The Washington Post’s Colby King took another stab Saturday at impugning and discrediting the Tea Party as a bunch of racists who are little more than an extension of the Confederacy. In a column titled “The rise of the New Confederacy,” King, a regular on Inside Washington, argued: “Today there is a New Confederacy, an insurgent political force that has captured the Republican Party and is taking up where the Old Confederacy left off in its efforts to bring down the federal government.”
The former deputy editorial page editor, whose column appears every Saturday, paid a back-handed compliment to House conservatives as he charged: “The New Confederacy, as churlish toward President Obama as the Old Confederacy was to Lincoln, has accomplished what its predecessor could not: It has shut down the federal government, and without even firing a weapon or taking 620,000 lives, as did the Old Confederacy’s instigated Civil War.” . . .
He asserted “they respond, however, to the label ‘tea party.’ By thought, word and deed, they must be making Jefferson Davis proud today.”
The Left, of course uses the word Confederacy as a slur. Likely because they do not understand that part of our history. McCain, however, DOES understand that part of our history
Jefferson Davis was an American hero long before he became the unfairly demonized President of the Confederacy.
A native of Kentucky — born, ironically, not far from the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln — he was raised in Mississippi and, at age 16, appointed to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. After graduation, Davis served as a young lieutenant at the frontier outpost Fort Crawford in present-day Wisconsin. There, Davis fell in love with Sarah Knox Taylor, daughter of the fort’s commander, Col. Zachary Taylor. So in love was Davis, in fact, that he resigned from the army in order to marry Sarah (whose father wished to spare his daughter the difficult life of an Army officer’s wife), but tragedy soon struck: The newlyweds fell victim to an outbreak of malaria in 1835. Sarah died and her grief-stricken husband fell so ill that his survival was in doubt.
After recovering his health, Davis eventually entered politics, and campaigned for James K. Polk’s election as president in 1844. Davis was later elected to Congress, but when the Mexican-American War broke out in 1846, the West Point graduate and veteran officer resigned his House seat, raised a volunteer regiment, and became colonel of the famed “Mississippi Rifles.” His bravery at the battles of Monterrey and Buena Vista won Davis national distinction.
His commanding general in Mexico was his former father-in-law, now General Zachary Taylor. Recalling how he had opposed his late daughter’s marriage to the young officer, Taylor told Davis, “My daughter, sir, was a better judge of men than I was.”
Davis was appointed to the Senate in 1847, filling the seat of a senator who had died in office. He resigned that seat to run unsuccessfully for governor of Mississippi but, in 1853, was appointed Secretary of War by President Franklin Pierce. As Secretary, Davis supervised key work that helped prepare for the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad. Davis was then re-elected to the Senate, where he served until resigning after Mississippi seceded from the Union.
In his farewell speech to the Senate, Davis recalled when he had defended the right of secession — for Massachusetts:
I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same that it is now. Not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinion because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I then said, if Massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but will say to her, God speed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other States.
Such was his firmness of principle and, although his critics then and since have found fault with Davis, no man ever doubted his honesty or his courage. The name of this heroic American – a soldier and statesman, who earned praise for his service in war and in peace — deserves more honor than to be slung around ignorantly as a political epithet more than a century after his death.
One other fact about Davis that matters if you wish to understand him. He was sickened that anyone would think the South had seceded over, or was fighting for slavery. He also tried everything he knew to avoid secession, even though he supported the right of a State to commit to secession. Biographer Joseph McElroy sums up Davis, and his counterpart Lincoln this way. Lincoln was willing to sacrifice the Constitution to save the Union.Davis was willing to sacrifice the Union to save the Constitution. For those who would say “well without the union, what would the Constitution matter?” I ask this, without strict adherence to the Constitution, what type of Union will we have? I think my question is being answered today.
As any Southerner who is not ashamed of the South, I have spent lots of time defending being Southern. From defending the accent from those who think it makes us sound inferior, to pushing back against those who look down on the entire region as uneducated. And, of course, I have spent many years studying the War Between the States, ever since I was nine actually. That has led me to believe something VERY politically incorrect. That belief, based again, in years of research is that it is absurd for anyone to assume that we Southerners ought to reject, or be ashamed of our Confederate ancestors. It is especially galling when some Conservative blogger does their best impression of a whining liberal and insists we must forget our past. You know, like those Conservatives who said Virginia ought to scrap marking April as Confederate history month. Because, I guess, history is icky, and surrendering to Liberals who wish to selectively edit history is our best move.
I always like to mention that any sin attached to the Confederate Battleflag can also be attached to Old Glory. I also think it important to note that the same Liberal nutcases who wish to yank the names of Davis, Lee, or Jackson off of parks, streets signs, and schools will one day be yanking the names of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison off of the same things. And, when there are no more Confederate banners, and no more more schools named after General Lee, the Left will not stop their campaign of cultural genocide, they will simply change their targets! Odd that those clamoring for us to “forget” our history are actually forgetting the long history of the Left’s complete intolerance of history they do not like.
Those that write about the Confederacy as a traitors always get me too. I imagine that if the Colonies had lost to the Brits in the American Revolution these folks would be calling our Founders traitors too. After all, those colonies seceded and sought their own nation didn’t they? Much like the Confederate States did. Much like the State of Texas sought its independence from Mexico, and Mexico from Spain. Maybe only winning struggles for independence makes seeking that independence right in some folks mind’s.
For once common sense prevails over political correctness.
I posted about a small college in southern Utah called Dixie State. With the school moving into university status, a few misguided/confused/brainwashed liberal students wanted to change the name from Dixie to Southern Utah because the term “Dixie” was thought to bring connotations of slavery or a perceived deep south racial bias. The few libertards did manage to have a beautiful statue removed, but failed by a LARGE margin to get the name changed. (Read Original Post Here)
An overwhelming 83 percent of respondents — made up of students, alumni, faculty, staff and community members — said the controversial “Dixie” title could or should be part of the school’s name.
However, Dixie opponents, including the NAACP, argue the term invokes a negative association with racism and slavery. But, the Sorenson advertising CEO argued that the community associates the name with volunteerism, compassion and a pioneer heritage.
The Dixie State student body president said that he wanted “Dixie” removed from the name, but that he would vote for the voice of the student body. The majority wanted to keep “Dixie” in the name with only 17 percent saying to remove it.
The overall vote in the Board of Trustees meeting was unanimous in favor of Dixie State University.
Not sure if the statue has been put back where it belongs. It should go back, let the whiners that wanted it down learn to be tolerant of someone else’s feelings for once in their lives! Here is a picture of the statue
PBS reporter Gwen Ifill said that “we can’t ignore” the possible factor racial animus may play in deciding the election, noting that the poll indicates that, on some level, people are still willing to admit “racial bias.”
Sullivan then added: “If Virginia and Florida go back to the Republicans, it’s the Confederacy. Entirely. You put a map of the Civil War over this electoral map, you’ve got the Civil War.”
Conservative panelist George Will rolled his eyes. “I don’t know,” said a skeptical Ifill.
Will then posited two possible explanations for Obama’s slippage in the white vote since 2008: “A lot of white people who voted for Obama in 2008 watched him govern for four years and said, ‘Not so good. Let’s try someone else.’ The alternative, the ‘Confederacy’ hypothesis is that those people somehow, for some reason in the last four years became racist.”
“That’s not my argument at all,” replied Sullivan. “It’s the southernization of the Republican Party. [Virginia and Florida] were the only two states in 2008 that violated the Confederacy rule.”
The Confederacy Rule? I have studied the WBTS AKA the War of Northern Aggression for many years, and read hundreds of books, toured nearly all the battlefields, given speeches on several battles, generals, causes, etc. But I NEVER knew that the Confederacy was this big!
The Confederate Memorial Park near Point Lookout was vandalized last week with a spray-painted swastika on the base of a statue of a Confederate prisoner of war. A noose was placed around the statue’s neck and there was also a racial epithet spray-painted on another section of the memorial.
“I’m highly upset about it,” said Michael Daras, who lives nearby. His son, John, noticed the swastika on Thursday, but did not notice the noose until Friday when he visited the site.
“It shouldn’t be desecrated that way,” Michael Daras said, who was born in England and raised in Washington, D.C.
The memorial park was dedicated on Sept. 6, 2008, and cost more than $250,000 along with $100,000 worth of materials, said Jim Dunbar, chairman of the Confederate Memorial Park.
Awful, absolutely awful. Like I said this hits close to home, I had an ancestor, a Great-Great-Grandfather Allan Dean McWhorter, of the 4th South Carolina Cavalry was held at Point Lookout, and went blind while there. Oddly enough, another Great-Great-Grandfather Lt.William A. Allen, of the 56th Georgia lost an eye at Vicksburg. The problem, however, is that such desecrations are all too common, as Richard G. Williams points out
In recent years, we’ve seen an increase in the number of articles and blog posts comparing Confederate soldiers to Nazis. It is an intellectually dishonest comparison with ideological and political motivations. Those promoting such an interpretation should be pleased with this bit of news. Evidently they’re having some success in getting their message out: The Confederate Memorial Park near Point Lookout was vandalized last week with a spray-painted swastika on the base of a statue of a Confederate prisoner of war. A noose was placed around the statue’s neck and there was also a racial epithet spray-painted on another section of the memorial. (Story here.)
Beyond the obvious desecration of this memorial, I have a personal connection as my great-great Grandfather, Morris (aka “Maurice”) Coffey, was a prisoner at Point Lookout. This is disgusting. Fortunately, many are on to this twisting of history for the sole purpose of dishonoring Confederate soldiers:
Even the venerable Robert E. Lee has taken some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates among political interest groups and in academia attempt to twist yesterday’s America into a fantasy that might better serve the political issues of today. The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification of the Confederacy. Often cloaked in the argument over the public display of the Confederate battle flag, the syllogism goes something like this: Slavery is evil. The soldiers of the Confederacy fought for a system that wished to preserve it. Therefore they were evil as well, and any attempt to honor their service is a veiled effort to glorify the cause of slavery. ~ From Born Fighting by Virginia Senator James Webb (Page 208, emphasis mine).
Thus, any attempt to “glorify slavery” should be fought and one would be justified in desecrating monuments honoring Confederate soldiers. So, yes, academia is partly responsible as their Nazi comparisons and constant Confederate bashing encourages this type of thing.
I used to tell anyone who would listen that once the political correctors were done demonizing the Confederate Battleflag, they would use the VERY SAME tactics to bastardize Old Glory. Yep! I was right once again!