And in case anyone dares to claim that the founding and defence of the Confederacy can be considered separately to the issue of slavery, here are what the founding fathers of the Confederacy said about it in 1861:

Here is what the state of Mississippi said:

?In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery? the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. ?

The state of South Carolina:

?We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection?

The state of Texas:

?We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.That in this free government,all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rightsthat the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states?

Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy said:

?Jefferson?s ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ? 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.?

However, what he failed to include or recognise ? until President Obama pointed it out in a TV interview ? was that the civil war and confederate history are inextricably linked, in a way that it is impossible to sugar coat, to slavery.

Sure. As so is Roman history and slavery, or the history of the early Arab Empire and slavery. Yet we study these with no problems. The Civil War and the Confederacy are inextricably linked to slavery, but that is not all they are. Just as Rome is not merely the latifunda and Athens is not merely the slaves dying in the silver mines. We talk about Greece and Rome nonetheless.

It shouldn't just be a sore point to African-Americans though ? the confederacy was a stain on America's history.

You can say that slavery is a stain on American history, but you can't say the Confederacy was. Slavery began before the Confederacy. In the Americans as a whole it lasted long after. Certainly racial inequality and injustice did. The two are like a Venn diagram. Racism and slavery extend well beyond these few years. The Confederacy involved much besides slavery. They simply have an over-lap in the middle.

Great article, Lola.

I think there's a strong chance this is just a cunning ruse by Gov. McDonnell to confect a moral outrage on the part of blacks, liberals and indeed, the present incumbent of the White House, which can then be twisted into a narrative that is Virginia and the other southern states who are the victims of the racist liberal conspiracy.

But to a lot of Americans the concept of the Confederacy was that the states were independent, had their own governments and made their own laws, with the federal government responsible only for national security and trade. The Civil War erupted over the philosophical battle that had been going on since Independence between those who thought the former colonies should be autonomous states under one flag, and those who thought power should be centralised under a single overarching government. Slavery was the issue that finally divided the nation, but it was one of many issues the southern states considered the federal government had overstepped their constitutional remit on.

You need only look at the likes of Ron Paul, the Texas secessionists and even some of those involved in the Tea Party movement to see the philosophical battle is far from over, even if the Civil War is.

Lola's insinuation that McDonnell shouldn't be allowed shows the debate between centralised federal power and devolved state autonomy is still present in modern America. If Virginians don't approve of what he does, they won't re-elect him. They're the only ones who get to decide whether he should be "allowed" to remain in office.

Virginia governor Bob McDonnell wants to celebrate confederate history ? but it is inextricably linked to slavery

That is why he wants to celebrate it.

You can say that slavery is a stain on American history, but you can't say the Confederacy was. Slavery began before the Confederacy.

And the Confederacy was created in a last ditched attempt to preserve the institution of slavery. As the quotes I have provided above amply demonstrate

The Confederacy involved much besides slavery.

Such as what? The seccession statements above prove that the seceding states themselves considered that slavery was the essential issue that divided them from the rest of the country. And if you are going to say that it was about 'states rights', well there would have been no need for the Confederacy to demand such rights were it not for slavery!

Slavery was the issue that finally divided the nation, but it was one of many issues the southern states considered the federal government had overstepped their constitutional remit on.

No it wasn't. Slavery was the only issue provoked the rebellion. Don't believe me, read for yourself the words from 1861 that I quoted above.

As the "Simpsons" put it . . .
Proctor: "All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?"
Apu: "Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter . . . . . "
Proctor: "Wait, wait... just say slavery."
Apu: "Slavery it is, sir."

As a non combatant I don't have a strong opinion on this one, beyond a recognition that, yes, it is going to be divisive. Maybe too divisive.

However, I'd enjoy watching someoone trying to construct a universal principle and yardstick of how unblemished a group's history or heritage has to be before they are allowed to celebrate it . . . .

There's no shortage of events to create uproar in America. A couple of weeks ago it was caused by members of the Tea Party who seemed to forget that this is 2010, not 1965, and took to insulting black and gay congressmen while protesting in Washington.

Unfortunately, there isn't a shred of proof that anybody once mentioned the N word. Not a shred. Wouldn't you think, with the dozens of video cameras being held by the CBC and people on the scene, you might see something to support their claims? Anything?

This month it has been Republican Governor Bob McDonnell's turn to cause outrage with his declaration that April is Confederate History Month in the state of Virginia.

This may come as a shock to you, but there are millions of Southern families who's ancestors died in that damn war. Are they to hide in shame? The war was not solely about slavery - although, obviously, that was a major issue. Millions of Southern men fought for their homeland, not for the right to own a slave. They were Americans, and they died with honor. They deserve to be recognized.

HarryTheHorse

And the Confederacy was created in a last ditched attempt to preserve the institution of slavery. As the quotes I have provided above amply demonstrate

So what? It still involved more than just slavery. You can't in the long run rule out half the country's history and say that it was vile beyond belief. It doesn't work that way.

Such as what? The seccession statements above prove that the seceding states themselves considered that slavery was the essential issue that divided them from the rest of the country. And if you are going to say that it was about 'states rights', well there would have been no need for the Confederacy to demand such rights were it not for slavery!

I am sure they did. And yet most of the people who fought and died for the Confederacy owned no slaves, had no intention of owning any slaves, and yet they still fought. There is a lot more to the South than slavery.

This may come as a shock to you, but there are millions of Southern families who's ancestors died in that damn war. Are they to hide in shame? The war was not solely about slavery - although, obviously, that was a major issue. Millions of Southern men fought for their homeland, not for the right to own a slave. They were Americans, and they died with honor. They deserve to be recognized.

And the only reason they were having to fight their 'homeland' was because their states had rebelled over the issue of slavery. They might not have been fighting for the individual right to own a slave - one of the ironies of the war is that slave owners were exempt from military conscription - but they were fighting to preserve a rebellion that in its own statement of cause cited slavery as the essential case!

But really, what else the war was about but slavery? All of the other issues, whether they be economic, or political philosphy (states' rights), were all derived from the root of slavery. Without it, they either would not have been issues, or would have been resolvable without recourse to war.

Lets wipe out any of our history that is linked to slavery then, perhaps start history post Wilberforce.

An article that demonstrates why revisionists should not be allowed near history. They rewrite it to suit modern tastes and with a monumental disregard for the truth.

History was part of the Confederacy, so was the Civil war, and that is no reason to disregard either.