Southern Civil War lies continue

And, with the sesquicentennial on us, and wingnuts all about it, stuff like this will surely only continue.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans continues the lie that the war wasn't ultimately about slavery:

“We in the South, who have been kicked around for an awfully long time and are accused of being racist, we would just like the truth to be known,” said Michael Givens, commander-in-chief of the Sons, explaining the reason for the television ads. While there were many causes of the war, he said, “our people were only fighting to protect themselves from an invasion and for their independence.”

Let's count the most obvious untruths.

1. No invasion was ever threatened. All Lincoln did was to protect federal property at Fort Sumter and elsewhere.

2. You weren't independent in 1860-61.

3. You were, overall, more racist than the North. (Not that there wasn't plenty to go around.)

Givens isn't alone:

“Many people in the South still believe that is a just and honorable cause. Do I believe they were right in what they did? Absolutely,” said Jeff Antley, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, noting that he spoke for himself and not any organization. “There’s no shame or regret over the action those men took.”

Mr. Antley said he was not defending slavery, which he called an abomination. “But defending the South’s right to secede, the soldiers’ right to defend their homes and the right to self-government doesn’t mean your arguments are without weight because of slavery.”

Well, they are without weight if you're dishonest.

The truth? From historian James W. Loewen.

“The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to hold the country together and only gradually did it become anti-slavery — but slavery is why the South seceded.”

And, that's not all.

Here's a rejoinder to the SCV:

“I can only imagine what kind of celebration they would have if they had won,” said Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina N.A.A.C.P.
He said he was dumbfounded by “all of this glamorization and sanitization of what really happened.” When Southerners refer to states’ rights, he said, “they are really talking about their idea of one right — to buy and sell human beings.”

Well, they act like they DID win.

Is this still important? Hell, yes:

“These battles of memory are not only academic,” said Mark Potok, the director of intelligence at the Southern Poverty Law Cente r. “They are really about present-day attitudes. I don’t think the neo-Confederate movement is growing, but it’s gotten a new shot of life because of the sesquicentennial.”

Need I say Tea Party, Preznit Kumbaya?