If you follow mainstream media news outlets, it is hard not to notice the recent hyper focus on promoting, in the name of "social justice," calls of action from the Progressive movements of Black Lives Matter, BAM (By Any Means Necessary) and Antifa. Much of this liberal rhetoric is simply more of the same; an assertion of more three decade long revisionist history and assaults on the position of America in the world.
It is nothing more than a manufactured if not purely invented "culture war" when it comes to Virginia as Progressives seek to use Virginia for their own ends given its historic past as it relates to the founding of the United States and America's Civil War.
The goal here is and has always been the same: the US, as a country, is systematically broken and as such major change must be implemented. Ironically, the pervasive arguments espoused by those movements are themselves not that distinct from the well documented Southern states arguments raised in 1861. In the mid 19th century, as the primary source material reveals, Southern people sought liberation from what they perceived to be a tyrannical federal government. They strongly felt that the US government and leadership of their time had strayed too far from the mandate and vision of the Founding Fathers- many of them Virginian. To this point, for Southerners, Lincoln was perceived as nothing more than tyrant, especially after the Fort Sumter in April 1861 when he called for the raising of 75,000 federal troops. There was no confusion regarding Lincoln's underlying reasons for the call, and as such, Southerners understood exactly what those troops would be tasked with. Let us not forget the often missed fact that the majority of Southerners owned no slaves at this time, or ever. For example, as the data reveals, in 1860 Virginia, the vast majority of Virginians did not own a single slave. Slave ownership was not a luxury afforded by the average Southern homestead that subsisted on the work of their own hands and a division of family labor.
In stark contrast, the real Virginia slaveholders were predominately located east of the Blue Ridge Mountains and a coveted area of fertile land commonly referred to as the "Tobacco Belt" of Virginia. Interestingly enough, many of these plantation owners, akin to "agricultural CEOs", served in the Virginia General Assembly in addition to overseeing their massive income producing businesses. These individuals had a vested interest in slavery whereas the "people" did not.
Another historical point that is often neglected in the revisionist progressive narrative was the reality of life in the Western portion of 1860 Virginia , which differed greatly from the East, especially in the area of attitudes towards slavery in general. This different view came from the Virginia "Whigs," a U.S. political party originating in the 1830s built on the values of "anti-individualism,"
The point to be made here is that by looking at the facts as they are, there never was a massive popular campaign effort in Virginia for upholding the institution of slavery. The confusion perhaps may stem from the fact that yes, many Virginia elected officials, the wealthy plantation owners who held a vested interest in slavery, did support it- whereas the average Virginian most certainly did not.
Non-inconsequential, it is academically dishonest to ignore the events that led to the creation of the state of West Virginia, which at the time of the Civil War was part of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This area was comprised of Virginians every bit "Virginian" as Tidewater or the Piedmont of Virginia, however this group were highly pro-Union and as such had little interest in going to war with the Union over slaves they themselves did not even own.
One could posit that the divisiveness of Virginia in 2020, equates to the divisiveness of 1860 Virginia that ultimately led to the creation of the new state of West Virginia. Just as in 1860 when the Virginia Democrats urged Virginia to secede from the Union, today Virginia Democrats are attempting to force an agenda upon all Virginians, when the majority of localities do not support them or their values. This map below illustrates the 2017 Gubernatorial Election where Governor Ralph Northam (D) was elected. The Republicans won the majority of localities throughout Virginia yet lost the elections due to the highly population dense urban areas of the state.
The reality of the Commonwealth today is that the rapid population growth of the dense cities of Northern Virginia, part of the "DMV" (Washington DC Metro area) has lead to an imbalance of power. Not dissimilar to the plantation owning Democrats in Virginia of 1860 along the James River that lead Virginia down the path of war. It goes without saying that the Virginia Democrats of the past did not have nearly as strong of a hold on the trajectory of the state legislature as they do today, as discussed above, they had other forces working against them, such as the aforementioned Virginia Whig Party present in Richmond.
Virginians, much like today, wanted nothing more than to be left alone. The South had no intention of ever invading the North over the differences that existed between the North and South and it was not even until Lincoln began raising troops that Virginia herself shifted position and voted to secede from the Union. Of course Today, Progressive academia concentrates merely on the slave narrative and use the political preservation of slavery arguments made by the few in the political class to characterize the entire people of Virginia. Virginians sought to preserve their liberty and rights to self determination and the preservation of their land (homes) and ultimately their honor. Most did not associate themselves with the slave issue and if many places throughout Virginia one was more likely to have either horses or rats than a single slave. When Virginians filled the ranks of the new Confederate army it was to defend Virginia from the federal troops growing in number each week on the Northern side of the Potomac River and not slavery.
Progressives never point to primary source documentation of the common citizen regarding Virginians that fought for the preservation of slavery. Virginians were well read compared to her fellow Southern states and being so close to the North news traveled into Virginia long before it reached the Deep South in truth. One has to to understand of course that politics then was little different than today in that the political class of Richmond hardly represented the "peoples" interests.
In Virginia today the majority of citizens do not support the removal of monuments and statues via protesters or even through government executive orders without full transparency yet today Governor Ralph Northam (D) and Mayor Levar Stoney(D) have permitted the blatant and willful monumental desecration resulting in the damage of "state property". What is "state property" if it is not property that that belong to all of the "People" of the state?
It bears understanding that the Progressive movement today in Virginia is actually very similar to what the South experienced when it determined to secede from the Union in 1861. Today, Virginia Progressives perceive President Trump as an illegitimate President just as many Southerners did President Lincoln. Progressives have taken to the the streets to voice their opposition and protest Trump continually for almost four years on a wide variety of issues from social issues to Supreme Court nominees. Their protest is not unlike the Virginia's ultimate protest over Lincoln and the federal government infringement on the rights of states and the people to live their lives without government violating its liberty. Just as Progressive feel that Trump does not represent their interests of social justice and other politically motivated agenda elements so to did Virginia ultimately reject President Lincoln's attempts to prohibit Virginians from exercising their liberty.
Critical thinkers must recognize that words matter. The Progressive have set about revising history through the lens of their own political belief systems and not historical fact and certainly not through first hand primary source documents. For example, if you examine how we talk about the plight of the Virginia "negro" or the Spanish term "negroe" in virtually all the of manuscripts from Jamestown 1619 to Richmond in the 1800's you will see a transition to the term "colored". In fact, even the United States Government raised 180,000 mostly former slaves and formed the "United State Colored Troops". These troops were not ever referred to as "African American". Never referred to as such by the government or by the salves themselves. Of course many slaves by the Civil War period had never even been off the plantations they were born to and had no notion of an "Africa" at all nor even where in Africa their kin may have come from. Slaves were indisputably American whether recognized as such by the government or culture of the period no different than the countless generations removed from the original Europeans that came to America.
In fact lets examine Frederick Douglas's intriguing and thought provoking speech entitled "Men of Color, to Arms". In examining the Douglas speech given in Rochester, New York on March 2, 1863 and published throughout the North you will see that Douglas never mentions the term "African American". Douglas instead uses the period authentic term "colored". Douglas stated:
"When first the rebel cannon shattered the walls of Sumter and drove away its starving garrison, I predicted that the war then and there inaugurated would not be fought out entirely by white men. Every month’s experience during these dreary years has confirmed that opinion. A war undertaken and brazenly carried on for the per¬petual enslavement of colored men, calls logically and loudly for colored men to help suppress it. Only a moderate share of sagacity was needed to see that the arm of the slave was the best defense against the arm of the slaveholder. Hence with every reverse to the national arms, with every exulting shout of victory raised by the slaveholding rebels, I have implored the imperiled nation to unchain against her foes, her powerful black hand. Slowly and reluctantly that appeal is beginning to be heeded. Stop not now to complain that it was not heeded sooner. It may or it may not have been best that it should not. This is not the time to discuss that question. Leave it to the future. When the war is over, the country is saved, peace is established, and the black man’s rights are secured, as they will be, history with an impartial hand will dispose of that and sundry other questions. Action! Action! not criticism is the plain duty of this hour.
There is no time to delay. The tide is at its flood that leads on to fortune. From East to West, from North to South, the sky is written all over, “Now or never.” Liberty won by white men would lose half its luster. “Who would be free themselves must strike the blow.” “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” This is the sentiment of every brace colored man amongst us." (Frederick Douglas)
Now the presentation of this speech by Blackpast.org provides the set up illustrating Frederick Douglas's speech as speaking to the "recruitment of the African American" yet at not time did Douglas ever use that terminology to describe his race so it begs the question why do later generations use an inauthentic term it has endorsed or embraced as a descriptor that the very period academia is describing would never have used? Why is it that we as a culture must always seek to impart on own present-day bias or lens upon former periods of American life? Is it for justification reasons or is it for persuasive ones? Is the goal to "educate" on the period or to "influence" the present period "interpretation" of history? These are questions all Americans must grapple with moving forward.
Is there any source material during the years leading up to the Civil War or during the war time period that uses the term "African American"? Did slaves in Virginia ever identify themselves as "African American". The term "Negro" refers to a member of dark skinned peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara or in modern terms "relating to black people". Were the slaves that arrived in Jamestown brought to the Virginia via Portuguese slave traders (not Englishman) the first to arrive as the 1619 Project suggests? Likely not. The reason is there is evidence that "Africans" were brought to present day Florida to the settlement at St. Augustine in 1565 some fifty year prior to them being documented in Virginia. The stated goal of the New York Times "1619 Project" is to re-examine the legacy of slavery in the United States timed with the four hundredth claimed anniversary of the arrival of slaves in Virginia yet it is well documented that slaves arrived in places like South Carolina much earlier than 1619. We must question what was the intent of using the 1619 date and Virginia as the focus of the legacy of slavery in America. What exactly was the New York Times attempting to influence? How was the misrepresentation of the 1619 date being the first arrivals of slaves to the "New World" powerful and was this the intent of its use? 2019 marked the anniversary also of the first colonial legislative body located in the Virginia colony. As such Virginia has been called the "birthplace of American democracy". This distinction is a major factor in why the 1619 date was chosen by the 1619 project even though it is hardly historically accurate in the context of the complete Colonial American experience.
Part of the "legacy" of slavery is determining just who the American slaves actually were. This is not only important from an examination of slavery itself but also how it impacts the descendents of said slaves in present day America. All to often blacks are pigeon holed into a broad parameter or grouping that in effect does injustice to their heritage. Are all American Blacks "Negro" in truth? The short answer is no. For example, American Blacks descended from peoples of Niger, Chad or Sudan are not "Negro" is the purest respect of the academic definition. The term "Afro-American" originated in America one hundred years post Civil War. The term "African American" is a purely American construct advocated by Jesse Jackson. In fact most people will not admit today the history in truth. Instead they simply ignore the fact that no so long ago in 1970s and into the 1990's the term "African American" was not even used via the U.S. Census. The term "Black or Negro" was used. Older genrations of blacks rejected the entire notion of "African Americanism" however younger generations and Progressive academia sough a manner in which to create a new "identity" for the American blacks and now the term "African American" is largely accepted and has been used to revise any examination of history relating to the "black experience". No longer was there a "black experience" in the prior centuries. The experienced has been transformed via academia into the "African American" experience. This is a prime example of the reshaping and molding of culture brought about through political and academic advocacy and nothing more. We see this with "culture words" all the time. Words like "progressive" replace "liberal" for example as groups seek to redefine themselves and or legacies. Words like "racism" now used so much and so overdone that the very power of the word "racist" is losing the power it once held over others. Words like "niggah" or "nigger" so prolific and used within the black community and rap culture for example that ownership of the word was taken by the black community to such an extent that the word only belonged to them and only a "black" person was permitted to use it. The use of the words "nigga" "niggah" or "nigger" area prime example if not the truest example of how Progressives in America have taken "cultural appropriation" to its highest levels. The very fact that a word is considered offensive if used by anyone other than those of a certain race is in fact racism. That one is not offended by the expression if coming out of the mouth of someone within ones own race yet offended when used by someone not within ones race is in its truest sense a form of racism. How do we reconcile in a culture we have words that can be used openly and publicly on radio, television or internet by one race yet it is offensive if another race or people use it? Who creates such rules in truth? Who defines what is and is not acceptable? Who determines if a person has to identity as "African American" ? How is one made to feel in society if they refuse to identity in the deemed "appropriate" manner? How is someone made to feel if they use a word that someone has determined is "inappropriate" for a person to use but acceptable for others to use? Is this part of the legacy or experience as well?
So where "slaves" actually "African American"? Did they identify as such? Progressives are constantly speaking to "identity politics" yet never fully explain the true history or the true American experience that they reject so wholeheartedly to make their case. Instead they chose to ignore the majority of truth. Martin Luther King Jr. of course used the term "colored" but even this word today is no "offensive". Who made it offensive? Who convinced people that it should be construed as "offensive" and when did it become such? Progressives identify all blacks today and their legacy as purely "African American" in the most egregious manner in large part because they have no historical documentation to prove this for every slave or that it is even remotely true for all individuals. Its nothing more than the advancement of a generality or a constructed identity construct.
There is little argument that Blacks have been struggling with their identity for generations in America. Many have been highly critical because blacks in America appear the least concerned of any ethnicity or race in America as a whole with the truth behind where they originate from. European traditions whether English, Irish or Eastern European traditions like Jewish Americans or Italian Americans appear more interested in where they originated as families. Some Anthropologist and Sociologists argue that American Blacks have bought into the "slave culture" mentality though many are not descended from actual slaves at all. Many blacks feel a sense of identity or connection to the "slave culture" narrative that is reinforced in our culture today on Progressive campuses throughout the country. The "slave culture" is a mentality that will lead the the calls by Progressives for reparations as this mentality becomes weaponized as a political construct.
It begs the question why do American Blacks who are part of the Progressive movement today care more about the "slave culture" cult in truth than they do identifying their actual true heritage. The assertion that all American Blacks are descended from slaves just as their is the assertion that all White Southerners are descended from slaveholders or slave masters are equally unjust. The color of ones skin nor the place of birth as no real historical bearing anymore on any relationship to the "slave culture" in truth. Massive immigration from Africa to America from places south of the Saharra contributed greatly to the rising population of blacks in the United States and yet these immigrants certainly may not have been descendants of slaves ever brought to America. Africa is an enormous continent and it is thought that the slaves taken from her to the New World came literally from but less than one third of the continent overall. How many Americans today are descended from slaves is a increasingly harder question to answer.
"Slaves brought to the United States represented about 3.6 percent of the total number of Africans transported to the New World, or around 388,000 people—considerably less than the number transported to colonies in the Caribbean (including more than 1.2 million to Jamaica alone) or to Brazil (4.8 million). Of those Africans who arrived in the United States, nearly half came from two regions: Senegambia, the area comprising the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them, or today’s Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Mali; and west-central Africa, including what is now Angola, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon. The Gambia River, running from the Atlantic into Africa, was a key waterway for the slave trade; at its height, about one out of every six West African slaves came from this area."
Why is there little real interest today for American Blacks to connect with their true heritage or place or origin? Are they sold on the "slave culture" cult narrative that they simply except it just as they have accepted over time now the term "African American"? The transition in culture is easily seen in the manuscripts, diaries, literature and art of the period that show the evolution of the identity construct as we have seen identity terms used go from Negro to Colored to Black to Afro-American to African American over the course of the last two centuries.
Why is all of this important?
It is important because it identifies the struggle that these movements have with moving the bar constantly when they have struggled with establishing their own identity as they rail against an identity they perceive exists in a Virginia frankly that clearly only exists in their own Progressive biases. Yes Virginia seceded from the Union but not with the enthusiasm that Progressives profess and yet Virginia has progressed on social equality and upward mobility indicators far exceeding others in the South. Virginia elected the first "African American" Governor in the South post Reconstruction in 1990 and supported President Obama twice (2008 and 2012 so these wild Progressive assertions that Virginia is still a bastion of hate and "slave culture" based on monuments erected a century or more ago is simply narrative engineering baseless in fact.
The Black Lives Matter and BAM movements fight is not with 2020 Virginia but rather the Jim Crow era.Virginians have evolved and progressed to such an extent that its not the "People" but rather the political idealogues in Richmond that have been slow to change. These were the people that advocated for celebrating Lee , Jackson, King holiday on the same day. What Progressives will not tell you or even acknowledge is it was a Republican Governor who sought to break up the joint holiday that ran from 1984-2000 and was successful in doing so. That Governor was Republican Jim Gilmore. In 2020, Democratic Governor Ralph Northam and Progressives Democrats decided to do away with Lee-Jackson Day all together during its first session in majority of the General Assembly.
It is ironic that the Progressives fail time and time again to address the very truths within its own core support that are counter intuitive to its positions. For example, President Clinton and Vice President Gore campaigned in the 1990's with Confederate flag political buttons and pins in the South. The Arkansas flag like many others in the South has "Confederate" symbols and this very flag went to the White House with President Clinton. Progressives never speak to these things as they portray Republicans as the great masters of hate. They also never speak to to fact that Virginia has never had any "Confederate" symbols or imagery on her state flag. How do Progressives reconcile this fact?
Once again advancing the political truth in Virginia that Progressives do not "build" anything but merely revise, rename or destroy just as they have done today with holidays, monuments and war memorials.
Unfortunately, what many of these activists and advocates fail to understand when they fail to examine history is that Virginia in 2020 is not all that different than Virginia in 1861. Virginia is a battleground of tribalism with little or no interest in compromise. Just as the Virginia Whigs rejected the Virginia Democrats desires for secession so to will Virginia Republicans in 2020 and beyond reject Virginia Progressive intentionality leading to greater division and social unrest.
The Progressives were never concerned with the Confederate monuments in truth. The monuments were simply a rock to break themselves against on the way to total cultural transformation of the American society. Virginia is merely the skirmish fight.
