Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Sunday defended fellow Gov. Bob McDonnell for his decision to declare April "Confederate History Month" in Virginia without initially acknowledging the legacy of slavery, saying the controversy "doesn't amount to diddly."

The Virginia governor took heat for his declaration from a slew of top officials, including President Obama and former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder -- the first black elected governor and a grandson of slaves.

Under pressure, McDonnell on Wednesday apologized, acknowledging a "major omission" and adding in a paragraph condemning slavery. That helped ease the tension over the matter, but Barbour said Sunday that McDonnell did not do anything wrong in the first place.

"I don't know what you would say about slavery, but anybody that thinks that you have to explain to people that slavery is a bad thing, I think that goes without saying," he told CNN's "State of the Union."

"To me, it's a sort of feeling that it's a nit, that it is not significant, that it's ... trying to make a big deal out of something doesn't amount to diddly," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04 ... claration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

93henfan wrote:Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

It's been 2,000+ years since Jesus died on the cross too........yet, people continued to be obsessed with him and everything religious........go figure.

93henfan wrote:Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

No sh*t!

There isnt one black guy alive that has ever had to deal with slavery in anyway, hell most of their parents probably didnt have to deal with it either. It is a non issue as far as I am concerned and I laugh at anyone that acts like it is.

If we have to have "black history month" then there is no reason to get upset at Confederate history month, fair is fair.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

93henfan wrote:Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

No sh*t!

There isnt one black guy alive that has ever had to deal with slavery in anyway, hell most of their parents probably didnt have to deal with it either. It is a non issue as far as I am concerned and I laugh at anyone that acts like it is.

If we have to have "black history month" then there is no reason to get upset at Confederate history month, fair is fair.

Nothing wrong with Confederate History month, just tell the truth........an interesting comparison would be the different forms that slavery took in the North and in the South. In the North they practiced wage slavery, something that's making a comeback nowdays......

Doesn't sound to me like what he said was a big deal either other than it is one more example of a politician sticking their foot in their mouth. A southern politician saying something like that is just stupid.

93henfan wrote:Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

So where is your thread condemning Confederate History Month then in the first place? The war ended 150 years ago. Civil Wars continue to this day across the globe. Why obsess over a bunch of traitorous, bigoted people whose primary reason for rebellion was KEEPING SLAVES.

dbackjon wrote:

93henfan wrote:Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

So where is your thread condemning Confederate History Month then in the first place? The war ended 150 years ago. Civil Wars continue to this day across the globe. Why obsess over a bunch of traitorous, bigoted people whose primary reason for rebellion was KEEPING SLAVES.

You left out stubborn

dbackjon wrote:

93henfan wrote:Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

So where is your thread condemning Confederate History Month then in the first place? The war ended 150 years ago. Civil Wars continue to this day across the globe. Why obsess over a bunch of traitorous, bigoted people whose primary reason for rebellion was KEEPING SLAVES.

I don't participate in or support Confederate History Month, so I'm pretty much ambivalent toward it. But you're right, it seems pretty silly to keep something going that should be relegated to the history books.

I think there's a tinge of racism underlying any group's collective effort to continually bring up slavery (by blacks) or the confederacy (by whites). They'll try to legitimize it under the blanket of history or heritage respectively, but that's pretty transparent, to me at least.

dbackjon wrote:

93henfan wrote:Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

So where is your thread condemning Confederate History Month then in the first place? The war ended 150 years ago. Civil Wars continue to this day across the globe. Why obsess over a bunch of traitorous, bigoted people whose primary reason for rebellion was KEEPING SLAVES.

Since 95%+ of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, your ignorance of US history is rather disturbing.

mainejeff wrote:It's been 2,000+ years since Jesus died on the cross too........yet, people continued to be obsessed with him and everything religious........go figure.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
So where is your thread condemning Confederate History Month then in the first place? The war ended 150 years ago. Civil Wars continue to this day across the globe. Why obsess over a bunch of traitorous, bigoted people whose primary reason for rebellion was KEEPING SLAVES.

Since 95%+ of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, your ignorance of US history is rather disturbing.

I agree with Baldy

Pinning the Civil war solely on the Slavery is like pinning the start of the American Revolution on Taxation without Representation. There were multiple factors, Slavery being one of them as you can see through many of the events leading up to the war... but there are also numerous other factors that led to the war. It's a nice way to sum up the events, but the facts show that Northerners owned slaves during the war too, including Union Generals.

JMU DJ wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Since 95%+ of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, your ignorance of US history is rather disturbing.

I agree with Baldy

Pinning the Civil war solely on the Slavery is like pinning the start of the American Revolution on Taxation without Representation. There were multiple factors, Slavery being one of them as you can see through many of the events leading up to the war... but there are also numerous other factors that led to the war. It's a nice way to sum up the events, but the facts show that Northerners owned slaves during the war too, including Union Generals.

That settles it: TOPIC CLOSED.

NEXT!!!

Hell, I heard Barney Frank still keeps a man-servant.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
So where is your thread condemning Confederate History Month then in the first place? The war ended 150 years ago. Civil Wars continue to this day across the globe. Why obsess over a bunch of traitorous, bigoted people whose primary reason for rebellion was KEEPING SLAVES.

Since 95%+ of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, your ignorance of US history is rather disturbing.

Yes, the Confederate soldiers were duped. Your IGNORANCE, whether real, or the result of slanted education or willful disregard, is very disturbing.

Why did the states not secede until an ABOLUTIONIST was elected President if the underlying condition was not SLAVERY?

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Since 95%+ of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, your ignorance of US history is rather disturbing.

Yes, the Confederate soldiers were duped. Your IGNORANCE, whether real, or the result of slanted education or willful disregard, is very disturbing.

Why did the states not secede until an ABOLUTIONIST was elected President if the underlying condition was not SLAVERY?

Secession was about many issues, but the main one was slavery. Any doubts? Read South Carolina's secession documents. They give lots of high sounding reasons for secession (and some were probably legitimate) but if you read the entire document the picture is clear. South Carolina was protecting it's wealth, human capital.

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am certain that the vast majority of confederate soldiers fought for their homeland, just like most soldiers do.

93henfan wrote:Hell, I heard Barney Frank still keeps a man-servant.

Sure you aren't thinking about Eric Massa?

OL FU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Yes, the Confederate soldiers were duped. Your IGNORANCE, whether real, or the result of slanted education or willful disregard, is very disturbing.

Why did the states not secede until an ABOLUTIONIST was elected President if the underlying condition was not SLAVERY?

Secession was about many issues, but the main one was slavery. Any doubts? Read South Carolina's secession documents. They give lots of high sounding reasons for secession (and some were probably legitimate) but if you read the entire document the picture is clear. South Carolina was protecting it's wealth, human capital.

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am certain that the vast majority of confederate soldiers fought for their homeland, just like most soldiers do.

I agree with that. To go a little further in answering Jon's question...

1) Lincoln would have supported the South maintaining slavery if it would have kept the union intact. So, while he was personally against slavery (an abolitionist), he would not have freed the slaves if it would not have restored the union.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ument=1057

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

2) One of the reasons of the Civil War was that Lincoln won the presidency without carrying a southern state. A little over six weeks after the election did South Carolina secede. Again, this isn't to say slavery wasn't a key issue, but not the only issue.

Keep in mind Jon, I don't (and I'd say no one here) supports slavery. And, I'm not saying Lincoln wasn't on the right side of ending slavery--he was. But, there is no doubt that the Civil War was fought for many reasons, one of which being slavery. I'd also bet the North's soldiers weren't fighting solely to end slavery...as evidenced by Sherman himself.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Since 95%+ of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, your ignorance of US history is rather disturbing.

Yes, the Confederate soldiers were duped. Your IGNORANCE, whether real, or the result of slanted education or willful disregard, is very disturbing.

Why did the states not secede until an ABOLUTIONIST was elected President if the underlying condition was not SLAVERY?

This country elected a socialist president, but that doesn't mean we're Communist Russia either.

Put down your gay marriage brochure or your Obama Barbie doll and read a little history.

If JMU DJ, ASU Mountaineer, and I pretty much agree (not totally of course), then you are totally outgunned on this issue...

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Yes, the Confederate soldiers were duped. Your IGNORANCE, whether real, or the result of slanted education or willful disregard, is very disturbing.

Why did the states not secede until an ABOLUTIONIST was elected President if the underlying condition was not SLAVERY?

This country elected a socialist president, but that doesn't mean we're Communist Russia either.

Put down your gay marriage brochure or your Obama Barbie doll and read a little history.

If JMU DJ, ASU Mountaineer, and I pretty much agree (not totally of course), then you are totally outgunned on this issue...

Over? Did you say OVER? Nothing is over until JON decides it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[youtube][/youtube]

ASUMountaineer wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Secession was about many issues, but the main one was slavery. Any doubts? Read South Carolina's secession documents. They give lots of high sounding reasons for secession (and some were probably legitimate) but if you read the entire document the picture is clear. South Carolina was protecting it's wealth, human capital.

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am certain that the vast majority of confederate soldiers fought for their homeland, just like most soldiers do.

I agree with that. To go a little further in answering Jon's question...

1) Lincoln would have supported the South maintaining slavery if it would have kept the union intact. So, while he was personally against slavery (an abolitionist), he would not have freed the slaves if it would not have restored the union.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ument=1057

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

2) One of the reasons of the Civil War was that Lincoln won the presidency without carrying a southern state. A little over six weeks after the election did South Carolina secede. Again, this isn't to say slavery wasn't a key issue, but not the only issue.

Keep in mind Jon, I don't (and I'd say no one here) supports slavery. And, I'm not saying Lincoln wasn't on the right side of ending slavery--he was. But, there is no doubt that the Civil War was fought for many reasons, one of which being slavery. I'd also bet the North's soldiers weren't fighting solely to end slavery...as evidenced by Sherman himself.

'
Just to clarify my take, I said there were other issues and there were, states rights, constitutional issues, possible violations of the constitution by the northern states, but most of those grander issues revolved around the issues of slavery. The south seceded because they felt the peculiar institution was in jeopardy.

I really wanted to be the one dismantling Dback on this subject like you guys are, but its so one sided I wont say anything except keep up the good work.

OL FU wrote: '
Just to clarify my take, I said there were other issues and there were, states rights, constitutional issues, possible violations of the constitution by the northern states, but most of those grander issues revolved around the issues of slavery. The south seceded because they felt the peculiar institution was in jeopardy.

I'm with OL FU on this one - I've said the same in countless threads debunking revisionist history by a small cadre of Citadel posters, but the Civil War only happened because of slavery. There was no other single issue that, if taken away, would've prevented the war. Individuals didn't fight because of slavery, but the war never would've started up if the slavery issue wasn't the driving force of the most important issues facing the nation in its first 50 years as it actually was.

GannonFan wrote:

OL FU wrote: '
Just to clarify my take, I said there were other issues and there were, states rights, constitutional issues, possible violations of the constitution by the northern states, but most of those grander issues revolved around the issues of slavery. The south seceded because they felt the peculiar institution was in jeopardy.

I'm with OL FU on this one - I've said the same in countless threads debunking revisionist history by a small cadre of Citadel posters, but the Civil War only happened because of slavery. There was no other single issue that, if taken away, would've prevented the war. Individuals didn't fight because of slavery, but the war never would've started up if the slavery issue wasn't the driving force of the most important issues facing the nation in its first 50 years as it actually was.

Even in 1861, slavery was on the way out. Everyone knew this fact, even Robert E. Lee wrote about it years before the Civil War broke out, and the number of slaves being freed were growing significantly each and every year.
Not many people acknowledge this fact. but the south paid 87% of the nation's total tariffs in 1860, so there were some severe economic issues that needed to be iorned out.

Before the war started there were several attempts for a negotiated settlement. Even with encouragement from people within his own administration and pleas from foreign governments, Lincoln refused to meet and negotiate.

Nobody is denying that slavery was an issue, its just that modern historical revisionists are putting too much emphasis on that one aspect.