A Liberal Marines Progressive Perspective

Marines are defenders of the republic and the Constitution. That is our oath, that is our purpose, that is our calling. Many are Democrats. This is the journal of one such Marine. This leatherneck's progressive perspective is as follows...

My Photo
Location: Southwest, United States

U.S. Marine,0300 MOS,eight years in,honorably discharged,college-educated. To all the damned trolls, you better believe there are liberal Marines. Read "War Is A Racket" by 2-time Medal of Honor recipient Maj.Gen.S.D.Butler, plus Lewis B. Puller, Jr.'s "Fortunate Son" and maybe then you'll understand. Semper Fi!

Play M.L.1775 Theme Song

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Dateline 9 April 1865: General Lee Surrenders Army of Northern Virginia, South Loses War...Just In Case You Missed ItPosted by Hello
Good morning and greetings. I'm going to shift gears today away from the recent developments in Rome and discuss (what I think) are some more salient domestic issues. I'm hoping to keep this post short and too the point although it is extremely important to refute what it is that will be discussed here today. Got wind yesterday that the Alabama's conservative, Republican governor, Gov. Bob Riley, dropped from his annual 'Confederate History and Heritage Month' recognition speech any and all references to slavery as being THE main factor in terms of the central causes of the Civil War (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/05/alabama.slavery.ap/). Of course, after taking some political heat from the sane citizens of Alabama (namely Alabamians that live in the 21st century, not the 19th, as well as his innumerable and politically relevant African-American constituents), the governor back-pedalled (with vigor, I might add) and put the slavery reference back into the speech (of course, this was for the historical record's sake because he'd already delivered the speech orally with the reference to slavery NOT included). Now, I understand that Gov. Riley wants re-election in 2006 and wants it bad. I also know that he knows it's going to be a "tough road to hoe" with former Alabama Chief Justice, turned "rock star", Roy Moore (remember Judge Moore...the point-man for "Bama's Ten Comandments debacle" of 2003, http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/) nipping at his political heels. Thus, one can readily appreciate that due to the current political situation in Alabama, Gov. Riley wants the "best of both worlds"...he wants to cater to the Confederate element, while at the same time he knows he needs to cater to his sane and well-grounded citizens as well. I get it Gov. Riley...I understand that you're in a bind, a tight spot and between the proverbial "rock and a hard place" (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9697). I get it governor. But, gee whiz "Gov", do you have to be so brazen and transparent in your motivations? Moreover, what I find so ironic is how we are now approaching the 140th anniversary of the end of Civil War (http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?FeatureID=200) with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant and the combined Armies of the Republic at Appomattox Court House on April 9th, 1865 (as the picture above illustrates); yet here we are, still engaged in "skirmishes" with die-hard elements of that ill-conceived, ill-fated and long dead cause. Again, this annual 'Confedrate History and Heritage Month' schtick is apparently a tradition in Alabama (and probably in most other Southern states that were members of what I'll call the "ignoble Eleven"...or, those 11 states that actually seceded from the United States in the years 1860-1861, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America); a tradition in which the sitting governor signs this crazy thing and thus reaffirms the authority of the month's "Confederate heritage" relevance. First off, let me say that this is some bullsh*t...across the board. My immediate question is why is the sitting governor of ANY state in the Union recognizing ANYTHING that has to do with the Confederacy? Is it just me or is it just mind-boggling to know that here we are in the 21st century and there are state chief executives in THIS century that are actually encouraging and supporting this kind of foolish nonsense? It is both surreal and aggravating at the same time to know there are sitting governors that support or sentimentalize with the efforts of traitors/terrorists be they from the past, present or future (and let's face it, if the Confederacy popped up today that's how they would be categorized...as traitors and terrorists...and deservedly so). The Confederacy (and the Confederates that defended it) were, and still are, traitors to the soverignty of the United States of America...I mean, come on people, lets face facts! They were traitors then and those that sympathize with them today continue to be traitors now. Their mission, as Confederates, was the diminution of the United States and the disintegration of the American republic as consecrated by the 'Founding Fathers' via seperating from the United States by way of secession and thus allowing them (the slave-holding southern states) to continue their sick, perverted and "peculiar" institution of slavery unabated and unrestrained. That's just a statement of fact as clear and true as saying that the Sun is yellow...sh*t, it is yellow! Secondly and more to the point, Gov. Riley, in dropping from his speech references to the relevance of slavery as a contributing factor to the conflagaration that was the Civil War (1861-1865), was quite simply supporting the unintelligent, ignorant and just sad practice of historical revisionism; a popular, albeit warped, practice among modern-day Confederates and other small-minded individuals to re-write history to their terms and in their favor. Their twisted logic is based on the conjecture that if the historical facts don't support their supposition, then they just have to change the historical facts to support their supposition. Easy as pie, right? Well, wrong! What did the late, great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan) once say: "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to you're own facts...". Guess they didn't get the great senator's memo. Again, there are elements within our society (mostly south of the 'Mason-Dixon' line, but not relegated there) that continue to stubbornly resist (as is their nature) the unquestionable fact that the perverted institution of slavery was THE MAIN contributor to the Civil War. In fact, to end this nonsense argument once and for all, I will simply postualte the follwing question: if the two, great regions of the country at the time, North and South, were slave-free in 1860/1861...would there have been a Civil War? My answer has to be no, and I'm inclined to think that most lay people, as well as most historians, would more than likely come to the same conclusion; that conclusion being that if the United States in 1860-1861 had been a slave-free nation (slave-free from "stem to stern", to use a naval term) there would HAVE NOT been a Civil War of 1861-1865. To put it metaphorically, the institution of slavery was the powderkeg full of gunpowder and the other issues (sectionalism, regionalism, perhaps even states' rights, even though the issue of states' rights was inextricably tied to the issue of slavery) were merely sparks that ignited the gunpowder in the powderkeg. Without the gunpowder in the powderkeg (or, the slavery issue) there would have been NO explosion (at least, not on the scale of the American Civil War that took over 500,000 lives over a period of four years). In closing, if these 'Confederate Heritage' freaks (http://members.tripod.com/~jrw3/ho.htm) would just pick up a book and read...but wait, what am I thinking...regardless of the facts of history they will continue in their state of historical denial. This whole thing reminds me of the 'Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young' song 'Southern Man', in which 'CSNY' warn:

"Southern man, better keep your head. Don't forget what your good book said. Southern change gonna come at last, now your crosses are burning fast, Southern man. I saw cotton and I saw black, tall white mansions and little shacks. Southern man, when will you pay them back? I heard screaming and bullwhips cracking, how long? How long? Southern man, better keep your head. Don't forget what your good book said. Southern change gonna come at last, now your crosses are burning fast, Southern man. Lilly Belle, your hair is golden brown, I've seen your black man coming round. Swear by God I'm gonna cut him down. I heard screaming and bullwhips cracking, how long? How long?"

Yes, southern man, better keep your head...ain't that the truth. Words to live by, I would think. Fore, if they insist on pressing the issue, I'm sure the United States will be happy to refresh their lapsing memories of those "hurting days gone by" (Sherman's March to the Sea ring any bells?) by way of modern-day cold steel plus military muscle with some guts behind it; just like we did their great-grand pappies at places like Antietam, Vicksburg, Gettysburg and all the hundred other places that made all the difference roughly 140 years ago. Semper Fidelis


Blogger DBK said...

I ahve always believed that, under the Constitution of the time, the states that seceded had a legal right to do so. Given the content of the Declaration of Independence, it is actually reasonable. In addition, there were many factors besides slavery, abominable as slavery was and as important as it was to the southern economy, that caused the secession.

None of which disagrees with what you had to say including the part about treason. The secession was definitely treasonous, but at the same time could be considered legal.

At this point in history, however, the attachment to the confederacy is definitely a product of some sort of ignorance and foolishness. The secession was the nadir of southern history, while many think it was the apex. Pathetic, really.

7:52 AM  
Blogger CmdrSue said...

"Is it just me or is it just mind-boggling to know that here we are in the 21st century and there are state chief executives in this century that are actually encouraging and supporting this kind of foolish nonsense?"

It's not just you. I've lived all over the south and everywhere I've gone it has boggled my mind. I was lucky to be raised by liberal parents and didn't 'soak up' the prejudice that was around me. In fact, it took me awhile to figure out what was going on and I'm glad for that. Three cheers for liberal parents.

8:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home