Despite previous [Democratic] governors' refusals, [Republican Govenor (VA)] McDonnell issues Confederate history month proclamation

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2010 1:42 AM GMT
    Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has quietly declared April 2010 Confederate History Month, bringing back a designation in Virginia that his two Democratic predecessors -- Mark Warner and Tim Kaine -- refused to do.

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

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

    "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.


    Do you agree with Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to declare April 2010 Confederate History Month?
    Yes
    No

    view results
    This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

    pollresumes.jpg

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/04/post_666.html?hpid=topnews
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2010 3:00 AM GMT
    It was an important period in our state's history. I have no problem with it. Though he could be doing better things with his time, like, I don't know, creating jobs.
  • auryn

    Posts: 2061

    Apr 07, 2010 7:12 AM GMT
    I don't know, maybe I'm just too sensitive but this pisses me the fuck off.

    Probably because in more recent history, April is the same month that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, or something that has to do with the rise of disparaging racial sentiments coming from a certain out spoken group.

    I know April was the same month the war between the states began and ended (different years of course) and it came before the murder of a significant figure who's wife said he would have also fought for the rights of gays to marry, but I can't help but feeling pissed off for some reason.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2010 4:07 AM GMT
    I find it to be a big blow to the many residents of my home state that have descended from slaves. While I don't blame a single person alive today for slavery. It's horrid to want to officially have the whole country know that this one state in the US wants to honor REBEL SOLDERS.

    I got a good question... do Germans feel it's appropriate to honor Nazi soliders?? Matter of fact, last I checked courts have been extraditing people to make them account for their past brutal acts....

    McDonnell is showing his true colors now and more to come later....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2010 4:29 AM GMT
    The American Civil War did not start out to end slavery. Abraham Lincoln did not go into office to end slavery. Only a few people in the North were hot to free the slaves. Ending slavery became an objective of the war for most people only when the Northern boys started arriving home in boxes. And then ending slavery was only to punish the South, not to be good to the Blacks. Also, as the war dragged on, ending slavery became military objective. It was seen as a way to deprive the South of a large source of manpower that was sustaining its war effort. Notice that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the North. Any slave in the North was still a slave after the proclamation. And the proclamation did not apply to any portion of the South that was under Union control. Slaves in those regions remained slaves after the proclamation.....because slavery was still legal in the United States of America. It had not been abolished by Congress before or during the Civil War. Therefore, the president could not be proclamation declare slavery abolished on his own. The president can not suspend a legal action on his own volition. However, as Commander-in-Chief, he can use his war powers to take actions to promote a military objective. Therefore, he could declare the slave in the South free to deprive the South of their labor in the war effort, as mentioned above.