Comments on: Daily Show Looks at Sesqui “Celebrations” in the South

By: Will Hickox

Will Hickox — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:17:11 +0000

How do Confederate apologists hope to gain legitimacy when they routinely dismiss those who disagree with them as “Yankees?” It’s difficult to take someone seriously when they appear to be living out a 150-year-old fantasy.

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:16:50 +0000

All comments are welcome here. I'm not inclined to discuss further Connie's statement, but if you're interested in a deconstruction, check out this comment thread at Civil War Memory. That site is geared to how the Civil War is remembered (and mis-remembered), and it's also where Connie cross-posted an identical comment.

By: Connie

Connie — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 03:58:11 +0000

A few weeks ago, a “preeminent journalist” for the NYT, Katharine Q. Seelye, wrote that Georgia’s “Secession Ordinance” said that “the state seceded in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, who was ‘anti-slavery.’”

Well, that’s… baloney. The state’s Secession Ordinance is a two-paragraph legal document dissolving Georgia’s ties to the United States. It don’t mention Aby-Baby at all. What Seelye MEANT, obviously, was Georgia’s “Declaration of Causes of Secession,” which is a much longer document, and details Georgia’s grievances with the US — and it had to do with much more than slavery and Lincoln.

Did Bull Runnings or Kevin Levin or Jon Stewart or any other blog (besides mine) have a sidesplitting laugh over this yankee journalist’s ignorance? Doubtful. We all understand why, don’t we?

You can read my comments about the NYT article here:
http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2010/12/planned-lies-about-history-well-see.html