I think kb’s right: it’s worth putting Coates’s demolition of the Virginia GOP (and the Republican Party more broadly) on the front page. Responding to Governor Bob McDonnell’s decision to revive Confederate History Month, Coates writes:
This is who they are–the proud and ignorant. If you believe that if we still had segregation we wouldn’t “have had all these problems,” this is the movement for you. If you believe that your president is a Muslim sleeper agent, this is the movement for you. If you honor a flag raised explicitly to destroy this country then this is the movement for you. If you flirt with secession, even now, then this movement is for you. If you are a “Real American” with no demonstrable interest in “Real America” then, by God, this movement of alchemists and creationists, of anti-science and hair tonic, is for you.
Or, if you prefer a more scholarly approach to the issue, kevin, who sometimes comments here, suggests via e-mail that you might want to take note of Jim McPherson’s equally damning reply to Gov. McDonnell’s hate-mongering:
I find it obnoxious, but it’s extremely typical. The people that emphasize Confederate heritage and the legacy, and the importance of understanding Confederate history, want to deny that Confederate history was ultimately bound up with slavery. But that was the principal reason for secession — that an anti-slavery party was elected to the White House. . . . And without secession, there wouldn’t have been a war.
Of course we’ve covered all of this ground before. Some myths die hard.
Update: Gov. McDonnell, to his credit, acknowledges that he blew it.
12 comments
April 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm
CharleyCarp
Too bad no one from Virginia was involved in the D-Day landing at Normandy. And the subsequent liberation of France. Because, you know, that’s a heritage people would probably be proud of.
April 7, 2010 at 2:14 pm
jim
I suppose there’s a real question: What was he thinking? He must have known this would be controversial: he did it very quietly; no news release, he just put the proclamation up. I assume his contacts with e.g. The Daughters of the Confederacy would have alerted them to his action, but he must have thought that otherwise no-one would notice. But on the other hand, he must have thought it uncontroversial: everyone knows that the War Between the States (which is what he actually called it) was about States’ Rights. And if he looks out along Monument Avenue in Richmond, there are the heroes of the Confederacy. In April 2001, George Allen issued the same proclamation, to collective snoozes.
I have to wonder if the national breakout of the story has more to do with Cuccinelli than McDonnell. Cuccinelli has been giving (unasked for) advice to Virginia colleges, telling them they can’t not discriminate against gays. He’s been suing the Federal government, not just on health care (all Republican AGs have been doing that) but on climate change, too. It’s been noticed that he’s a bit unhinged. So people look for evidence that McDonnell is, too.
And he’s just provided some.
April 7, 2010 at 4:15 pm
silbey
Now, how do we lure the Paulites back?
April 7, 2010 at 6:00 pm
tomemos
Bully to McDonnell for apologizing, but what’s with “I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed.” Even aside from the “anyone who has been offended” lameness, more than just Virginians were offended. More than just Virginians were slaves or died in the Civil War, too.
April 7, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Margarita
And what’s with “the peace agreement at Appomattox”? I’ve never seen it referred to as anything other than a “surrender.” Is that what they call out down there? Cause the war wasn’t over yet.
April 7, 2010 at 6:57 pm
JPool
A friend of mine, originally from Virginia, wondered with regard to the proclamation if it would also herald a return to the celebration of Lee-Jackson-King Day.
April 8, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Adventurer Historian
I’m a Republican (I guess?), and no part of Coates’ diatribe describes me.
April 8, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Sir Charles
So you’re simply comfortable being affiliated with a Party dominated by the people Coates (accurately) describes?
April 8, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Adventurer Historian
I knew replying was a bad idea.
April 8, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Sir Charles
It’s a legitmate question — basically one can be in the social-Dearwinist wing, i.e., I got mine and you ain’t having any of it, or the “ressentiment” [a/k/a the “this will piss liberals off”] wing.
I can’t think of too many other options — surely not the carefully crafted and well thought out policy wing. That one went out of business some time ago.
April 8, 2010 at 8:28 pm
AaLD
I used to be a Republican, and no part of Coates’ “diatribe” describes me, either.
But then, that’s why I’m not a Republican anymore.
April 8, 2010 at 11:22 pm
M. Carey
More and more, I wish there was some way to simply let those people go. They want to return to some non-existent 19-century utopia; well, then GO. good riddance.