A Nation of Sleepwalkers -- Even Southerners Forget Their History

Men's News Daily ^ | 7/6/07 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

Many Americans from the north like to scoff that our southern brethren are still fighting the Civil War, treating them as if they are unaware that the war was over nearly 150 years ago. It has been so often repeated that southerners are still "Confederate" that the stereotype of the southerner looking to the past instead of the future is secure in northerner's minds. Would that it were true that all southerners are so fond of their history because it appears that even one of the most famous Confederate cemeteries in the Confederacy's very own capitol is being forgotten, uncared for, and repeatedly vandalized.

The bad news is that Oakwood cemetery in Richmond, Virginia, is being forgotten and ignored, and, as mentioned, it is also being increasingly vandalized. The good news is that a community group has not only volunteered to take upon themselves the upkeep and maintenance of the final resting place of 17,000 Confederate solders, but they have already raised $100,000 to do so. They have also gotten the blessing and legislative support of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the effort.

But even as dozens of grave markers are vandalized repeatedly by God knows who, the city of Richmond refuses even to take a meeting with the Sons of Confederate Veterans who are ready to take on the duty.

Blame should be heaped upon the sloping shoulders of Mayor Doug Wilder who is famous for encouraging local involvement in city business. Local involvement is great as far as Wilder is concerned, as long as that involvement isn't by the SCV, an organization that doesn't fit into the politically correct world in which the good mayor inhabits, it seems.

Worse, he doesn't seem in too great a hurry even to make sure this constant vandalizing of headstones is stopped. The Richmond police have made claims that they will increase their patrols in the area, but what does that really mean, anyway?

And what has been done to repair the broken monuments? City workers have indifferently used unprofessional materials and slipshod methods to do so. Headstones can be seen throughout the cemetery that have been slathered with globs of Gorilla Glue instead of properly repaired like the headstones taken care of by the SCV.

So, we have a local population so indifferent as to raise children who haven't the tiniest bit of reverence for the honored dead (and who else would be roaming cemeteries at night toppling grave stones?) but they have also elected a Mayor who turns his back on those same dead and won't even bother with a self financed community group that can take the duty off his obviously uncaring hands.

This does not speak well to the stereotype that southerners are so enflamed by reverence for their history if they are so unconcerned over the fate of Oakwood cemetery. But this is in no way particular to Richmond. All across this country Americans are forgetting about their history. Schools are more interested in teaching about how evil the U.S.A. is instead of how wonderful it is. Why should our children have much respect for our past when all they learn in their classes is how bad the U.S. is, after all?

And, why should anyone get so upset about this whole cemetery going into disrepair business? Isn't it the government's duty to take care of these things, not yours and mine? We can all go on about out business because the Nanny state is in charge. Let's all not bother our little heads about anything as unimportant as our history, right?

Yes, let's just not worry about all this. It's some else's job anyway.

I would hope that Mayor Wilder would take up this attitude, of course. Make it some one else's job, Mayor. Make the upkeep off Oakwood cemetery the job of the SCV, will you Mayor Wilder? At least take a meeting with your constituents and hear them out.

And Mayor, please stop ignoring and being so hateful of our heritage.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Are we all getting amnesia?

[AliVeritas]

ping

[JamesP81]

Are we all getting amnesia?

There's a lot of blame to go around for this, but the publik skools is near the top of this list. The truth has become politically incorrect.

[JamesP81]

This one probably qualifies for a dixie ping.

[stainlessbanner]

Dixie Ping

Thanks for the update JamesP81

[MBB1984]

Doug Wilder is a Politically Correct idiot. His thinly disguised hatred is disgusting.

[STONEWALLS]

“Are we all getting amnesia?”

......No, we’re not.....it’s just that Richmond, like many other urban areas is increasingly influenced by black Democrats who have legally siezed power via the ballot box....no black Dem pol wants to have a sit down/photo op. with the SCV....what’s that gonna do for his re-election chances?...and BTW, as white flight to the suburbs continues there’ll be more and more attempts to re-write Southern history.....I work with my grandson on it every chance I get to counter act the official propaganda he gets in school.....and so should we all....we must stand
unashamed!

[hedgetrimmer]

When practically all of the media in a country is owned by foreign corporations and foreign governments, nothing that binds a people as a nation is broadcast. The foreign owners do not like what makes America great— our independence which is taught in part through the study of our history. Therefore, there broadcasts are designed to diminish our history and reinforce our passivity so that our economy can continue to be looted by the global community.

The recent Independence Day holiday is a good example of how the national and local media have been influenced to minimize or ignore such an important day in US history. Who broadcast any programs or movies about the American Revolution? Why was there no program that discussed the reasons for the fight for independence and the sacrifice of our forefathers?

I noticed on national channel ran movies about WWII all day, the ‘global’ war. Why not broadcast movies about the definitive time in our history— the American Revolution, the war of 1812, movies about patriotic everyday Americans? That would be reinforcing the American ideal, a thing the globalist media does NOT want to do.

Then let’s talk about our schools and their agenda to erase US history in the minds of our children.

A lot is stacked against us, and it is up to individual Americans to revive our history in the minds of our citizens. Get rid of international ownership of our vital media. Get rid of internationalists and socialists who run our schools.

[marsapan]

I don’t get this. We stand proud of our souther heritage and get shot down for flying our flag.

The writer has amnesia.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Thanks for the ping SB

[4CJ]

Blame should be heaped upon the sloping shoulders of Mayor Doug Wilder

Sloping? Effeminate? We will never forget that sacrifice of our ancestors. Deo vindice!

[perez24]

I’m asking this question to try to learn, not to be provocative or anything (honest). No one in my family was in this country between 1860 - 1865 so I don’t have a dog in the fight.

Here goes...

Isn’t “continuing to fight the Civil War” or “holding on to one’s Southern Heritage” similar to African Americans continuing to bring up the “legacy of slavery” or Jewish people “not forgetting the Holocaust?”

I don’t mean from a reparations perspective because I don’t think Southerners are asking for money for something that happened to their ancestors, but, other than that, are these things pretty similar or not?

Like I said, I’m not trying to pick a fight or ridicule anybody...I’m just asking.

[texgal]

Who broadcast any programs or movies about the American Revolution? Why was there no program that discussed the reasons for the fight for independence and the sacrifice of our forefathers?

Actually, there was a pretty good broadcast on the History Channel. I watched it and enjoyed it.

Unfortunately most people won't watch something for its educational qualities if they can get "entertainment". Rock stars and movie stars - like the Al Gore concerts this weekend. This Daughter of the Confederacy and Daughter of the Republic of Texas won't be watching the Algore concerts.

Long live the Republic.

[Ben Ficklin]

Are the DixieCrats part of Southern Heritage?

[JamesP81]

Isn’t “continuing to fight the Civil War” or “holding on to one’s Southern Heritage” similar to African Americans continuing to bring up the “legacy of slavery” or Jewish people “not forgetting the Holocaust?”

Not really the same. Southern heritage and southern culture is unique in the world. It's the way we live, and the way we want to live. We value strength of character, honor, family, God, and Country. The fighting part happens because certain folks from other sections of the country think we're a bunch of dumb rubes.

The African Americans bring up 'the legacy of slavery' in order to get a handout; a southerner doesn't desire a handout, only a fair shake and the same opportunity as everyone else to make his own way.

[Andy'smom]

It’s not the same thing. It’s more about cultural heritage, not a “victim” mentality.

[stand watie]

NOPE. and we southrons/southerners are NOT "living in the past" either.

we just want the TRUTH told, rather than the COMFORTING (& SELF-righteous) LIES, which the bigoted/hate-FILLED/arrogant/sanctimonious DAMNyankee extremists/REVISIONISTS would like everyone to accept as if the KNOWING LIES were true.

free dixie,sw

[L98Fiero]

That’s a valid question.

We are not holding on to an event or series of events that gains us sympathy in some eyes. Quite the opposite. Our heritage is about values and a way of life. We can examine the past and learn from it, and we have. We don’t want to carry the baggage of that into the future but others insinuate that anytime we celebrate Southern culture we celebrate slavery and segregation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I contend that no man, black or white, has more individual liberty in this nation than in the South.

[Weeedley]

There was never a "civil war". The very name is revisionist history. The Confederate States of America existed as a distinct nation; until it was defeated on the battlefield. A war between two nations is not a civil war.

[stand watie]

yep. and so is every other sort of political activity a part of our heritage.

otoh, we have FEW of the FASCIST/leftist DIMocRATS that infest the north, except in the large central cities.

may i gently remind you that there are NO real conservatives from DAMNyankeeland IN the US Senate, but plenty of LEFTISTS like "the hilleryBEAST", chuckie schumer,the cape cod orca,"hussein" obama, joe biden,olympia snow,etc,etc,etc, AD NAUSEAM.

free dixie,sw

[wideawake]

Richmond is two-thirds black and I would guess that its municipal workforce is 80% black.

They have zero sympathy or concern for the gravesites of Confederate soldiers, and the elected officials of the city of Richmond have zero motivation to appease the small minority of Richmond voters who care deeply about preserving the CSA graves.

Perhaps if Oakwood were reincorporated into Henrico County, there might be more political willingness to undertake improved preservation.

[wideawake]

The Confederate States of America existed as a distinct nation; until it was defeated on the battlefield.

That was a claim made by the rebels, and one which was disputed by the Unionists.

The "Confederate States Of America" had no legal right to be organized under the US Constitution and were not recognized as a sovereign nation by any other power.

Civil War is as accurate as any name for that war.

[HeadOn]

I think a few well-placed “ghosts” in the cemetary (SCV re-enactors), complete with blank pistols/shotguns for a few nights would cut the vandalism very quickly. Especially if some interesting spooky special effects were to be employed...

It would be funny as all get-out to see them running away, and hear the stories floated around the “hood”.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Quick way to stop that. Stop fleeing to the suburbs. Our cities are not that bad, and well, actually, most people could afford private school if they want, and it is not like we have stringent gun control or anything.

No one actually fights for anything anymore, they just run off like a bunch of cowards, and that’s how I view everyone who flew off to the suburbs, it was easier for them to be lazy and move somewhere else than it was for them to try and fix their community, and yet, they still come into town every morning to work, they earn their paychecks here, and then use it to help prop up stores that don’t benefit here.

Then again, for the most part, I think our white flight problem has ended, and will soon start reversing itself thanks to gas prices, rising real estate prices, and maybe a few more well placed private schools.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Ok, where in the Constitution does it say that once a state joins the union they are permanently bound to that union for perpetuity. Please, find me the sentence that says this.

And incidentally, the Confederates were only doing the same thing that the 13 colonies had done during the Revolution.

[wideawake]

I think a few well-placed “ghosts” in the cemetary (SCV re-enactors), complete with blank pistols/shotguns for a few nights would cut the vandalism very quickly.

If caught, the distasteful historical associations of their activity would land them in jail on hate crimes charges very quickly.

[MissEdie]

I agree, and the love of being politically correct has helped to destroy our schools.

[AzaleaCity5691]

The Dixiecrats are the Republicans today. No one who actually studies Southern political history comes up with any other real answer. The Republican Party today is virtually identical to the Democratic Party of the Bourbon era. By in large, it a party reliant on lockstep vote of the South, that, when combined with a few states outside of the region, can combined to cause an electoral victory.

Also, it goes without saying, people who were Bourbons a few generations ago are now Republicans. If the Republican Party nominated a presidential candidate who it was thought would not be popular in the South, most state parties would decide to put someone else as the Republican nominee in that state, which by default would hurt the national vote total. This would be done to save the local ticket, so that a bad person at the top couldn’t affect down the ballot performance. This is the same thing that used to happen under the one party system. In both the revolts of 1948 and 1968, the candidates in question were the official state Democratic candidates, with the local slate tied to their election, and not, say, Truman or Humphrey.

[wideawake]

Ok, where in the Constitution does it say that once a state joins the union they are permanently bound to that union for perpetuity.

It's right next to the part where the Constitution says that states can voluntarily leave the Union whenever they want and the part that places a specific time limit on the Constitution's effectiveness.

And incidentally, the Confederates were only doing the same thing that the 13 colonies had done during the Revolution.

A common claim, but an obviously ridiculous one.

The 13 colonies fought against a system in which they were denied a right to representation in the legislature of the government of which they were citizens.

The rebellious states had full representation in the legislature of the government of which they were citizens.

In fact, since each of the rebellious states had as many Senators as each the loyal states, leaving the rebellious states with an overrepresentation of Senators compared to their population.

Moreover, the rebellious states were allowed to include a large proportion of non-citizen slaves in their representation - so the rebellious states were doubly overrepresented in the councils of the nation.

Their situation was the diametric opposite of the 13 colonies.

[MBB1984]

No, the South never desired to conquer the North and assimilate it into one nation, thus it cannot be a “Civil War.”

It was a war of Independence. Whether, the CSA had a right to secede from the Union is debatable. It is noteworthy that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits succession. And, the leading Constitutional authority at the time believed succession was permissible under the Constitution. At least four states preserved the right to withdraw from the Union when they joined the Union. Ultimately, succession from the Union is the ultimate defense against federal tyranny. Show me someone who does not believe in the right of succession, and I will show you someone who has at least a thinly veiled sympathy for big government.

[HeadOn]

Yeah, but it would work if they didn’t...

[AzaleaCity5691]

Both were fighting for self-determination, but of course, you can’t recognize that, because then you have to admit that Lincoln destroyed the constitution and that Sherman was one of the worst war criminals of that time.

I want you to quote me, exactly by line, where it states explicitly that there is no right to secession. That is the strict constructionist test, it either says it or it doesn’t, and I say it doesn’t, clearly, if it did, there would have been no attempt at secession.

[Altura Ct.]

Before this degenerates into who was right. It is appalling that dead America soldiers get treated with such indifference like this. America is being destroyed by PC crap. Wake up folks!

[Fiji Hill]

During his radio broadcast the other day, Sean Hannity sent a reporter out to prowl the streets near the studio and seek out people going about their business that he could interview as to the significance of the upcoming the July Fourth holiday. He asked each interviewee what the holiday commemorated, from whom we declared our independence, the name of the author who wrote most of the Declaration of Independence, and the name of the war that we fought for our freedom.

None of the interviewees answered all of the questions correctly. One woman, who identified herself as a kindergarten teacher, explained that the holiday was to celebrate the declaration of our independence from France, that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Declaration of Independence and that the war was known as World War I.

Incredibly, the reporter herself thought that the holiday was to celebrate our independence from “the civil war we fought.”

[wideawake]

No, the South never desired to conquer the North and assimilate it into one nation, thus it cannot be a “Civil War.”

A war between two factions in a single nation is a civil war, no matter what the war aims of any party might be.

Show me someone who does not believe in the right of succession, and I will show you someone who has at least a thinly veiled sympathy for big government.

Presumably you mean secession.

While you are throwing around bizarre psychological analyses, I'll join you and say: show me someone who does not believe in the right of secession, and I will show you someone who has at least a thinly veiled tendency toward treason and enslaving people.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Most blacks are Southerners though, and our great challenge this next century is going to be figuring out how to cooperate which each other. Blacks are returning home from the North, because they long ago realized that most Northerners were hypocrites when it came to everything.

Also, Mississippi is going to be majority black in about a decade, if the current trend holds.

[ichabod1]

OK, forget the firearms, I think ‘haunting’ the graveyards is a wonderful idea.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Each state that joined the Confederacy when it ceased to be part of the United States, namely, when each state declared secession and further declared themselves “The Republic of”

If you really view the war as treason, you should ask South Carolina to change the Palmetto flag, because that flag is the flag that served as the national flag of the Republic of South Carolina. You also should be screaming about the fact that South Carolina still flies the Battle Flag at the capitol, the Mississippi flag should make you irate, and you should be trying to get the St. Andrews cross banned from governmental symbols, that is, if you are to be held to be sincere in your belief regarding alleged treason.

[wideawake]

Both were fighting for self-determination

And one was fighting legitimately and the other was fighting illegitimately.

but of course, you can’t recognize that, because then you have to admit that Lincoln destroyed the constitution and that Sherman was one of the worst war criminals of that time

It's fun to use incendiary language: Abraham Lincoln preserved the Constitution by preventing traitors from sundering it, and nothing Sherman did touches the enormities of Quantrill.

I want you to quote me, exactly by line, where it states explicitly that there is no right to secession.

As I said, it is right next to the part where the Constitution explicitly provides for its own self-destruction by explicitly permitting secession.

That is the strict constructionist test, it either says it or it doesn’t, and I say it doesn’t,

That is your own test, and has little relationship to strict construction.

clearly, if it did, there would have been no attempt at secession.

Of course there would. That's like saying the Whisky Rebellion never happened because it was illegal.

[Vaduz]

And the p.c. mob wouldn’t want to have anyone get there feelings hurt.

[MBB1984]

I fully support treason, rebellion and revolution against oppressive federal government. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Revolution every now and then is a good thing.” I agree. We surely could use a revolution in this nation.

It was not a war between two factions, it was a war between two nations, the CSA being authorized by legitimate state governments. I realize, however, that those who do not value the rights of state and local government would feel differently.

[wideawake]

Each state that joined the Confederacy when it ceased to be part of the United States, namely, when each state declared secession and further declared themselves “The Republic of”

There was no legal process prescribed by the Constitution for secession. If they wanted to legally secede, they should have first amended the federal Constitution to provide for a legal means of secession.

They failed to do so.

If you really view the war as treason, you should ask South Carolina to change the Palmetto flag, because that flag is the flag that served as the national flag of the Republic of South Carolina. You also should be screaming about the fact that South Carolina still flies the Battle Flag at the capitol, the Mississippi flag should make you irate, and you should be trying to get the St. Andrews cross banned from governmental symbols, that is, if you are to be held to be sincere in your belief regarding alleged treason.

If there were still significant armed groups advocating secession in the US today I might feel that way, but now it is simply a matter of history.

Confederate symbols are now harmless reminders of our nation's past - I have no problem with them.

[perez24]

Makes sense. Thanks for the coherent answers. So often these things become diatribes. YOur responses were not in that category.

[Khuey]

Born on January 17, 1931 in Richmond, Mr. Wilder was the grandson of slaves. He grew up in the Church Hill section of the City. His parents named him after abolitionist-orator Frederick Douglass and poet Paul Lawrence Dunbar.

Go figure...

[AzaleaCity5691]

Uh, actually, both were fighting against what was percieved as the initial national government. You can’t say one is different than the other, to do so is intellectually dishonest. Either both were legitamate, or neither were, you don’t get to pick and choose whose attempts for self-determination are legitamate and whose aren’t. All goes back to the consent of the governed. The 13 colonies were no longer of consent to be ruled by Britain, and the C.S.A was no longer of consent to be ruled by Washington

Abraham Lincoln didn’t preserve the constitution. What he did do was allow for the first major erosion of civil freedom in this nation since the Alien and Sedition Acts. He actually suspended Habeas Corpus, and his government harrassed journalists who were in any way critical of him. Pierce and Buchanan were made into national pariahs because they didn’t share this desire to see every Southerner killed and to see everything in the South destroyed.

As for Sherman, what can I say, you can defend a man who supported crimes against civilians if you want, I won’t.

You have basically admitted that I am right in saying nothing in the constitution prevents secession. The standard of common law is necessarily that anything that is not outright prohibited is permissable, and because the consitution is a common law document, once has to assume, there is a right of secession per lack of inclusion of anything forbidding it.

[ichabod1]

Was that Flipper he sent out? She isn’t very bright.

[wideawake]

I fully support treason, rebellion and revolution against oppressive federal government.

And, of course, you get to define what constitutes "oppressive."

As Thomas Jefferson said, “Revolution every now and then is a good thing.” I agree. We surely could use a revolution in this nation.

And what would this revolution be predicated upon? What would it accomplish?

Since you are advocating armed insurrection, give us a blueprint.

It was not a war between two factions, it was a war between two nations, the CSA being authorized by legitimate state governments.

Legitimate state governments do not break the laws of the federal goverment of which they are a part.

I realize, however, that those who do not value the rights of state and local government would feel differently.

This seems to be the typical line of argument here: unless you support treason as committed by state and local governments, then you do not respect state and local governments.

This would have a lot more power to convince if the so-called Confederacy had respected the wishes of the state governments of Missouri and Kentucky.

[ichabod1]

I should think a revolution would be based on coercive wealth transfers out of certain states into others. Or a million other issues. Lack of ability to remove incumbents. Federal management of free speech.

[PacesPaines]

This just makes me sick. My great-great grandfather, Pvt. Joseph B. Anthony of O'Neal's 26th Alabama Infantry, Co. A, is buried in the Confederate section at Oakwood Cemetery. The 145th anniversary of his death is in a couple weeks; he died of typhoid in Richmond on July 18, 1862. He was only 23 years old, and left behind a widow with 2 sons. She never remarried and never even learned the exact circumstances of her husband's death or the location of his grave.

In my search for the location of his grave, I connected up with a very helpful gentleman who had made the preservation of Oakwood Cemetery his passion. Fortunately my ancestor's name had been recorded among the Confederate dead, as was the number of his shared grave marker.

We made it out from Wisconsin (no, we aren't even southerners) to Richmond in 2001. Before going over to Oakwood, we stopped at the Richmond National Battlefield park visitor's center. The staff was very helpful in offering us a copy of the Oakwood burial register page on which our ancestor's name appeared, as well as directions to the cemetery. However, when we first asked directions, the park ranger sort of turned pale saying, "Are you SURE you want to go over there? It's in a really bad neighborhood." He advised us to not stop anywhere on the way and not to get out of the car until we were inside the cemetery grounds. His description of the neighborhood was pretty accurate, though my husband, who works on the south side of Chicago, was not intimidated.

It took a bit of walking around to figure out the numbering/grid system, but we finally found the marker, making us the first of any of my great-great grandfather's family to ever visit his grave - simply because no one had known (or cared) where it was. The condition of the Confederate section was depressing. The area where my ancestor is buried overlooked some deteriorating housing projects across the street, and litter was everywhere. We even spotted a wig blowing around amongst the grave markers. Ew.

Does anyone know how to support the efforts to maintain this cemetery? Contact the SCV? Thanks.