy planters had been granted exemptions from military service early on. This became especially inflammatory when the South instituted the draft in 1862 and the exemptions remained in place. It became clear to many poor southern whites that the war was being waged by the rich planters and the poor were fighting it. In addition, the common people were hit hard by wartime scarcity. By 1863, there was a food shortage. Riots and strikes occurred as inflation soared and people became desperate.

There were also northerners who resisted the war effort. Some were pacifists. Others were white men who resented the fact that the army was drafting them at the same time it excluded blacks. And there were whites who refused to fight once black soldiers were admitted. The North was also hit by economic depression, and enraged white people rioted against African Americans, who they accused of stealing their jobs.

Finally, on April 18, 1865, the Civil War ended with the surrender of the Confederate army. 617,000 Americans had died in the war, approximately the same number as in all of America's other wars combined. Thousands had been injured. The southern landscape was devastated.

A new chapter in American history opened as the Thirteenth Amendment, passed in January of 1865, was implemented. It abolished slavery in the United States, and now, with the end of the war, four million African Americans were free. Thousands of former slaves travelled throughout the south, visiting or searching for loved ones from whom they had become separated. Harriet Jacobs was one who returned to her old home. Former slaveholders faced the bewildering fact of emancipation with everything from concern to rage to despair.

Men and women -- black and white and in the North and South -- now began the work of rebuilding the shattered union and of creating a new social order. This period would be called Reconstruction. It would hold many promises and many tragic disappointments. It was the beginning of a long, painful struggle, far longer and more difficult than anyone could realize. It was the beginning of a struggle that is not yet finished.

2
Karen Hatter

Susan, this has since been added to Governor McDonnell's proclamation:

WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history;

I'm not sure the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who requested the proclamation, would approve.

At its August (2002) convention in New Orleans, SCV delegates selected as their national commander Chris Sullivan, a longtime ally of outgoing commander Denne Sweeney and a fellow South Carolinian. Sullivan is the editor of Southern Partisan, a controversial neo-Confederate magazine that has depicted antebellum slaves as happy and slave traders as benevolent. Other Sweeney allies were elected to top posts in the SCV's three "armies," or major geographical subdivisions.

A Sons of Confederate Veterans' spokesperson Brandon Dorsey addressed the group's decision to ask Governor McDonnell to issue the proclamation:

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 (previous Virginia Governors) Warner or Kaine.

"We've known for quite some time we had a good opportunity should he ascend the governorship," Brandon Dorsey said. "We basically decided to bide our time and wait until we had more favorable politicians in Richmond."

Dorsey said the governor's stamp of approval would help the group publicize the month and aide tourism efforts in the state.

The Governor has issued an apology for the original proclamation's omission of any reference to slavery:

“The proclamation issued by this Office designating April as Confederate History Month contained a major omission. The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed. The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War. Slavery was an evil, vicious and inhumane practice which degraded human beings to property, and it has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation. In 2007, the Virginia General Assembly approved a formal statement of ‘profound regret’ for the Commonwealth’s history of slavery, which was the right thing to do.“
  

2
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Yes,  I doubt they has such additional words in mind, and there is much nostalgia and much which cannot be overcome in the Southern psyche,  for some. McDonnell has this modus operndi:  Tips his hand, shows all 5 fingers at once ,  steps back,  acquieces . 

2
bpulhem

Let us not be too easy to pass this action by this Governor off. It is clear to me that their is a tremendous resurgence of Ku Klux Klan mentality in a lot of the coded messages this governor and other right wing elected officials are using. The Tea Party wing nuts who influence these So called responsible politicians demand nothing less than to resume that war with a different approach. Secessionist ambitions and the use of the word 'nullify" are part and portion of these coded words. Thus McDonnell being a straw man like all of his associates with the same views occupy a seat of scrutiny right now and rightfully so. I am not sorry to say this folks but the only difference between the fringe lunatics in the Tea Party Movement and the KKK is that the Tea party folks have discarded the robes and Pointed Hats.  I would urge the author of this article to continue pursuing this story with continued updates.

1
Karen Hatter

Slaves like Dick knew the war was about their freedom, but they were both shrewd and cautious. To rebel on their own was hopeless; the whites were too powerful. But now the Southern whites had an equally powerful outside enemy, and the odds had changed. The slaves, like successful rebels everywhere, bided their time until a revolt could succeed.

Meanwhile, through desertion and noncooperation, they did much to undermine the South long before Union armies triumphed. When the war began, some Confederates claimed that the disparity in white manpower between North and South (6 million potential soldiers for the North versus only 2 million for the South) was irrelevant. The South, Confederates claimed, could put a far higher proportion of their men in the field because they had slaves to do the labor at home.

The South, however, quickly learned that it had what would now be called a "fifth column" in its midst, providing aid and comfort to the enemy. At the beginning of the war, Southern officers took their body servants with them to the front to do their cooking and laundry. A unit of two thousand white soldiers would sometimes depart with as many as a thousand slaves in tow. The custom did not last beyond the first summer of the conflict. The servants deserted at the first opportunity and provided excellent intelligence to Union forces about Southern troop deployments.

In one incident during the early months of the war, Union soldiers on the Virginia Peninsula, stationed at Fort Monroe, repeatedly set out to capture the nearby city of Newport News, but without success. Their inaccurate maps showed the town to be southwest of Fort Monroe. Each would-be attack concluded with the troops mired in the swampy land bordering Hampton Roads (the bay between the Virginia Peninsula and Norfolk on the "Southside"). In fact, Newport News was slightly northwest of Fort Monroe, and Union forces were unable to find it until an escaped body servant led them there.


This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Amy Judd
First Flagged at 7:47 PM, Apr 6, 2010 by Amy Judd
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (39)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from