WP article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604416.html)
QuoteRICHMOND -- Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, reviving a controversy that had been dormant for eight years, has declared that April will be Confederate History Month in Virginia, a move that angered civil rights leaders Tuesday but that political observers said would strengthen his position with his conservative base.
The two previous Democratic governors had refused to issue the mostly symbolic proclamation honoring the soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War. McDonnell (R) revived a practice started by Republican governor George Allen in 1997. McDonnell left out anti-slavery language that Allen's successor, James S. Gilmore III (R), had 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." The proclamation was condemned by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia's struggle with civil rights in his proclamation. Though a Democrat, Wilder has been supportive of McDonnell and boosted his election efforts when he declined to endorse the Republican's opponent, R. Creigh Deeds
"Confederate history is full of many things that unfortunately are not put forth in a proclamation of this kind nor are they things that anyone wants to celebrate," he said. "It's one thing to sound a cause of rallying a base. But it's quite another to distort history."
The seven-paragraph declaration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704411.html) calls for Virginians to "understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War."
McDonnell had quietly made the proclamation Friday by placing it on his Web site, but it did not attract attention in the state capital until Tuesday. April also honors child abuse prevention, organ donations, financial literacy and crime victims.
After a fall campaign spent focusing almost exclusively on jobs and the economy, McDonnell had been seen in recent weeks as largely ceding conservative ground to the state's activist attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/votersguide/2007/va/candidates/kenneth-t-cuccinelli-ii/). 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.
"It helps him with his base," said Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University. "These are people who support state's rights and oppose federal intrusion."
Said Patrick M. McSweeney, a former state GOP chairman: "I applaud McDonnell for doing it. I think it takes a certain amount of courage."
The Virginia NAACP and the state's Legislative Black Caucus called the proclamation an insult to a large segment of the state's population, particularly because it never acknowledges 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." King Salim Khalfani, executive director of the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP, said his group will hold an emergency meeting Saturday to discuss a series of problems it has had with McDonnell since he was sworn into office in January.
Virginia has had a long, complicated history on racial relations -- long before Richmond served as the capital of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Many of its most prominent early residents, including future presidents, owned slaves, and the state openly fought desegregation, even closing schools instead of integrating them. But in 1989, the state made Wilder the first African American governor in the nation since Reconstruction.
McDonnell said Tuesday that people's thinking about civil rights and the role of the Confederacy in Virginia history have advanced to the point where "people can talk about and discuss and . . . begin to understand the history a little better."
"I felt just as I've issued dozens and dozens of other commemorations, that it was something that was worthy of doing so people can at least study and understand that period of Virginia history and how it impacts us today," he said.
The state's new governor campaigned relentlessly on improving the economy and creating jobs and received the strong backing of the business community. But the attention that Virginia will receive from the proclamation might take away from that focus.
Rozell said the proclamation is a "distraction" from McDonnell's desire to attract companies to Virginia. Businesses might begin to perceive McDonnell's latest decision -- combined with 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 a pattern of behavior not conducive to relocating in the state.
Allen caused a national uproar when he signed a proclamation drafted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. It called the Civil War "a four-year struggle for [Southern] independence and sovereign rights" and made no mention of slavery.
Gilmore modified the decree in 1998 by adding a condemnation of slavery, but it failed to satisfy either defenders of Confederate heritage or civil rights leaders. He later changed the proclamation by dropping references to Confederate History Month and instead designated April as "Virginia's Month for Remembrance of the Sacrifices and Honor of All Virginians Who Served in the Civil War."
But in 2002, Mark Warner, Gilmore's successor, broke with their actions, calling such proclamations a "lightning rod" that did not help bridge divisions between whites and blacks in Virginia. Four years later, Timothy M. Kaine was asked but did not issue a proclamation.
This year's proclamation was requested by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A representative of the group said it 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," said Brandon Dorsey of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R-Augusta), who has spoken from the floor of the General Assembly about honoring Virginia's Confederate past with appropriate acknowledgments to its difficult racial past, said he believed Warner and Kaine "avoided" the issue by failing to issue similar documents.
"It would be totally inappropriate to do one that would just poke a stick to stir up old wounds. But it is appropriate to recognize the historical significance of Virginia in that era," he said. "I think it's appropriate as long as it's not fiery."
McDonnell's proclamation comes just before the April 17, 1861, anniversary of the day Virginia seceded from the union.
Good way to attract tourists&businesses, I suppose. Remind them how much of a backwater state you really are :)
Awfully white of him.
I wonder how many blacks fought for the Union?
I miss Lee-Jackson-King Day.
Why do Southerners want to remember the Confederacy anyway? Is crushing defeat really something to commemorate?
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 07:23:04 PM
Why do Southerners want to remember the Confederacy anyway? Is crushing defeat really something to commemorate?
I'm trying to figure out if this was just stupidity and being insensitive to Virginia's blacks, or if he was trying to rally up the base in the same way the health care lawsuit is.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 07:23:04 PM
Is crushing defeat really something to commemorate?
ask the Légion Étrangère.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 07:23:04 PM
Why do Southerners want to remember the Confederacy anyway? Is crushing defeat really something to commemorate?
They like the idea of owning other people.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 07:23:04 PM
Why do Southerners want to remember the Confederacy anyway? Is crushing defeat really something to commemorate?
It can be, if your cause is just.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 07, 2010, 07:22:11 PM
I miss Lee-Jackson-King Day.
It's Lee-Jackson-King weekend now. Lee-Jackson Day is the Friday before MLK Day, and is a state holiday.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 07:23:04 PM
Why do Southerners want to remember the Confederacy anyway? Is crushing defeat really something to commemorate?
Make Blacks uncomfortable. That's why they were doing it in the 1960's. I reckon that's the same reason today.
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour. It is only fitting that they commemorated it.
This is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour. It is only fitting that they commemorated it.
This is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
Losing a war is the finest hour? I'd hate to see what the worst one is.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour. It is only fitting that they commemorated it.
The fact that slavery and general incompetence and corruption had decayed what was once the richest and most populace state in the Union to a backwater by that point non-withstanding.
The days of Jefferson and Washington were long past by 1861 pal.
QuoteThis is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
Gotta dust off those white sheets and get ready to burn some crosses eh?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 10:26:17 PM
Losing a war is the finest hour? I'd hate to see what the worst one is.
To Lettow Yorktown was probably its worst hour. He would rather lose than win with the help of Yankees and Frenchmen.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 10:26:17 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour. It is only fitting that they commemorated it.
This is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
Losing a war is the finest hour? I'd hate to see what the worst one is.
While I agree with you in this specific instance, a heroic stand for a lost cause can be a nation's finest hour if the cause is just.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 11:08:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 10:26:17 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour. It is only fitting that they commemorated it.
This is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
Losing a war is the finest hour? I'd hate to see what the worst one is.
While I agree with you in this specific instance, a heroic stand for a lost cause can be a nation's finest hour if the cause is just.
Give some examples.
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2010, 07:39:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 07:23:04 PM
Is crushing defeat really something to commemorate?
ask the Légion Étrangère.
Or ask a Texan about the Alamo.
Of course, Texans are southerners, so that might not prove anything.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 11:08:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 10:26:17 PM
Losing a war is the finest hour? I'd hate to see what the worst one is.
While I agree with you in this specific instance, a heroic stand for a lost cause can be a nation's finest hour if the cause is just.
Give some examples.
Third Servile War (Spartacus' Rebellion) 71 BCE
Bonnie Prince Charlie 1746
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry 1859
Easter Rising 1916
Warsaw Uprising 1944
Hungarian Uprising 1956
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
This is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
The part of the nation that went to war to enforce their enslavement of blacks is now incredibly pissed off that they are lead by a black man!? WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED?! :o
Uhh, Virginia voted for Obama. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 11:08:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 10:26:17 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour. It is only fitting that they commemorated it.
This is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
Losing a war is the finest hour? I'd hate to see what the worst one is.
While I agree with you in this specific instance, a heroic stand for a lost cause can be a nation's finest hour if the cause is just.
Okay, Timmay :rolleyes:
Oh, wait.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2010, 02:14:43 AM
Uhh, Virginia voted for Obama. :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzb3uUZfI4Y&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzb3uUZfI4Y&feature=related)
Confederatard romanticism would be cute if it wasn't so seditious. And stupid.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour. It is only fitting that they commemorated it.
George Washington wants you to go fuck yourself.
Stupid ass board architecture and its weak ass mod powers.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour. It is only fitting that they commemorated it.
This is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
I give you Virginia's Finest Hours, 1776 and 1787
Madison, Jefferson and Washington are it's heroes. Not traitors like Davis, Lee and Forrest.
Edit: I'm agreeing with Seedy, one more seal to go before the apocalypse.
This thread is full of win.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 02:10:11 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
This is part of a general tide of a Southern renaissance, anyhow. Obama's election is paying dividends.
The part of the nation that went to war to enforce their enslavement of blacks is now incredibly pissed off that they are lead by a black man!? WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED?! :o
The South is not "incredibly pissed off" right now. Sure, there are a few fringe lunatics that spring to mind. :whistle: You might however be surprised to learn that not all people in the South think and act exactly alike. Why, we even have negroes down here, many of whom are not at all pissed off about Obama's election! :)
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2010, 04:35:13 AM
I give you Virginia's Finest Hours, 1776 and 1787
Madison, Jefferson and Washington are it's heroes. Not traitors like Davis, Lee and Forrest.
Edit: I'm agreeing with Seedy, one more seal to go before the apocalypse.
Davis was from Mississippi, Forrest was from Tennessee.:nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2010, 07:03:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2010, 04:35:13 AM
I give you Virginia's Finest Hours, 1776 and 1787
Madison, Jefferson and Washington are it's heroes. Not traitors like Davis, Lee and Forrest.
Edit: I'm agreeing with Seedy, one more seal to go before the apocalypse.
Davis was from Mississippi, Forrest was from Tennessee.:nerd:
Well, the point is, they were traitors who should have been hung.
Quote from: dps on April 07, 2010, 11:44:08 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2010, 07:39:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 07:23:04 PM
Is crushing defeat really something to commemorate?
ask the Légion Étrangère.
Or ask a Texan about the Alamo.
Of course, Texans are southerners, so that might not prove anything.
Um we won the war moron.
You deserve to be insulted for calling us southerners.
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 08:40:46 AM
Well, the point is, they were traitors who should have been hung.
The fact that they were traitors is not nearly as important as the fact that they were losers. Being losers somewhat made up for their treason.
Quote from: citizen k on April 08, 2010, 12:12:34 AM
Third Servile War (Spartacus' Rebellion) 71 BCE
Bonnie Prince Charlie 1746
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry 1859
Easter Rising 1916
Warsaw Uprising 1944
Hungarian Uprising 1956
None of these were any nations' "finest hour."
Thermopylae is one. Saragarhi was another. The "Whitecoats" at Marsten Moor probably represented the "finest hour" of the royalist forces in the ECW, as there were few examples of units fighting to the death in that war.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 08, 2010, 12:12:34 AM
Third Servile War (Spartacus' Rebellion) 71 BCE
Bonnie Prince Charlie 1746
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry 1859
Easter Rising 1916
Warsaw Uprising 1944
Hungarian Uprising 1956
None of these were any nations' "finest hour."
Thermopylae is one. Saragarhi was another. The "Whitecoats" at Marsten Moor probably represented the "finest hour" of the royalist forces in the ECW, as there were few examples of units fighting to the death in that war.
Actually, the Warsaw Uprising is being celebrated in Poland as Poles' finest hour, at least in the living memory. Which is pretty stupid, since the uprising was based on false assumptions and information and was a mistake.
I always confuse the Warsaw Uprising with the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto Uprising. In fact I did that in a class once and the professor yelled at me. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 09:42:38 AM
I always confuse the Warsaw Uprising with the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto Uprising. In fact I did that in a class once and the professor yelled at me. :Embarrass:
HAHA!
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 07, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
1861-1865 was Virginia's finest hour.
Every time I think you've said the stupidest thing possible, you manage to trump yourself.
Hell, I could maybe see someone claiming that the Civil War was South Carolinas finest hour, or even Georgia or Alafuckingbama or something...but
Virginia? The state that gave us George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? The cradle of the Revolution?
This is stupid. Virginia's finest hour was on May 7th, 1987 Between 1:00 and 2:00 PM. It was a really nice day.
Actually, wasn't Virginia extremely reluctant to secede? I think it may have been the last state to do so, in fact (not counting states that sort of fake-seceded, like Missourah and Kentucky).
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 11:06:12 AM
Actually, wasn't Virginia extremely reluctant to secede? I think it may have been the last state to do so, in fact (not counting states that sort of fake-seceded, like Missourah and Kentucky).
North Carolina only seceded after Virginia did.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 11:06:12 AM
Actually, wasn't Virginia extremely reluctant to secede? I think it may have been the last state to do so, in fact (not counting states that sort of fake-seceded, like Missourah and Kentucky).
Part of it didn't.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 11:33:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 11:06:12 AM
Actually, wasn't Virginia extremely reluctant to secede? I think it may have been the last state to do so, in fact (not counting states that sort of fake-seceded, like Missourah and Kentucky).
Part of it didn't.
West Virginia's finest hour
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 08, 2010, 11:39:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 11:33:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 11:06:12 AM
Actually, wasn't Virginia extremely reluctant to secede? I think it may have been the last state to do so, in fact (not counting states that sort of fake-seceded, like Missourah and Kentucky).
Part of it didn't.
West Virginia's finest hour
And it's firstest.
Washington is very admirable, berkut, and secession was right then.
However, the damnyankees drove us into that war, and anyhow the South had far more reason to secede in 1861 than 1776. Moreover, the South did so with much more unity of spirit, as there were many tories in the South in the first go round, and sacrificed a far greater number of its sons, absolutely and percentegewise, upon the altar of freedom.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 08, 2010, 01:05:27 PM
Washington is very admirable, berkut, and secession was right then.
However, the damnyankees drove us into that war, and anyhow the South had far more reason to secede in 1861 than 1776.
Yeah, they had ever so much more freedom under British rule from London.
Quote
Moreover, the South did so with much more unity of spirit, as there were many tories in the South in the first go round, and sacrificed a far greater number of its sons, absolutely and percentegewise, upon the altar of freedom to own slaves.
FYP
Not as if the british did not use the whole slave thing as a war measure during the first rising anyway.
And yeah, the colonies were suprisingly self-ruling before they abjured the realm. If anything, we traded a distant master upon the thames for one upon the potomac, who could much more practically rule us. It is better to have British rule than Yankee rule.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 08, 2010, 11:39:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 11:33:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 11:06:12 AM
Actually, wasn't Virginia extremely reluctant to secede? I think it may have been the last state to do so, in fact (not counting states that sort of fake-seceded, like Missourah and Kentucky).
Part of it didn't.
West Virginia's finest hour
I'd argue that when West Virginia seceded, it was Virginia's finest hour as well.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 08, 2010, 01:11:06 PM
Not as if the british did not use the whole slave thing as a war measure during the first rising anyway.
And yeah, the colonies were suprisingly self-ruling before they abjured the realm. If anything, we traded a distant master upon the thames for one upon the potomac, who could much more practically rule us. It is better to have British rule than Yankee rule.
Only because it was the Yankees who would not let you expand slavery. And nobody "ruled" the South any more than any other part of the Union was "ruled". The rules applied to Massachusetts the same as they applied to South Carolina.
But the Brits would have done the same thing anyway - it is a fiction to imagine that London would have let the South expand slavery had the colonies stayed under the Crown.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 11:06:12 AM
Actually, wasn't Virginia extremely reluctant to secede? I think it may have been the last state to do so, in fact (not counting states that sort of fake-seceded, like Missourah and Kentucky).
Tennessee was the last on June 8th.
Virginia was May 23rd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Seceding_states
I think it was Adams who said something along the lines that the American and Dutch revolutions had so much in common that one served as the summation of another. Seems fair, I think it is probably fair to say that the Dutch was the coolest, and the least likely to have succeeded without such brilliance;
Calvinist Pirates, without major support from any of the major powers, take over some cities from the most universally powerful, wealthiest empire since Rome, then proceed to hunt their enemies across the globe, while simultaneously re-inventing the global economic system and warfare in Europe, ultimately resulting in a Golden Age on par with any in Europe.
America was more a bunch of wealthy, brilliant landowners peeved that the British Parliament was making them pay for a war fought for their interests, ultimately won with French support.
Now, the American Civil War was something of a pathetic end-note for these. There are obvious similarities between the first two, only one side is run by utterly inbred, uneducated, racist, lazy hicks whose sole accomplishment during the entirety of the War was the result of convincing a reluctant non-retard General to fight for their retarded, evil cause.
Kind of like what Marx said about Napoleon III; the third always turns out to be a farce.
Spellus, stop being a tool.
Spellus is a very angry young man. :cool:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 01:38:05 PM
utterly inbred, uneducated, racist, lazy hicks
No reason to bring Armenia into this.
Is the GOP going to run on the repeal of fourty acres and a mule in addition to the repeal of Obamacare?
Quote from: Fate on April 08, 2010, 02:36:16 PM
Is the GOP going to run on the repeal of fourty acres and a mule in addition to the repeal of Obamacare?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istockphoto.com%2Ffile_thumbview_approve%2F4783663%2F2%2Fistockphoto_4783663-analogue-tv-static-television-white-noise.jpg&hash=a6a6e81368aee7095687c7e60f75b2f11c7783b5)
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 02:39:30 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 08, 2010, 02:36:16 PM
Is the GOP going to run on the repeal of fourty acres and a mule in addition to the repeal of Obamacare?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istockphoto.com%2Ffile_thumbview_approve%2F4783663%2F2%2Fistockphoto_4783663-analogue-tv-static-television-white-noise.jpg&hash=a6a6e81368aee7095687c7e60f75b2f11c7783b5)
The black should not mix with the white!
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 02:16:59 PM
Spellus is a very angry young man. :cool:
Be vweeeery vweeery quiet-I'm hunting Dwixie wrabbits.
The thought crossed my mind that you were trying to troll Lettuce there, Spellus, but I don't think of you as someone who normally trolls people here. :hmm:
Quote from: Fate on April 08, 2010, 02:48:08 PM
The black should not mix with the white!
Well played. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 03:00:44 PM
The thought crossed my mind that you were trying to troll Lettuce there, Spellus, but I don't think of you as someone who normally trolls people here. :hmm:
I make an exception for Lettow.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 08, 2010, 01:11:06 PM
It is better to have British rule than Yankee rule.
I think Yankee rule is a great idea.
Derek Jeter is kind of like Obama, but with power to Right and Left.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 08, 2010, 12:12:34 AM
Third Servile War (Spartacus' Rebellion) 71 BCE
Bonnie Prince Charlie 1746
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry 1859
Easter Rising 1916
Warsaw Uprising 1944
Hungarian Uprising 1956
Nitpick Alert: None of these were any nations' "finest hour."
FYP :rolleyes:
The Confederacy's finest hour: April 1865. Jeff Davis runs from Union troops in a dress.
Mew Mew! Squee!
Best response to "Confederate History Month" is for the Union Army to go celebrate it as they did during "The Confederates are history month".
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 01:38:05 PM
I think it was Adams who said something along the lines that the American and Dutch revolutions had so much in common that one served as the summation of another. Seems fair, I think it is probably fair to say that the Dutch was the coolest, and the least likely to have succeeded without such brilliance;
Calvinist Pirates, without major support from any of the major powers, take over some cities from the most universally powerful, wealthiest empire since Rome, then proceed to hunt their enemies across the globe, while simultaneously re-inventing the global economic system and warfare in Europe, ultimately resulting in a Golden Age on par with any in Europe.
America was more a bunch of wealthy, brilliant landowners peeved that the British Parliament was making them pay for a war fought for their interests, ultimately won with French support.
Now, the American Civil War was something of a pathetic end-note for these. There are obvious similarities between the first two, only one side is run by utterly inbred, uneducated, racist, lazy hicks whose sole accomplishment during the entirety of the War was the result of convincing a reluctant non-retard General to fight for their retarded, evil cause.
Kind of like what Marx said about Napoleon III; the third always turns out to be a farce.
You're retarded.
The Dutch weren't pirates, the British Empire was not yet the most powerful in the world at that time, and the American Civil War was a far more revolutionary conflict than either the Glorious Revolution or the American Revolutionary War.
Quote from: citizen k on April 08, 2010, 05:21:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 08, 2010, 12:12:34 AM
Third Servile War (Spartacus' Rebellion) 71 BCE
Bonnie Prince Charlie 1746
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry 1859
Easter Rising 1916
Warsaw Uprising 1944
Hungarian Uprising 1956
Nitpick Alert: None of these were any nations' "finest hour."
Hypersensitive Alert :cry:
FYP :rolleyes:
FYP :rolleyes:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 01:38:05 PM
America was more a bunch of wealthy, brilliant landowners peeved that the British Parliament was making them pay for a war fought for their interests, ultimately won with French support.
They weren't that wealthy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2010, 06:56:34 PM
The Dutch weren't pirates, the British Empire was not yet the most powerful in the world at that time, and the American Civil War was a far more revolutionary conflict than either the Glorious Revolution or the American Revolutionary War.
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
I actually think the American Revolution, and the success at building a democratic republic,
were groundbreaking. And I think saying it was all about taxation is a bit odd.
:rolleyes:
I was trolling Lettow.
That "Most Powerful Empire" bit was about Spain, not Great Britain. I somewhat overstated the Dutch case, understated the American and, well, I think I was more or less on the money about the CSA.
Actual views: I think the Dutch Revolt was in some ways more impressive; they were fighting an Empire in its prime, it was a religious conflict and the Dutch had far more to loose due as the Spanish would have been far different in victory than the Brits. They managed to jump straight from boggy asshole of the Spanish Empire, to brilliant rebels, to Global Empire faster than America did. I also That said, the idealogical component of the American Revolution is far more fascinating and, ultimately, fruitful, even if I do love the Dutch Puritan Proto-Liberalism.
During the 80 years war the Dutch gave out medals that said "Better Turkish then Catholic". It seems they are finally getting their wish. ^_^
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 08:38:05 PM
and, well, I think I was more or less on the money about the CSA.
That's because you're an ignorant punk.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 06:57:39 PM
Quote from: citizen k on April 08, 2010, 05:21:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 08, 2010, 12:12:34 AM
Third Servile War (Spartacus' Rebellion) 71 BCE
Bonnie Prince Charlie 1746
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry 1859
Easter Rising 1916
Warsaw Uprising 1944
Hungarian Uprising 1956
Nitpick Alert: None of these were any nations' "finest hour."
Hypersensitive Alert :cry:
FYP :rolleyes:
FYP :rolleyes:
Isn't nitpicking a symptom of hypersensitivity?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 08:38:05 PM
They managed to jump straight from boggy asshole of the Spanish Empire
As retarded as Tim was to think you meant the British rather than the Spanish, this one is bordering on equality with that level of stupidity. The Spanish and everyone in Europe considered the Dutch regions to be some of the wealthiest and most productive in Europe before the Dutch got their independence--it was one of the primary motivations behind trying to keep it and, later on, during the 30 Years War, trying to get it back.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 08, 2010, 09:44:36 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 08:38:05 PM
They managed to jump straight from boggy asshole of the Spanish Empire
As retarded as Tim was to think you meant the British rather than the Spanish, this one is bordering on equality with that level of stupidity. The Spanish and everyone in Europe considered the Dutch regions to be some of the wealthiest and most productive in Europe before the Dutch got their independence--it was one of the primary motivations behind trying to keep it and, later on, during the 30 Years War, trying to get it back.
Key productive areas were in the south, in Flanders. Before the migration of Protestants north from the areas occupied by the Spanish throughout most of the 80 Year's War , not to mention the effect of the Dutch blockade of the Spanish Netherlands, the North was relatively unimportant economically and culturally.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 08, 2010, 08:26:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2010, 06:56:34 PM
The Dutch weren't pirates, the British Empire was not yet the most powerful in the world at that time, and the American Civil War was a far more revolutionary conflict than either the Glorious Revolution or the American Revolutionary War.
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
I actually think the American Revolution, and the success at building a democratic republic, were groundbreaking. And I think saying it was all about taxation is a bit odd.
The tax thing gets over played. What really got people pissed was the heavy handed ways in which the British government attempted to restore order in Mass.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 10:21:17 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 08, 2010, 09:44:36 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2010, 08:38:05 PM
They managed to jump straight from boggy asshole of the Spanish Empire
As retarded as Tim was to think you meant the British rather than the Spanish, this one is bordering on equality with that level of stupidity. The Spanish and everyone in Europe considered the Dutch regions to be some of the wealthiest and most productive in Europe before the Dutch got their independence--it was one of the primary motivations behind trying to keep it and, later on, during the 30 Years War, trying to get it back.
Key productive areas were in the south, in Flanders. Before the migration of Protestants north from the areas occupied by the Spanish throughout most of the 80 Year's War , not to mention the effect of the Dutch blockade of the Spanish Netherlands, the North was relatively unimportant economically and culturally.
The herring fishery and the carrying trade was based in the north, and had been so from before the outbreak of the Revolt.
Great, an ACW thread hijacked by an even more annoying conflict.
The Devil shits Dutchmen. End of story.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 10:26:17 PM
Losing a war is the finest hour? I'd hate to see what the worst one is.
Depending on time in history and place I'd say its probably what follows after losing a war.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2010, 06:06:33 AM
Great, an ACW thread hijacked by an even more annoying conflict.
The Devil shits Dutchmen. End of story.
Swamp German hijacks are the worst
Jon Stewart had a rather amusing skit on this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/virginia-s-confederate-history-month---griffin-mascot
I guess some people will enjoy the commemorative chess board. :lol:
Was just about to post this. Spot on. :cool:
I need to get that lawn jockey. :D
So, if those southerner bitches were to rebell, would the US Army be called in to quell the rebellion?
Quote from: Siege on April 11, 2010, 01:11:51 PM
So, if those southerner bitches were to rebell, would the US Army be called in to quell the rebellion?
Yes. Refusal to do so would be a violation of your oath.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 08, 2010, 01:11:06 PM
Not as if the british did not use the whole slave thing as a war measure during the first rising anyway.
And yeah, the colonies were suprisingly self-ruling before they abjured the realm. If anything, we traded a distant master upon the thames for one upon the potomac, who could much more practically rule us. It is better to have British rule than Yankee rule.
:o No, you didn't!
Do you have any idea what the british did to Israel or South Afrika? Do you have any idea how hard was to the little 13 colonies to gain and maintain their independance against the more powerful empire that have ever existed?
You are a fucking coward and you disrespect all the ones that have died fighting the Empire for the freedom of their own lands.
Quote from: Siege on April 11, 2010, 01:18:42 PM
Do you have any idea what the british did to Israel or South Afrika?
What do you mean? Are you referring to us letting in too many Jews to suit the Arabs? Or not letting in enough Jews to suit the proto-Israelis? All-in-all we got shat on by both sides in that region of the world. :mad:
You may have more of a point with South Africa. :(
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 01:38:38 PM
What do you mean? Are you referring to us letting in too many Jews to suit the Arabs? Or not letting in enough Jews to suit the proto-Israelis? All-in-all we got shat on by both sides in that region of the world. :mad:
And deservedly so. Perfidious Albion's "policies" (which were not so much policies as expedient lies) in the Middle East deserve the criticism they accumulated over time.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 01:38:38 PM
What do you mean? Are you referring to us letting in too many Jews to suit the Arabs? Or not letting in enough Jews to suit the proto-Israelis? All-in-all we got shat on by both sides in that region of the world. :mad:
And deservedly so. Perfidious Albion's "policies" (which were not so much policies as expedient lies) in the Middle East deserve the criticism they accumulated over time.
Would the USA have done any better, given the competing interests in the region?
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
Would the USA have done any better, given the competing interests in the region?
Yes, given that the US wouldn't have the over-riding interest of expanding its empire on the cheap to incentivize the lying. The best solution for the Brits and French would have been to stand clear after WW1, and then deal with the winners of the various Arab civil wars.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 02:16:11 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
Would the USA have done any better, given the competing interests in the region?
Yes, given that the US wouldn't have the over-riding interest of expanding its empire on the cheap to incentivize the lying.
True. The American drive for empire was focused elsewhere.
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2010, 02:56:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 02:16:11 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
Would the USA have done any better, given the competing interests in the region?
Yes, given that the US wouldn't have the over-riding interest of expanding its empire on the cheap to incentivize the lying.
True. The American drive for empire was focused elsewhere.
Correct. The US elite was interested in controlling the money, not the people.
That would have made the the middle east very uninteresting to Americans then since the area had very little money at the time.
Quote from: Siege on April 11, 2010, 01:11:51 PM
So, if those southerner bitches were to rebell, would the US Army be called in to quell the rebellion?
That's less likely to happen now than war with Israel.
Quote from: Syt on April 09, 2010, 10:59:58 AM
Jon Stewart had a rather amusing skit on this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/virginia-s-confederate-history-month---griffin-mascot
I guess some people will enjoy the commemorative chess board. :lol:
Looks nice, but are they: cast in fine pewter?? :yeahright:
John Stewart finally made a funny. Shocking.
Stewart is funniest when making fun of Glenn Beck.
Surely he's funniest when he holds up a newspaper headline and makes a funny face at the camera.
It's okay. Bush isn't president anymore. You are allowed to laugh at political humor again.
Is he making funnier faces these days or are the headlines better?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2010, 07:44:15 PM
Is he making funnier faces these days or are the headlines better?
Irrelevant. Reality has no bearing on this. The order came down from the GOP. Also protests are no longer for malcontents who hate the US and layabouts who can't get real jobs. It's now for honest Americans who are deeply concerned about the direction of the US.
Jews aren't funny. Look at Jackie Mason.
Mississippi issues it's own Confederate History Month, extra nutty.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/04/sons-of-the-confederacy-claim-tea-party-movement-as-kindred-spirit.php
Mississippi does not need to "issue" its own confederate history month- There has been one for quite some time in Mississippi.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2010, 07:59:13 PM
Mississippi issues it's own Confederate History Month, extra nutty.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/04/sons-of-the-confederacy-claim-tea-party-movement-as-kindred-spirit.php
Any truth to the rumor Jones County seceded in protest?