Top Law Schools

Haha, I'm definitely glad I won't be going to a school in a state that just proclaimed April "Confederate History Month."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04416.html

"The seven-paragraph declaration calls for Virginians to 'understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War.'"

Umm, if I recall correctly from my history classes, the "sacrifices" made by Confederates were done so to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Seems like a good thing to celebrate.

UPDATE: "Virginia governor apologizes for slavery 'omission'": http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100408/ts ... ocietyrace

This is going to get ugly.

doomed123 wrote:This is going to get ugly.

It's all in good fun. Sometimes you need to poke fun at the various states in our fine union. I'll be the first to admit that my home state of California needs to be ridiculed regularly.

I'd take some confederate bullshit in exchange for a UVA acceptance.

tallboone wrote:
It's all in good fun. Sometimes you need to poke fun at the various states in our fine union. I'll be the first to admit that my home state of California needs to be ridiculed regularly.

Virginia's a commonwealth.

hth

tallboone wrote:Haha, I'm definitely glad I won't be going to a school in a state that just proclaimed April "Confederate History Month."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04416.html

"The seven-paragraph declaration calls for Virginians to 'understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War.'"

Umm, if I recall correctly from my history classes, the "sacrifices" made by Confederates were done so to protect states' rights. Seems like a good thing to celebrate.

7th grade history teacher trolling ftw

lol the south never ceases to amaze me

*walks in*

*looks around*

*realizes they still have sweet tea*

*shrugs*

*leaves*

wow seriously?
it's one thing to be "proud of heritage/history" or whatnot, but according to the article, they are whitewashing the issue and leaving out the issue of slavery. so...i guess they celebrate the confederate cause...while leaving out references to the fact that they were representing pro-slavery?

i think it's ridiculous

tallboone wrote:Umm, if I recall correctly from my history classes, the "sacrifices" made by Confederates were done so to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Seems like a good thing to celebrate.

Out of all the southerners who fought and died for the Confederacy, very few owned slaves. The civil war was partially about slavery, yes. But let's be frank, the north wouldn't have fought the civil war if it was *just* about slavery. Northerners didn't care *that much* about the slaves. The war was in large part about a federal government dominated by northern economic interests, and a union in which the south felt it was getting the short end of the stick. Such circumstances are typical reasons for successful and unsuccessful civil wars.

The Civil War was not about slavery. Try taking a college-level history course.

--ImageRemoved--

beef wellington wrote:--ImageRemoved--

+1

rayiner wrote:

tallboone wrote:Umm, if I recall correctly from my history classes, the "sacrifices" made by Confederates were done so to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Seems like a good thing to celebrate.

Out of all the southerners who fought and died for the Confederacy, very few owned slaves. The civil war was partially about slavery, yes. But let's be frank, the north wouldn't have fought the civil war if it was *just* about slavery. Northerners didn't care *that much* about the slaves. The war was in large part about a federal government dominated by northern economic interests, and a union in which the south felt it was getting the short end of the stick. Such circumstances are typical reasons for successful and unsuccessful civil wars.

thanks for the history lesson rayiner! i guess i was confused about slavery being such a big issue during this time period. i thought that the fact that the southern economy was entirely built upon slave labor meant they would fight to the death to protect the institution. i thought that the south in particular was deathly afraid of abolition and felt that blacks were totally inferior, but you're right that they probably had other things on their minds. i also thought that northerners were major proponents of abolition (didn't lincoln run on a platform of abolition?), but thanks for letting me know they didn't put their money where their mouths were!

toaster2 wrote:

rayiner wrote:

tallboone wrote:Umm, if I recall correctly from my history classes, the "sacrifices" made by Confederates were done so to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Seems like a good thing to celebrate.

Out of all the southerners who fought and died for the Confederacy, very few owned slaves. The civil war was partially about slavery, yes. But let's be frank, the north wouldn't have fought the civil war if it was *just* about slavery. Northerners didn't care *that much* about the slaves. The war was in large part about a federal government dominated by northern economic interests, and a union in which the south felt it was getting the short end of the stick. Such circumstances are typical reasons for successful and unsuccessful civil wars.

thanks for the history lesson rayiner! i guess i was confused about slavery being such a big issue during this time period. i thought that the fact that the southern economy was entirely built upon slave labor meant they would fight to the death to protect the institution. i thought that the south in particular was deathly afraid of abolition and felt that blacks were totally inferior, but you're right that they probably had other things on their minds. i also thought that northerners were major proponents of abolition (didn't lincoln run on a platform of abolition?), but thanks for letting me know they didn't put their money where their mouths were!

Look at the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery and when it was passed and who it affected. It was 1863, years after the war had begun, and only affected the Confederate states. Many scholars on the matter think that Lincoln did this to keep the British from coming to the war on the South's side, not for any abolitionist agenda.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

That's Alexander Stephens (VP of the CSA) in March 1861. I could probably find a dozen more quotes from contemporary sources. All the white-washing came afterwards.

Here's the full declaration. Read it, then argue. Not the other way around. --LinkRemoved--

I voted for Creigh Deeds, but see absolutely nothing wrong with the declaration.

Imagine you're from the UK and whenever you put out a statement honoring British soldiers that died in the American Revolution, every news outlet in the US puts out a statement saying how evil your soldiers were for fighting to put down the revolution and how they shouldn't be honored because of the dastardly political system they were obviously supporting by serving in England's army. Also, all Britains should be ashamed of everything that happened between the Boston Tea Party and the War of 1812. Even that time the king's mom made tea on Sunday afternoon in 1806.

Leave it so some idiot from California (OP) to come on here and flame about the South. It's called history and heritage bub, get some. Nothing racist about it. Virginia was a Confederate state and that's a fact and it's something to be proud of.

California isn't exactly race-relations problems free you know. I would rather gouge my eyes out than live in California/go to UCLA.

lawhawk wrote:Leave it so some idiot from California (OP) to come on here and flame about the South. It's called history and heritage bub, get some. Nothing racist about it. Virginia was a Confederate state and that's a fact and it's something to be proud of.

California isn't exactly race-relations problems free you know. I would rather gouge my eyes out than live in California/go to UCLA.

Haha, OP probably thinks Lincoln was a Democrat. They're like, the party of equality right?

fortissimo wrote:lol the south never ceases to amaze me

+1,000,000

Being from a midwestern state that had a few battles, was technically a slave state, but that no one really cares about the CW today like they do on the East Coast, it perplexes me why people allow this to be such a big deal.

Will VA be any less of an excellent place to live for minorities because of this? I highly doubt it.

I don't think the proclaimation is racist, but even if it is, no state is without racism. We need to stop letting it define and control so much of our lives. Fact of the matter is, the VAST majority of poeple today are not racist (probably even most of the ones that Sharpton and the likes label as such).

Sauer Grapes wrote: Fact of the matter is, the VAST majority of poeple today are not racist

I'm gonna disagree with that statement, at least in certain regions. Sure people may not be that open with their racism but I live in the South and I have for my entire life. I'm not sure if I can agree with using the VAST designation for non-racists in my area. It's very segregated here and there definitely more than a few racists, black and white.

hellokitty wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote: Fact of the matter is, the VAST majority of poeple today are not racist

I'm gonna disagree with that statement, at least in certain regions. Sure people may not be that open with their racism but I live in the South and I have for my entire life. I'm not sure if I can agree with using the VAST designation for non-racists in my area. It's very segregated here and there definitely more than a few racists, black and white.

Fair enough. I can't argue with what you've observed and experienced.

I guess I've found that most people, if you are polite to them, are open to the goodness of the person regardless of their skin. However, I am looking through different eyes than you and I fully realize there are other factors that play into my experience.

lebob wrote:wow seriously?
it's one thing to be "proud of heritage/history" or whatnot, but according to the article, they are whitewashing the issue and leaving out the issue of slavery. so...i guess they celebrate the confederate cause...while leaving out references to the fact that they were representing pro-slavery?

i think it's ridiculous

Reminds me of that family guy where they are on the tour in Germany and the tour guide refuses to acknowledge that Germany was in WWII.

--LinkRemoved--

Sauer Grapes wrote:

hellokitty wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote: Fact of the matter is, the VAST majority of poeple today are not racist

I'm gonna disagree with that statement, at least in certain regions. Sure people may not be that open with their racism but I live in the South and I have for my entire life. I'm not sure if I can agree with using the VAST designation for non-racists in my area. It's very segregated here and there definitely more than a few racists, black and white.

Fair enough. I can't argue with what you've observed and experienced.

I guess I've found that most people, if you are polite to them, are open to the goodness of the person regardless of their skin. However, I am looking through different eyes than you and I fully realize there are other factors that play into my experience.

Definitely understandable. I've been in certain parts of the country where everyone seemed so accepting. People had friends and significant others of all different races and race was generally never a big issue. So yeah, experiences vary person to person, region to region, etc, etc.