It seems to be one thing to celebrate one large ethnic group that makes up the American melting pot (quilt?); it's quite another to celebrate those, however misguided, committed treason against the United States.

Is her head so firmly lodged up her ass that she doesn't know how she, a woman of color, would be received at Confederate gatherings?

Michelle Malkin is a ....writer I almost never agree with.

The Internet has done a marvellous job at showing us what a lot of people really think.

In the grand scheme of things this may prove to be much more a curse than a blessing.

Very telling that she would use the confederacy as her example. As clb72 said, does she reazize how she herself would likely have been treated in the confederate south?

Oh, my god, she is HILARIOUS! I'm going to go celebrate the Confederacy RIGHT NOW! Do you think blackface and a lynching rope would be a little over-the-top?

Case in point: Can you imagine if someone proposed changing the Rangers' jerseys to "Confederate Rangers" to celebrate Confederate Heroes' Day? Oh, and I'm sure I'll be labeled a racist for pointing out the double standard.

Michelle Malkin is right of course. Even Democrat James Webb admits we should be praising Confederate soldiers for their heroism and courage in the War of Northern Aggression.

Link

"The Confederate Memorial has had a special place in my life for many years. During the bitter turbulence of the early and mid 1970's I used to come here quite often."

"Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war -- just as overt patriotism is today -- but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution, and that it had never been surrendered."

But liberal Yankees like Kevin Drum could never praise Confederates because they hate the South.

I propose we celebrate John Brown day.

Of course Michelle doesn't have a comment section where those who might have a different opinion than hers would have a forum to express it. I guess it's another example of "it's my blog and I don't care what you think unless you agree with me.

Kevin, there are times when you make me bark outloud with laughter. The concluding paragraph to this post was on of those times! Rock on, brother.

War of Northern Agression? Perhaps Al is historically deficient: the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumpter. I thought everyone knew that. And taking up arms against the US is generally considered treason--except, I guess, if you're doing it to defend the right to own slaves. Al, you're pitiful. You're ALL pitiful.

Kevin....looks like Al has peered into your soul with his tunnel vision glasses and discovered hatred. Granted, it may have actually been a mirror he gazed into but let's not concern ourselves with little things like truth, or in the word of a great man, truthiness.

Michell Malkin...mmmmm hot. Misguided, often wrong & probably insane but hot.

you mean like this, Michelle?
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060506/NEWS/605060354/1001

BTW, Confederate Memorial Day was a couple of weeks ago. It is a state holiday here in AL. Jeff Davis Birthday is coming up if Michelle really wants to go on about Confederate heroes.

Dear Al

I'm a former denizen of the Great Midwest, now living in Texas.

And guess what? I don't hate the south. I *do* hate small minds, closed minds, horse's behinds.

Maybe it's got more to do with hating what the Confederates were fighting to preserve: the forced bondage of human beings, used as free labor, a means to an end.

Or, forgive me, maybe I've misjudged you, but maybe you're *for* human chattel? Maybe you celebrated, dancing in the street like a Palestinian on 9/12, John William King and friends dragging James Byrd Jr. to his death? Maybe that's the South you propose we celebrate and hold close to our hearts? The South of the Great White Race rightly subjugating the unwashed unpure mud people?

Why is do we have to hate the South to find despicable what the Confederacy stood for?

"Isn't the 21st century wonderful?"

Yep. And it's only going to get more wonderful while the oil and other resources dry up, but the internet remains to let bizarre people like Michelle Malkin have an equal space to post her version of a mimeographed newsletter.

I'm still working on the twisted logic of "it's considered racist to acknowledge the military sacrifices of one's own...Confederate Rangers." She is saying that Confederate soldiers were military heroes who died defending their homeland against the evil United States of America? It is RACISM that keeps us from celebrating their "heroism"?

These are dark days for the USA, and I often wish that the South HAD won.

If she's offended by that, she should really be offended by the fact that Bush's church took on a burning cross as it's symbol during the 1960's and has kept it to this very day.

disclaimer: speaking as a methodist myself.

While it's considered a celebration of "diversity" to acknowledge the military sacrifices of another nation's heroes, it's considered racist to acknowledge the military sacrifices of one's own.

Im a little confused...don't the Texas Rangers (MLB version) always celebrate the sacrifices of another nation's heroes, given that Texas was another nation at the time the (original) Texas Rangers were created? Also, those original Rangers were quite into diversity, being said to “ride like Mexicans, shoot like Tennesseans, and fight like the very devil.” Without the inspiration of Mexicans and Satan, they would have been little more than 19th century Al Gores, apparently.

What do their uniforms look like on Chinese New year?

In Malkin's world, millions of America-hating immigrants protested this border-town event.

The Texas Rangers were mustered into the Confederate Army in 1863, so "Confederate Rangers" is already implied.

But who can blame Michelle?

There are so many celebrations of the Old South in our daily lives that we all lose track sometimes.

Dunno beat me to it! Nice work.

OTOH, how unfair is it that the Confederates are reviled. Meanwhile, the Yankees get to have a ballclub named after them. The Yankees even win pennants and had cool uniforms.

Just goes to show once again that "winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."

Imagine if the hard left in America were as close to the center of power as the hard right. Imagine presidential candidates making pilgrimages to the Upper West Side to secure the blessings of a Chomsky or Amy Goodman. There would be apologias for Lillian Hellman and Alger Hiss on the best-seller lists. And there would be a master Svengali stoking leftist outrage at the War on Secularism.

Yet there isn't. Which goes a long way to explain the difference between the Left and Right in America.

Frankly, the doofus who decided to put "Los Rangers" on the uniforms of the Texas Rangers deserves all the derision he/she is getting.

Kevin seems depressed that lots of Americans can see through the politically correct garbage that Drum thinks is so enlightened, so progessive, so thoughtful.

Now I understand why elitists want to regulate the internet and establish speech codes.

Umm - Michelle: the Confederate were not "our nation's heroes." The Confederacy broke off from the Union, remember?

That would be considered treason in some circles, don't you think, Ms. Manglangapoontahng?

Guys...people stopped waving the bloody shirt in the 1800's. Even to the liberals down here, it's damn annoying to hear people denigrate your home, however flawed its history might be. There was slavery in the North too, and it hasn't exactly been a shining beacon of harmonious race relations for the last 200 years. Don't pretend that the KKK was a purely Southern organization.

My history proessor once speculated on the outcome if we just let the south secede. How long would slavery have existed? Forty years after the civil war, the second industrial revolution was in full swing, the west was populated, the California boom on its way, labor organizations had been established, and slavery practically abolished throughout the world.

I was born into a conservative family, grew up in a conservative suburb, but became a liberal. I always wondered why. Now I know- it was from watching Sesame Street, which had segments in Spanish. I still remember the tune for counting to 20.

A little public broadcasting is a dangerous thing.

Malkin complains that she'll probably be called a racist (true), but "moron" is the first word I thought of.

Guess what's happening at Ameriquest Field on May 27? Military Appreciation Fireworks Show.

The "doofus who decided to put 'Los Rangers' on the uniforms" probably recognized what every MLB team understands and that is where their audience is growing.

Only people who look at life through the immigration debate prism (which surprise, surprise, is most everybody during this mid-term election cycle) will notice those uniforms and make it an issue of contention.

Every ball club, every year celebrates diversity all year long. Just this week Jae Seo pitched at Dodger Stadium on "Korean Night." They will also have Japanese-American night and Viva Los Dodgers night like they do every year.

The World Baseball Classic this year didn't come about as an accident. They are obviously trying to increase the audience for the sport and anybody who follows baseball more than once an election cycle would notice that there is a significant and growing fan base south of the border, which includes the Carribean.

I was at Dodger stadium last night, where the colors in the post-game fireworks frequently and purposely (!) evoked the colors of the Mexican flag, where 'mariachi' as well as other forms of Latin music blared from the sound system, AND where the home team often sports jerseys that read *Los* Angeles!!!

Where is the outrage???

DB:
Thanks. Glad I wasn't the only one who caught that. In fact, it seems pretty clear that in Malkin's world, no pro sports are played south of Long Beach. Seems you can't go to a Padres or Chargers game without some combination of moments of silence, flyovers, drum bands, and reduced-price tickets for servicemen (and righly so, with the Navy right there).

Malkin should stay away from sports and styick to topics she knows, like

Yes, DB gets it. MLB couldn't care less about politics, per se, but it knows its fanbase, and increasingly, Latinos not only make up the players on the team but the fans in the seats. This has to do with the amazing popularity of baseball in Latin America. Michelle Malkin, of course, cares only about politics and that seems to get in the way of knowing anything about anything else. A good lesson for all of us, most likely.

Malkin is off-base on this one (sorry.)

This was a harmless display for a holiday. U.S. flag patches appeared on sports uniforms after 9/11, and there was nothing wrong with that.

Frankly, you can't look at Texas without looking at a strong Hispanic heritage. From what I've heard, the state came damn close to becoming its own nation, drawing from Hispanic and European heritages, and separate from both the United States and Mexico.

Cowboys are the essence of "American." Yet almost every term in cowboy lingo...including "lingo"...is Spanish.

Look, it's obvious right now that the Far Left is trying to walk off with the modern Hispanic movement, and that needs to be dealt with (properly, not by going nuts), but responding to that threat by becoming overly sensitive to all cultural impacts on everyday life isn't the right thing to do.

The U.S. is built from many different cultures, all united in the belief that individual freedom is a worthy aspiration no matter where you come from. That's what makes our country strong. There are so many countries where you can live there all your life, and raise children, and your children will never be recognized as true citizens. Look at Mexico's treatment of immigrants.

Although we've had a lot of rough patches, historically, this kind of exclusion has not been true of America, and we need to preserve that.

On the other side of the coin, it wouldn't hurt for immigrants to have some respect for their new country, too. There's a difference between displaying your culture proudly, and rubbing people's noses in it while declaring that you want to take over.

Look, it's obvious right now that the Far Left is trying to walk off with the modern Hispanic movement, and that needs to be dealt with

Considering it's the cracker wing of the GOP that thought that EVERY single person at a protest was an illegal alien, that's really funny you'd say that.

The 'Far Left'(every suburban honky's nightmare) didn't have to lift a finger. That caucus will come over to the Dem side naturally, as the GOP made it very clear they don't want 'their kind' in their ranks.

The GOP can stay the party of christian gun totting virgins and other assorted losers who never got laid in high school.

Yup, be afraid Tom, they are coming to TAKE OVER!
Whitey culture everywhere is threatened!

Man, do you need an enemy everyday when you wake up? Is that was compels the modern right these days? If it isn't the tarrists, its the gays, or the commies, or them thar mexicans.

FFS, Cinco de Mayo is 'Drink Corona Day'; it's as Mexican as the American 'celebration' of St Patrick's Day is Irish.

Malkin resembles Dave Chapelle's Clayton Bigsby more every day.

There's a difference between displaying your culture proudly, and rubbing people's noses in it while declaring that you want to take over.

Of course, that's a completely accurate narrative of immigrant history in North America from the 1600s onwards. Oh.

Case in point: Can you imagine if someone proposed changing the Rangers' jerseys to "Confederate Rangers" to celebrate Confederate Heroes' Day?

Geez Kevin. Why why why?

Okay let me compare Ms Malkinds opine.

And killing people to import another race into a country is?
Zionism?
No.
Its Colonialism. I suggest Ms Malkind think about that. If we do this for Isreal Who's next?

So should we Kill Americans and Install the Indians back int their original state or country?

Of course People will say NO thats crazy to give the Indians back their land and kill Americans!!

SO why dont we also attack Spain and force those Shem Jews back to Israel?

Or How about the Guatemalan Pyramids?

Its COLONIALISM, and MALKIN IS A MYOPIC MENTAL MDGET

Confederate is but a word, misused by People such as Malkin to connotate her agenda.

Sometimes confederation is erroneously used in the place of federation. Some nations which started out as confederations retained the word in their titles after officially becoming federations, such as Switzerland. The United States of America was first organized as a confederation under the Articles of Confederation and later became a federation with the ratification of the current Constitution of the United States in 1789. The American Civil War was a by-product of the formation of the Confederate States of America by U.S. states allied in their desire to form a looser political union and retain more rights for themselves.

"A looser political union"

Sounds like Duhbyas Unitary Executive Domionist Falwell SPeak. Malkin is speaking Backwards as usual.
Reverse Blame Game

hey al,

i live in the south. my mother was born in alabama. i hate the confederacy and all that it stood for -- racism at its most extreme. there is nothing admirable about the confederacy, nothing romantic.

Kevin: I want to congratulate you for having been able to lead such a successful and sheltered life that you're not aware of what it's like for a working class person in a state overwhelmed by immigration from Mexico.

I wonder if Al actually read the Webb link. The last several paragraphs talk about the "lessons" learned from the War:

There are at least two lessons for us to take away from such a day of remembrance. The first is one our leaders should carry next to their breasts, and contemplate every time they f ace a crisis, however small, which puts our military at risk. it should echo in their consciences, from the power of a million graves . It is simply this: You hold our soldiers' lives in sacred trust. When a citizen has sworn to obey you, and follow your judgment, and walk onto a battlefield to defend the interests you define as worthy of his blood, do not abuse that awesome power through careless policy, unclear objectives, or inflexible leadership.

The second lesson regards those who have taken such an oath, and who have honored the judgment of their leaders, often at great cost. Intellectual analyses of national policy are subject to constant re-evaluation by historians as the decades roll by, but duty is a constant, frozen in the context of the moment it was performed. Duty is action, taken after listening to one's leaders, and weighing risk and fear against the powerful draw of obligation to family, community, nation, and the unknown future. In other words, leaders must be damn sure they doing the right thing when they put soldiers' lives at risk. I don't agree with everything Webb says, but he isn't talkina about how pure the Confederate cause was, just that the soldiers were doing their "duty" and leaders shouldn't take advantage of that.

Who would've guessed that Ms. Malkontent would be upset about Dubya's old baseball team celebrating Cinco de Mayo. What exactly is her problem? Does she pull her pony tail too tight when she goes jogging? Is she a self-loathing Alien? Is her pool boy doing a crappy job?

Why doesn't Ms. Malkkkin just go buy a gun and join the Minuteman Project? Or better yet, how about she come down here to Texas and start cleaning homes and landscaping for $7/hour? (Which is exactly what the conservatives in my office pay their immigrants for services.)

Being a born Southerner I love the south, everything about it, particulary our people who have real roots and heritage and are more patrotic because of it.

In fact every July 4 I fly my Confederate flag right under the Stars and Stripes simply to honor my ancestors who died in that war.

I find it amusing to see the real racist and bigots going on and on about slavery in the South as if that was the real and sole reason for the war, when at that same time Northerners had both black slaves and white indentured servants.

But if anyone can get up a national movements to have us seperate from the union be my guest, very few of us here want to be part of what this country has done lately anyway or either nutso party. So many of us have left the dems for the independents or become unaffilated because of the hatred of the south so rampant among the liberal freepers we might as well have our own nation and our own party.

I'll vote for it, hell, I'll even fight for it.

I also hate that every other ballplayer is a Dominican named Juan. Tell me that's accidental.

You guys just didn't understand me. I simply don't think it's cool to honor a bunch of Mexicans who attacked Texas and tried to take it from its rightful American owners.

Case in point: Can you imagine if someone proposed changing the Rangers' jerseys to "Confederate Rangers" to celebrate Confederate Heroes' Day?

Seeing is how "Confederate Heroes" were traitors who should have been strung up from the nearest sour apple tree after then end of the civil war to the last man for their betrayal of their country, I fail to understand what the double standard here is.

j: "Why [do] we have to hate the South to find despicable what the Confederacy stood for?"

Hate is a pretty strong word. I would suggest that many people South intensely, perhaps because those who admire "what the Confederacy stood for" are, for the most part, apparently still running the joint.

George W. Bush's first Attorney General, former Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft, praised "Southern Patriots like Lee and Jackson" in an exclusive interview in Fall 1998 issue of Southern Partisan magazine. Not content with that, he urged readers to do more to protect the heritage of the South's "noble cause."

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue ran upon a states' rights platform that promised to restore the Connfederate battle emblem to its former prominence on that state's flag. At a 2002 election night victory rally in Atlanta, he mocked the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., while a supporter waved a Connfederate flag in the background.

North Carolina GOP Congressman Cass Ballenger, in a Dec. 1998 interview with the Charlotte News & Observer, admitted racist feelings toward his colleague Cynthia MacKinney (D-GA) while calling her a "bitch." The next day, as the congressman hastened to publicly apologize for hiss remarks, an aide was dispatched to Ballenger's suburbaan Charlotte home, where he proceeded to paint white a black lawn jockey that was prominently displayed in the front yard.

Notice that I didn't bring up the most notorious od episodes touting neo-Confederate resurgence, Senate Mmajority Leader Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond's divisive 1948 presidential campaign, which was based on preservation of Jim Crow laws and states' rights, at the latter's 100th birthday party in December 2002.

And that only got coverage because of outrage in the blogosphere -- the national SCMSM was perfectly content to ignore Lott's remarks, just like they did the previous three items I cited.

Chanel No. 5: "I find it amusing to see the real racist and bigots going on and on about slavery in the South as if that was the real and sole reason for the war, when at that same time Northerners had both black slaves and white indentured servants."

The underlying causes of the American Civil War (or "The War Between the States," as many southerners still refer to it -- or The War of the Rebellion, in the Library of Congress), are both many and complex.

While the moral issue of slavery was indeed significant too many Northerners, the reality of two vastly divergent regional economies, with very different needs and interests, was probably the main catalyst for the hostilities.

Racism is not the province of any one section of the country. During the Civil War, it was just a virulent up north as down south. During the bloody New York City Draft Riots of July 1863, hundreds of black people were lynched by white mobs, who were angry that their sons and brothers were fighting for the freedom of a people that they themselves considered racially inferior.

Malkin's statements are inane, but her true feelings are obvious from the reader comments she chooses to post--none of which relate to political correctness, and all of which are anti-Hispanic.

dfx: "Why doesn't Ms. Malkkkin just go buy a gun and join the Minuteman Project?"

Because the Minutemen, fearing for her safety, wouldn't allow her to serve with them on the front lines.

However, they probably would agree to allow her to buy them a few dozen cases of whatever cheap beer they're drinking.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Malkin is like the recent convert who is holier than the Pope. She's so insecure about her minority status that she overcompensates by publicly performing the role of hyper-patriot.

Relax Michelle. We're not going to inter you -- even if you wouldn't hesitate to inter others.

Winners vs Losers:

1. Battle of Puebla
Winner: Mexican Militia
Loser: French Army
(Hence, Cinco De Mayo)

2. Revolutionary War
Winner: Continental Army
Loser: British Army

3. Civil War
Winner: Yankees (Union)
Loser: Rebels (Confederacy)

4. W.W.II
Winner: Allied Forces
Loser: Axis Forces (Hitler, etc.)

5. Cold War
Winner: United States (Capitalism)
Loser: Soviet Union (Communism)

6. Celebrating Diversity/Los Rangers
Winner: Kevin Drum
Loser: (As Always) Michelle Malkin

By Malkin's logic, in addition to uniforms with Confederate flags, ballplayers should occasionally don uniforms with swastikas and hammers and sickles. Maybe she'd like to see British flags during 4th of July games. As a loser herself, Malkin apparently wants to see all losers given their due. I'm sure she'll feel that way about the terrorists some day. Then again, I didn't hear her calling, in the interest of fairness, for French flags on baseball uniforms yesterday.

Case in point: Can you imagine if someone proposed changing the Rangers' jerseys to "Confederate Rangers" to celebrate Confederate Heroes' Day?

This is not too far from the reality of Alabama where Confederate Memorial Day happens to be a state holiday.

"Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war -- just as overt patriotism is today -- but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution, and that it had never been surrendered."

Great, Al. I look forward to your essays telling us why the Republican party should be leaving
* medical marijuana
* euthanasia
* gay marriage
* (the up-and-coming issue of) English as an official language
to the states rather than treating them as federal issues.

"Now I understand why elitists want to regulate the internet and establish speech codes."

I thought it was the Republicans that want English to be declared the US official language and that are going on about the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish. That seems to me one heck of a "speech code".

Also, worth pointing out, in light of Malkin's comments of the "outrage" that'd we see if a team celebrated our military, is that the Ranger's opponents last night, the New York Yankees stop during EVERY seventh inning stretch for a moment of silence for the military, and play 'God Bless America'. Granted that's cause George Steinbrenner is a giant Republican.

Every Yankee game I go to, I find it tedious, and it really waters down the effect that they are aiming for, but I still stand, and I don't get outraged.

This is the most assinine controversy ever. Or it would be if we could ignore everything since 2000.

Didn't Texas used to, like, BE Mexico?

Al: "[Love of the Union] was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution, and that it had never been surrendered."

Al, for once, is quite right. True Southerners have never willingly surrendered their notion of state sovereignty -- until the rest of the country gets sick and tired of dealing with their collective regional neuroses and kicks their boney white asses into compliance.

(See Civil War, American and Civil Rights Movement, American).

If neo-Confederates still harbors such nonsensical notions about states' rights, then perhaps it's time for the rest of is to consider kicking them into line once again.

One good way would be for the so-called "blue states" to balk at subsidizing their ignorant Southern cracker-assed cousins.

California alone pays more than $70 billion in federal taxes than it receives in federal spending, while Mississippians and their southern brethren pay in federal taxes only about half to two-thirds of the amount that they receive in federal spending.

What does California receive from the subsidized South in exchange for its fiscal largesse? Ridicule about its supposed liberalism, and judgmental wisecracks about San Francisco being too gay and L.A.'s culture and lifestyle being perverse.

What's wrong with this picture of so-called "Southern Patriots" continually biting the hands that feed them?

Michelle Malkin can go fuck herself. Had she even heard of the Rangers before some loser-ass right-wing nutcake emailed her about what he saw unfolding before his very eyes at the game? Let me tell you something, the Rangers are called the TEXAS Rangers because they are from TEXAS, and nobody down here in TEXAS has a problem with us acknowleding Cinco de Mayo because just about EVERYBODY down here (including the whites) acknowledges it in some way. We just do. Even the right-wing fruits down here who think that English should be the national language go out for Mexican on that day. So, fuck off Michelle, and leave Texas to Texans.

Paul: It has nothing to do with the Mexicans and everything to do with right-to-work. Conditions are just as terrible everywhere else in the South.

C.J. Colucci: "Didn't Texas used to, like, BE Mexico?"

Leave it to a bleeding-heart liberal to bring up an inconvenient historical fact -- but yes, you're right.

Texas was actually administered as the northern section of a large Mexican state called Caohuila y Tejas. That state collectively rebelled against the military dictatorship of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in 1835.

While the Mexican Army under Santa Anna ruthlessly suppressed the mostly Mexican Indian insurgents in Caohuila south of the Rio Grande, it was eventually withdrawn from Texas in exchange for Santa Anna's release from gringo captivity following his defeat at the Battle of San Jacinto (near the site of present-day Houston) in 1836.

On the other side of the coin, it wouldn't hurt for immigrants to have some respect for their new country, too. There's a difference between displaying your culture proudly, and rubbing people's noses in it while declaring that you want to take over.

Well, what is the difference? Can you give examples of proud display versus hegemonic nose-rubbing? Is there any sort of objective standard, or must everyone be contrained by your personal sensibilities and prejudices? I'm sure you'd prefer the latter (who wouldn't?) but that'll be a tough sell outside Casa Tbrosz.

FYI: The sovereign and independent Republic of Texas existed from 1835, after the defeat of Santa Ana at the Battle of San Jacinto, to 1845, when Texas became the 28th state. The original admission agreement allows Texas to split into five separate states but Texans being Texans, bragging rights about size have always trumped increased Senate representation.

It's almost as enlightening as a guilgy, jealous lilly-white surburbian who whines about those dastardly other surburbians who vote Republican, thus they must be racist.

You realize you're not in Malkin's league, don't you?

The Fool has got it right. Recently assimilated citizens often go über-patriotic. Conversely, those that have been around just don't know what is to be appreciated about the good US of A -- just look at GWB...

The amazing thing is that--according to the Google search she herself linked to--Confederate Heroes' Day is on January 19th in Texas. DEEP IN BASEBALL SEASON! Or not!

You realize you're not in Malkin's league, don't you?

You say that as if it would be a bad thing. I dunno, I'm not applying for membership in Malkin's league, are you?

I'm not getting the anger from the right here, leaving aside Michelle of Jesse or whoever wrote that post. I'm a white guy, grown up in the south (not so far from Richmond) living in the north (not so far from Milwaukee) and I'm Irish.

I celebrated Cinco de Mayo with my friends inclined to do so, as I've seen them celebrate St. Patrick's Day (although I do not.)

Whoever wrote the post, be it Michelle or Jesse or whoever, is a real piece of work. It's got to be exhausting looking everywhere for reasons to be insulted.

don from hawaii,

yeah, the civil war was in fact a war of 2 different economies -- a slave-based economy vs. one based on free labor. slavery was the issue that caused war. there were other issues but absent slavery there would have been no war. if you doubt it, read the ordinances of secession and supporting documents from georgia, south carolina and other hot head states. if state soviergnty was the critical issue, all the south had to do win its independence was to free its slaves -- no doubt great britain and france would have recognized the confederacy, forcing the north to negotiate a peace in 1862.

and chanel no. 5,

no nothern state had legal slavery or indentured servitude at the time of the war of the rebellion. sorry, the confederacy was morally bankrupt. and i am a southerner.

It used to be that stuff like this was limited to mimeographed newsletters produced in someone's basement and carefully mailed out to a select group of fellow cranks and conspiracy theorists.

I remember those days fondly.

Wow Kevin, your post is dripping with hypocrisy. You'll champion the right of free speech to call Donald Rumsfield a serial killer considering it mainstream yet when someone states something that you disagree with, you belittle and infer intolerance. Can your little mind not realize that.

You don't have to "infer" anything Jay, it's quite clear. Unlike Malkin, Kevin does not hide his opinions behind a phony veil of odious reader comments.

Small "r" republicans fighting imperialist France. What's not to love about Cinco de Mayo?

And when did Confederates become our nation's heroes?

A crank with an audience of cranks? That's a damn funny accusation coming from Kevin Drum!

Even though Drum himself has the honesty to admit the infamous national guard memos from Rathergate are phony, it's hilarious to watch Drum's audience of commenters proclaim the memos are not fake, or the even more funny claim that the origin of the faked memos were from Karl Rove!

If a blogger has an audience of cranks that blogger is Kevin Drum, not Michelle Malkin.

Why do we even give this knucklehead the time of day? Michelle Malkin-tent is as unhinged as Anne Coulter, and I didn't think that was possible.

Mudwall Jackson: I was taught that the south was an agrarian economy and the north was an industrial economy, and that the root causes of the war were economic - slavery was a coincidental issue and in later years took on more of a causative role in the conventional wisdom. This makes sense when one considers that most of the "Johnny Reb" foot soldiers who ended up dead were too poor to won any slaves...

I wouldn't label her a racist, I'd just label her a really talentless bimbo in serious need of a boob job on her head (to make it big enough to house a brain).

Most of the "Johnny Reb" foot soldiers who were dumb enough to fight a war for the aristocracy's "freedom" to own slaves were as dumb as your standard issue Southern Moron today who votes Republican against his own interests to save the planet from gays and libruls.

They're still traitors into the sixth generation, and that's why the rest of the country doesn't celebrate Southern Treason Day.

A crank with an audience of cranks?

Good point Brad.

An audience of wanks is more accurate, seeing as how Malkin doesn't allow comments.

tbrosz at 3:51 PM …all united in the belief that individual freedom is …it wouldn't hurt for immigrants to have some respect for their new country, too. There's a difference between displaying your culture proudly, and rubbing people's noses in it while declaring that you want to take over.

Chanel No 5 5:21 PM I find it amusing to see the real racist and bigots going on and on about slavery in the South as if that was the real and sole reason for the war, when at that same time Northerners had both black slaves and white indentured servants.

It used to be that stuff like this was limited to mimeographed newsletters produced in someone's basement and carefully mailed out to a select group of fellow cranks and conspiracy theorists. Now it's on the web where it can be avidly cheered on by hundreds of thousands of fellow cranks in the full light of day. Isn't the 21st century wonderful?

Um, why pick on the web? Malkin has long been published in newspapers and had many television appearances on the cable newstations. There are plenty of right wing nutcases as bad or worse than her to be found on AM radio. The web at least gives progressives a forum to shoot down her insane burblings.

If it's any comfort, back in the 1970s when Canada was dealing with the initial fallout from the introduction of official bilingualism, our frozen expanses rang with the anguished cries of English-only advocates.

Talk shows were jammed with callers complaining that French was being rammed down their throats, and politicians openly supported them. The outrage over having to read the French language if you happened to glimpse the wrong side of your cereal box was phenomenal (you think I'm kidding?), and peaked with the publication of the bestselling "Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow".

Thirty years later, you barely hear boo from the francophobes. English-language editorial pages go years without a letter on the subject; phone-in hosts are far more interested in hyping the sensational-crime-o'-the-day.

So for what it's worth, this gasbag and her ilk too shall pass.

global citizen,

slavery was hardly a coincidental cause of the war. even if johnny reb didn't own slaves, he had an economic, social and political interest in maintaining the "peculiar institution." and would suspect that most enlisted for the same reasons as soldiers always do -- a smattering of adventure-seeking, community pressure, a desire to prove manhood, boredom and patriotism -- rather than ideology. i suggest you read the documents. read the ordinances of secession and their preambles for the various confederate states (georgia and s. carolina especially)if you have any doubt. look at the dynamics of the election of 1860. if you're interested, pick up look away, a history of the confederate states of america by william c. davis.

and by the way there were large numbers of unionists in the confederacy -- every state except s.carolina provided volunteer units to the northern cause. there's a lot that's been either ignored or wrongly taught about the civil war in our schools and it is a shame.

liberal suthuna

no one is denigrating the south. i live in the south and have deep southern roots. those who think this part of the country is a backwater inhabited by good ole white neanderthals are idiots. those who think the dems can win the white house while ignoring the south are fools. however, to ignore the darker side of its history is like germany avoiding the subject of wwii and the nazis. get real dude.

i doubt you'd call a johnny reb a standard issue moron if he was pointing a .57 calibre enfield rifle at you, tcinla. they nearly won the war. on the other hand you're just as stupid as the southern aristocrats who believed that the confederacy was invincible because southerners were superior to that mutant northern trash the union was filling its armies with. one southerner could like 10 northerners in his sleep. of course appomatox proved them wrong about a lot of things.

To Ms. Malkin: The Texas Rangers aren't the first MLB team to salute their Hispanic fans this way. I am pretty certain that on at least one occasion, the San Francisco Giants have worn uniforms with "GIGANTES" on the front. (Of course, the Giants have had notable Latin players for several decades, going back to Orlando Cepeda, Juan Marichal and the three Alou brothers. Heck, Ruben Gomez pitched for the Giants when they were at the Polo Grounds in New York.)

An audience of wanks is more accurate, seeing as how Malkin doesn't allow comments.

I remember when Mr. Drum didn't allow comments...back before he included them after switching to MT and then criticized all the RWers who didn't have comments. Not that it matters to the echo-chamber, since they didn't care about a cracker living in the burbs who thought that Republican crackers who lived in the burbs were prolly racist ---- rules only apply to others.

And consider this: when I proposed that my workplace softball team appear wearing all white uniforms with capes and white flak helmets with double lightning bolts and death's heads emblazoned on the front and small swastikas on the wrists, to celebrate the heroic efforts of the Obersatzgruppen SS Commandos in the Battle of Stalingrad, I was literally laughed down by PC-crazed liberals.

Hypocrites.

My history proessor once speculated on the outcome if we just let the south secede. How long would slavery have existed? Forty years after the civil war, the second industrial revolution was in full swing, the west was populated, the California boom on its way, labor organizations had been established, and slavery practically abolished throughout the world.

And everyone would have had a pony!

Um, why pick on the web? Malkin has long been published in newspapers and had many television appearances on the cable newstations

Yep. She has an editorial in my local paper (Myrtle Beach Sun News) this very day.

Dear Michelle Malkin, just in case you didn't know why you will never see "Confederate Rangers" jerseys it is because... CONFEDERATE HEROES WERE FUCKING ARMED REBELS.

Besides, Cinco de Mayo is just an excuse to get smashed out of your mind in America anyway.

Dear Michelle Malkin, just in case you didn't know why you will never see "Confederate Rangers" jerseys it is because... CONFEDERATE HEROES WERE FUCKING ARMED REBELS.

Besides, Cinco de Mayo is just an excuse to get smashed out of your mind in America anyway.

Don't worry. Soon, like ballots, "The Rangers" will be printed in Chinese, and Vietnamese, and Togolog, and Gaelic, and Indonesian.

The problem, if there is one, is the primacy for Spanish as a language over the languages of all the other immigrants.

As always, Malkin has a half of a good point. You have a knack for critiquing what is good in her writing, instead of completing the portrayal.

it's tagalog, republicrat. you might want to learn to spell. i'm sorry. i just can't get excited about a baseball team trying to market to a large segment of its fan base as somehow tearing apart of the fabric of our society. sillier than the flap over the national anthem in spanish. if this is an issue, heaven help us.

by the way republicrat, tagalog is one of two official languages of the republic of the philippines. the other is english, and most filipinos speak and read the language fairly well.

Well, I grew up in Virginia, where Dixie was played at football games (until black players refused to play :), and many high school teams are named The Rebels, and there's a huge monument to Jefferson Davis, and a Museum of the Confederacy, and students get Lee-Jackson Day off (instead of President's Day, because we certainly couldn't honor Abe Lincoln, even if Washington was thrown into the mix). And I remember wondering why on earth we would so venerate the losing side, not to mention a group that had rather obviously committed treason (Lee, for one, was a US Army officer when he decided to go with the Confederacy).

If Michelle Malkin wants to venerate the Confederacy, she needs only to move to Virginia and she'll get all the Confederacy-worship that she wants. Of course, she's not the right color to feel comfy among those Jeff Davis-lovers, but heck. Maybe then she'll understand why we fought that Civil War and defeated those Confederates she thinks we ought to venerate.

Matt, since segregation and lynching lasted another 100 years, even given that the Confederates lost, then I don't know why we should assume that the Confederacy would have willingly given up slavery. It took a war to get slavery abolished in reality, so somehow I don't think time would have done it.

I'm a southern white, grew up in the Jim Crow era, and let me assure you-- the ones who think Jeff Davis was a "national" hero weren't likely to let go of the Great Cause of preserving slavery. They didn't want to give it up when they lost... I think if they'd won, they would have thought victory vindicated slavery, and they would have kept it for centuries-- yeah, and fallen farther and farther back into feudalism. But I've never seen such stubbornness as those who proclaim, "Save your money-- the South will rise again!"

You realize you're not in Malkin's league, don't you?

Who in the world would want to be in this miserable woman's "league"? I guess we have one pitiful taker.

ib,

don't be too hard on your home state. it did provide the union with one of the great unsung generals of the war, one who did take his oath to the country seriously: gen george h. thomas, the only major army commander not to lose a battle. thomas doesn't get enough credit, isn't nearly remembered enough for his contribution to the us.

This reminds me of some letters in the Charlotte (NC) Observer recently.

Someone wrote in to point out that some of the folks complaining about Mexican flags being waved at the immigrant rallies were probably quite happy to display Confederate flags.

Some guy actually wrote back in response to say that at least the Confederate flag was an American flag.

Seriously.

I mean, does someone really need to point out to this guy that the Confederate flag is no more a part of the United States than the Mexican flag? That it represents an ill-fated attempt by the South to *secede* from said Union?

The critical thinking skills of these folks never cease to amaze.

Not in Malkin's league?

Kevin Drum is Leonard Cohen to Michelle Malkin's Kelly Pickler.

Get real, man.

(No offense to Kelly Pickler.)

Are you people retarded? Does no one pay attention to history anymore. The American Civil War was about STATES RIGHTS! That is the south did'nt want to be told how to run their states by a bunch of big-wigs in the federal government. Of course the confederate states lost so the federal government gets the final say. Slavery was'nt the real issue that the war was fought over. Slavery wasnt going to last much longer in the south anyway. I wish some of you people would frikin pay attention in history class.

History Guy:
Try reading some history produced later than, say the release date of Gone With The Wind. Virtually no one in the profession buys the "slavery wasn't the real issue" thesis anymore. I don't have the tech skills to link to references, but nearly every reputable history of the period now in old-fashioned print says otherwise. And in their candid moments, and when they were putting their demands on the table in the peace commissions, the rebels would have told you the same thing.

history guy, try reading the declaration of causes for the various confederate states. these are the documents written at the time to explain why they seceded from the union, written by those who did the seceding. read them and there's no doubt that war all about slavery. the southern states were all about states rights as long as it protected their right to own slaves, but they had no trouble pummeling the rights of northern states in the process i.e. the fugitive slave act.

those who say the war wasn't about slavery are on the same historical par as those deny the holocaust -- fools and liars.

history guy and all other doubters please read:

Georgia Declaration of Causes

[Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation.

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals w