150 Years After the Civil War, Should We Be Swearing In Jefferson Davis?

[Blue_Tires]

This week, The New York Times reported on a series of upcoming events that will mark the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. Many of these events, which will include parades, memorials, "a mock swearing-in of Jefferson Davis as president of the Confederacy," and at least one formal ball, will take place in former Confederate states, and seemingly plan to depict the South's secession as a victory for states' rights over intrusive government. It's a narrative that downplays the role of slavery in the Civil War--something similar happened in April, when the governor of Virginia declared "Confederate History Month" without mentioning slavery in his initial statement--and as the South gears up for its sesquicentennial celebration, old concerns about how to appropriately memorialize the Civil War have risen once again.

•More Historical Whitewashing The Times quotes a number of dismayed citizens, including Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina NAACP, who says that the commemorative events feature a lot of "glamorization and sanitization of what really happened," and that Southerners talking about states' rights "are really talking about their idea of one right — to buy and sell human beings." Andrew Young, a former civil rights activist and ambassador to the United Nations, told the Times, "We don't know what to commemorate because we've never faced up to the implications of what the thing was really about ... We had another 100 years of segregation. We've never had our complete reconciliation of the forces that divide us."

•No, It's Just a Celebration of Independence The Times also quotes Michael Givens, commander-in-chief of the group Sons of Confederate Veterans, who says, "We in the South, who have been kicked around for an awfully long time and are accused of being racist, we would just like the truth to be known... Our people were only fighting to protect themselves from an invasion and for their independence." Jeff Antley, a member of the Sons, adds that seceding Southerners "risked their lives and fortunes to stand for what they believed in, which is self-government... Many people in the South still believe that is a just and honorable cause."

•How Was the Civil War Not About Slavery? The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates reprints lengthy passages from the South Carolinian secession ordinance, which makes repeated reference to slavery and complains about the northern states' hostility to the institution. Coates adds, "I think we need to be absolutely clear that 150 years after the defeat of one of the Confederacy, there are still creationists who seek to celebrate the treasonous attempt to raise an entire country based on the ownership of people."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/150-Years-After-the-Civil-War-Should-We-Be-Swearing-In-Jefferson-Davis-5970

[Brewman_Jax]

1. Let the facts be known

the articles of secession are found at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp

They don't mince words about why they want to secede. Let the Sons of Confederate Veterans TRY to explain this away.

[Brewman_Jax]

2. Also, let them celebrate

On the converse, I can celebrate the fact that some of my ancestors put bullet holes in some of the ancestors of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who fought to keep people enslaved and maintain a racial caste system that we suffer with to the present.