A Call For More National Holidays -- But Not to Celebrate the Confederacy

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:26:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Maybe the economy would benefit from a few more national holidays. Nobody frets when the economy is slow-moving on a holiday. Nobody worries that most workers are unproductive on a holiday. The stock market isn't open and therefore doesn't go down on holidays. Holidays are a time for the economy to take a deep breath and for the employed and unemployed alike to relax. Making Election Day a holiday would have the added benefit of increasing voter participation. Everyone wins with a bunch of new holidays. (Feel free to suggest your own new holiday in the comments.)

A proposed holiday that will find no support here is advocated by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization "open to all male descendants of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces." The Sons' mission is to vindicate the cause for which Confederate soldiers fought. The Sons "preserv[e] the history and legacy of these heroes, so future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause." The organization's website offers no obvious definition of the "Southern Cause," much less an explanation of the motives that animated it. [More ...]

The Sons' Commander in Chief, Charles McMichael, believes "The Confederacy has gotten a bad rap because we ended up on the losing side." To change public opinion, he'd like to see a national holiday "celebrating the heritage and the good things Southerners feel about the confederacy and the past."

McMichael presumably spins the view that the Civil War was all about states' rights and economic fairness while downplaying the southern desire to retain slavery. It is true that a number of economic, political, and cultural factors interacted to cause the Civil War (for the time-challenged, this top five list came up on top of a Google search; for those with a couple minutes to spare, this longer summary came up second). It is also true that slavery was one of the root causes.

A holiday honoring the soldiers who fought for the losing side of a war that divided and bloodied the nation -- who fought at least in part to preserve slavery -- wouldn't make most Americans feel like celebrating even if it were paired with a holiday honoring the soldiers who brought about the union's victory. Let's try to think of holidays that will bring us together instead of holidays that emphasize national divides, present or past.

< The "Gossling" At CQ | Average Americans and the Conservative Faithful >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A Call For More National Holidays -- But Not to Celebrate the Confederacy | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

um, no (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by txpublicdefender on Fri May 01, 2009 at 11:22:42 PM EST

Yes, by all means, let's have a national holiday to honor the people who tried to tear the country apart. What a great idea!

The Sons' Commander in Chief, Charles McMichael, believes "The Confederacy has gotten a bad rap because we ended up on the losing side."

Yeah, um, that's kind of the way it works.

Uhm, this is already a holiday in many states. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by JenAtlanta on Fri May 01, 2009 at 11:27:41 PM EST

See Confederate Memorial Day.

Georgia "celebrated" it this past Monday. Ironically, the celebrate it on the day the Confederates surrendered to the Union.

The Confederacy was about treason. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 01, 2009 at 11:58:41 PM EST

States' rights, exit stage right.

We should never, ever forget that the Confederacy was responsible for causing the the deaths of more soldiers who served under the U.S. flag than any foreign power.

My apologies to those whose forbearers might have fought under the Stars and Bars, but the Confederacy is a legacy of treason and loss, and there is nothing about it that deserves the label of "honorable."

Rather, the Confederate States of America was a deservedly unrecognized political entity that was predicated upon the preservation of the institutionalized racism, slavery and human trafficking.

And anyone who thinks that sort of grievously misguided and amoral cause deserves a national holiday in its honor can kiss my liberal derriere.

Sullying a decent cause (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jarober on Sat May 02, 2009 at 12:29:50 AM EST

What I dislike most about these groups is how they give the perfectly valid cause of supporting the 10th amendment such a bad name. There's an actual point to "states rights" that this group - and others like it - have made it all but impossible to talk about.

I've always found it remarkable (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by oldpro on Sat May 02, 2009 at 01:11:16 AM EST

that so many people do not mind identifying themselves as losers, are even anxious to do so; that they wear treason as a badge of honor and defend slavery as economic necessity.

They have no shame and we ought not to honor them or their 'history' in any way. It is not honorable...not then, not now.

I sometimes wonder whether it would not have been better for the country to let them secede...in fact, to insist upon it.

Begone! Banish these fools from the company of civilized citizens.

Yes. I am biased against confederacy defenders. So sue me.

no, the confederacy has gotten (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by cpinva on Sat May 02, 2009 at 01:26:38 AM EST

a bad rap because it's sole reason for existing was the continuance of slavery. that was the "state's right" referred to so often, nothing else. all other issues, while annoying, could easily have been attended to either by legislation or litigation.

all 11 articles of secession had as their reason the continuance and defence of slavery, everything else was secondary, at best. take slavery out of the equation, and there is no civil war.

sadly, as in many wars, most of the people doing the fighting and dying were about as dirt poor as the slaves; freedom (sort of) being the distinguishing feature between your hardscrabble southern dirt farmer, and slaves on a plantation.

they got conned into it by the southern aristocracy, who convinced them that lincoln was going to take everything they owned. bear in mind, it was the south that started the hostilities, not the north, a minor detail often overlooked by revisionist confederacy apologists.

the absolute worst thing that happened to the confederacy, at the conclusion of the war, was lincoln's assassination. contrary to popular misconception, john wilkes booth was not seen as a hero by most southerners, who felt he'd dishonored them by his action; shooting an unarmed man in the back was considered ungentlemanly.

had lincoln lived, most likely reconstruction would have been less harsh, as the "radical" republicans wouldn't have had complete control.

note that we also have no holidays specifically honoring the revolution, war of 1812, mexican-american war, spanish-american war, wwI, wwII, korea or vietnam. why have one honoring people who were essentially traitors?

I'd like to have a national holiday (none / 0) (#20)
by hairspray on Sat May 02, 2009 at 01:55:23 PM EST

honoring veterans of wars turned into a national holiday for voting. Why can't we have a holiday so people can vote and tie it into the holiday for the people who gave the most for these freedoms? Having the presidential holiday on a Tuesday where no one gets time off for voting is truly undemocratic. Just look at the caucuses last year. How democratic were they? We whine that people don't vote and then make it almost impossible for all but the affluent to take time out for voting.

[ Parent ]

: oh yeah...a holiday for (none / 0) (#29)
by of1000Kings on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:56:57 PM EST

voting is something that's long past due...
how we have gone without is something that has confounded me for years...

[ Parent ]

The original Political Correctness (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by Reasonable on Sat May 02, 2009 at 04:34:43 AM EST

Instead of calling traitors out for being traitors and for not hanging lee and co for the scum that they were it was deemed in the name of reconciliation that the losers never accepted to treat this trash as honorable people gone astray.

This PC treatment of a poison in our political system has only led to greater and greater abuses by the traitors there misbegotten descendants and their apologists.

It is time to recognize that coddling these people in their delusions of "honorable" traitors is a losing game.

It is time to go through the country and rename every road, post office, school and other government structure that had the misfortune of being named for this scum. Anything named after traitor Lee would be renamed after Grant, anything named after scum bag Jackson would be renamed after Sherman etc.

It is time to stop being Politically Correct and promoting ignorance about these traitors just to preserve their delicate sensibilities.

I'm living in a pretty rough part of the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Sat May 02, 2009 at 07:36:29 AM EST

South at the moment. I didn't like a lot of the things said and the attitude during our last presidential election and I don't like to focus much on the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy stuff either around here. I try not to sneer in the middle of local parades either. I find myself wanting to be part of solutions or evolutions to this horrid past. It's just my opinion, but the best thing that ever happened that may have placed those with confederacy issues into a position of healing and evolving is Barack Obama becoming President. I didn't vote for him for this reason, it was not something that influenced my vote in any way. The nation really needs its president right now though and he is who we have. Since beginning to face the crisis we are having to face I haven't heard one damned nasty word in my vicinity aimed his direction down here. It's pretty stunning. I know Fox News can always find the loon out there, but the situation on the ground is mighty fine as far as I'm concerned. I have never been one to get all hopped up on any of our Presidents playing the troop card for the cameras either but some people thrive on it, so when Obama hits the screen showing appreciation for the troops it is leaving a few Conservatives I have to live with a little more than speechless because Obama does it well. He's a hell of a lot more geniune and sincere than Bush 2 ever was. Obama's seeming influence on racism is just an added plus that I get to have right now living in SE Bama and I'll take it. And all I have to say to the sons and daughters of the Confederacy is "whatever" because the moment is now.

Fridays (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by nellre on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:30:09 AM EST

Give us a 4 day work week. Make Fridays a national holiday.

Not a fan of this idea (none / 0) (#1)
by Dalton Hoffine on Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:29:40 PM EST

But I think it is interesting that we don't really have a day to commemorate the Civil War in some way. A civil war is always something that bloodies a nation, and if the nation survives it, it's usually changed on a fundamental level. It seems like we'd have some somber remembrance day for it. It is certainly not something to be forgotten.

Holidays aren't all about celebrations necessarily. Sometimes they should be made in order to help us think and remember about important pieces of our past. I'd support a "Civil War Remembrance Day" or something to that effect, maybe sometime in August, because we need more holidays in August.

Memorial Day (none / 0) (#8)
by cal1942 on Sat May 02, 2009 at 01:32:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 0) (#19)
by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 02, 2009 at 12:23:37 PM EST

I always thought Memorial Day was a troop rememberance day for troops of all wars. Is it Civil War-specific?

[ Parent ]

: Originally it was (none / 0) (#21)
by Reasonable on Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:37:43 PM EST

The original intention of Memorial Day was remembrance of the Union dead from the Civil War.
Over the years it has morphed just as Washington and Lincoln's birthdays have become Presidents Day.

[ Parent ]
: Actually (none / 0) (#27)
by cal1942 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:21:44 AM EST

began in the South but instituted quickly in the North.
Original intent was to honor Civil War dead.
Now extended to soldiers of all wars and everyone else.

[ Parent ]

While I'm proud of being a (none / 0) (#10)
by coast on Sat May 02, 2009 at 06:21:53 AM EST

southerner thru and thru, I have never understood the facination with the Civil War for some of my friends. I tease my northern in-laws every once in a while saying things like "the war isn't over yet", but its all in good fun. But some of my friends really get upset when the subject arises, which I really can't understand.

Lets be clear though, the war was about economics. Slaves were property. Relatively cheap property that was used primarily to keep the economic engine of the south running. Off this labor, the cotton producers were able to make a handsome profit. An abolishment of slavery would kill their profits. They could not up and move their businesses, as companies do today, to where the cheaper labor was. So they did what they felt they had to do to protect their livelyhood.

Illegal aliens are the closest thing to slavery that we have. Is the fight on this issue one of national safety, social consciousness, or economics?

Most on this tread have called the southerners traitors which you appear to hold a great distain for. I'll assume that you hold the same for the likes of Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, ect. They were traitors as well.

you're comparing apples and oranges. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by cpinva on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:07:50 AM EST

I'll assume that you hold the same for the likes of Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, ect. They were traitors as well.

which is perfectly ok, except they aren't the same fruits.

mr. jefferson, hamilton and washington and their ancestors had no choice in being british citizens, they were born into it, as were the english colonies.

by comparison, the southern states expressly agreed, by virtue of ratifying the constitution, to become part of the united states. presumably (and there's no evidence to the contrary), they did this of their own free will.

to put this in legal terms: the southern states freely entered into a contract (the constitution), which they then unilaterally breached. we ended up with the country's most expensive and bloody lawsuit.

interestingly, the aforementioned "founding fathers" themselves recognized that they were committing treason. to the best of my knowledge, no southerner, especially not any of the leaders of the confederacy, ever publicly stated that.

[ Parent ]

I agree with your point cpinva (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by ricosuave on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:43:19 AM EST

But you can't compare the actions of the founding fathers with the actions of the "southern states". One is a group of people, the other are political instituions. The more logical conclusion of your argument is that Jefferson Davis was born into a United States that he did not choose just as much as Alexander Hamilton was born into a British Empire that he did not choose, and that his actions were the same and had the same justification.

A better argument is to say that the founding fathers of the US took extraordinary action to secure their freedom and the freedom of others (NOTE: except for blacks). The founding fathers of the confederacy could argue that they were fighting for their freedom as well, but they were fighting for the freedom to continue to subjugate others. And they were rebelling against decisions made through a political process that, while it clearly didn't favor their point of view, was objectively as fair and democratic as any that could be devised.

Additionally, the USA founding fathers reconstituted themselves into a government designed to govern in a fundamentally different way and to guarantee the freedoms they felt they were denied and to ensure that they didn't deny them to others (NOTE: Please ignore the whiskey rebellion--it doesn't help our point!). The CSA founding fathers largely kept the structure and systems of the government they cast off, demonstrating pretty solidly that they were all about casting off particular decisions made by that government, not the processes the government followed.

[ Parent ]

: unless you're suggesting (none / 0) (#17)
by cpinva on Sat May 02, 2009 at 11:43:02 AM EST

One is a group of people, the other are political instituions.
that institutions (political or otherwise) exist apart from humans, your point is wrong.
jeff davis and the whole crowd constituted the "political institutions" that were the confederate states. otherwise they were just big chunks of land, with no voice of their own. i just assumed this was so self-evident, i shouldn't insult anyone's intelligence, by stating it explicitly.
the leaders of the confederacy, and some of their descendents, have insulted everyone's intelligence, by their constant comparisons to the founders of the republic. the (white) citizens of the southern states already were free, they were only fighting (as you correctly note) to be free to continue the subjugation of others. that wasn't the issue with the revolution; the king and parliament weren't threatening to outlaw slavery in the colonies.
heck, even most of the founders (mr. jefferson most especially) recognized that slavery itself was a problem the new country had to eventually face, even though they couldn't bring themselves to do it.

[ Parent ]
: Not really (none / 0) (#28)
by cal1942 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:31:22 AM EST

One is a group of people, the other are political instituions.
Perhaps you've forgotten about the Continental Congress that declared independence in 1776.

[ Parent ]

Point taken. I'm think that I'll look into (none / 0) (#25)
by coast on Sat May 02, 2009 at 06:38:02 PM EST

your last comment. As with you, I know the revolutionaries noted what they were doing was treason, but I also can not recall reading anything where a confederate stated such. Good pints though above and below.

[ Parent ]

And to be clear, I think a national holiday (none / 0) (#11)
by coast on Sat May 02, 2009 at 06:27:10 AM EST

is a stupid idea.

[ Parent ]

Stupid apolagist (none / 0) (#22)
by Reasonable on Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:17:31 PM EST

"I'll assume that you hold the same for the likes of Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, etc. They were traitors as well."

Jefferson and Co. were not citizens of the British Empire they were subjects. They did not have a voice in the government. Remember "No taxation without Representation" It wasn't "No representation if we lose a political election"
The southern scum felt then, as now, that if they couldn't have their way they would seize the as much property as they can and leave. a bit like a schoolyard wimp who steals the ball and goes home when his ineptitude is revealed on the playing field.

Remember davis was a US Senator, lee was a serving US officer and down the line these traitors had been part of the government and had taken specific oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution beyond that of an ordinary citizen.

To trot out the specious argument of comparing "subjects" rebelling against a foreign occupying power to citizens and officials promoting treason because they lost an election does not hold water.

That is as false an argument as to say that it was over economics or some high minded principle. It was a war started by people who felt that it was their god given right to own others and commit genocide by right of the color of their skin. Narrow minded blind bigotry and ignorance nothing more. All else is mere fluff to obscure the argument. Just a German apologists claim WW II was really about stopping the Red menace from the east it is an intellectually dishonest position.

[ Parent ]

My comment regarding Jefferson and the like (none / 0) (#26)
by coast on Sat May 02, 2009 at 07:01:10 PM EST

was really made more rhetorically than anthing else, but you and cpinva make excellent points regarding the differences.

However, I do take exception to your contention that economics is a "false" arguement. For that to be true, then you are basically arguing that the plantation owners simply wanted a second class of people. For no real reason, just to have someone less than themselves. I find that arguement to be odd.

Slavery, throughout history, has always been about economics. Its always been about labor.

[ Parent ]

: economics was definitely part of the equation (none / 0) (#30)
by of1000Kings on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:29:07 PM EST

we still see this type of behavior now...all the time...
these industry leaders/farmers in the south were faced with the possibility of large cuts in profit, at least...whether they were right or wrong on the issue didn't matter to the persons with the most invested...were they still worse than anyone we call a racist now? yep...
but economics was definitely playing it's part in the racism itself...
this also means that the southerners were rationalizing to themselves a moral reason to support their point of view outside of what may have been the real issue..even though fundamentally it didn't matter b/c they were wrong...
again, we still see this sort of behavior today...sometimes I think we forget how little time our country has been around...a mere generations..we haven't changed as much as we'd like to think...these people we talk of as bad human beings are our great-grandfathers, or a generation or two away from that...sometimes that makes it hard for people in the south today to stop rationalizing their treason...in a childlike way, 'how could my father be wrong'...
if you want examples just look at the coal industry:
they support a way of creating energy that is becoming outdated; we know it's probably wrong to spew so many contaminants into the air, but they rationalize to themselves some reason why it's still okay to do it, because they are heavily invested economically...
thus we get all the 'raise your prices' talk on Faux news and coming out of the mouths of the coal industry...
or, 'hey, we could just bury the bad contaminants, that makes it clean'...
with apologies to Ayn Rand, most people who are faced with huge economic losses probably do believe whatever side of the argument they are on, even if it's blatantly wrong...the mind has it's way of persuading itself in crisis mode...
none of this post makes these people on the wrong side of these arguments any less despicable though, even if they are our fathers/mothers, grand-father/mother or down the line...they were wrong...it's okay...
maybe our society just needs to readjust our priorities a bit, eh?
Timshel

[ Parent ]

How about: (none / 0) (#16)
by KeysDan on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:43:42 AM EST

"Stonewall Day". A pivotal moment for human rights, to be celebrated on June 27, and to honor those drag queens who stood up to oppression. I wonder what the Sons of Confederate Veterans would think of this?

: i like it! (none / 0) (#18)
by cpinva on Sat May 02, 2009 at 11:43:59 AM EST

it's just enough to confuse the die-hards where i live! lol

[ Parent ]

Election Day (none / 0) (#23)
by Lora on Sat May 02, 2009 at 04:35:55 PM EST

Election Day used to be a holiday. Bring it back! There is no reason I can think of NOT to make the most important day of the year for our government a holiday.

Absentee voting is more vulnerable to error than any other form of voting. It makes coercion and vote-buying a lot easier.

Making Election Day a holiday would get more people to the polls and perhaps reduce the number of absentee voters.

: Are these people desperate (none / 0) (#24)
by jondee on Sat May 02, 2009 at 05:06:41 PM EST

for another "base" stirring wedge issue,or what?
I can just hear Glen Peckerhead or O'Reilly leaving out the Confederacy bit and turning this into an issue of Liberals disrespecting "our" brave fighting men.

[ Parent ]
: oops...Used to be...as when I lived in NJ! (none / 0) (#31)
by Lora on Sun May 03, 2009 at 05:19:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]