The new Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is coming under fire for declaring April as Confederate History Month
after two Democratic predecessors skipped similar declarations.
Detractors are aghast that McDonnell didn’t cite slavery in the proclamation and accuse him of pandering to his conservative
base. McDonnell says the point is to study the Confederacy and play up the state’s history as a tourism draw. (Richmond
was the capital of the Confederacy during Civil War years.)
Many Hoosiers would recoil at McDonnell’s move. Others, though, might not, and the reactions would likely differ depending
on where in Indiana one fielded the reaction.
Bruce Bigelow, a historical geographer at Butler University who is writing a paper for an academic journal on cultural sub-regions
of Indiana, says the southern third of the state is still heavily influenced by immigration from the South during the 1800s.
Voters largely rejected Lincoln in 1860 and still prefer Blue Dogs like Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill to more liberal Democrats,
Bigelow notes. And with the exception of Bloomington and to some extent Evansville, it isn’t unheard of to see Confederate
flags snapping in the wind or Confederate license plates.
“Southern Indiana is sort of an extension of Kentucky and Tennessee, culturally,” he says.
How does Bigelow define Southern culture? Not sympathetically. It’s politically and religiously conservative and anti-government.
And, to the Vermont native, the Confederate flag represents “keeping blacks in their place.”
Central Indiana is a transition zone between southern Indiana hills and northern Indiana, he says, and the Indianapolis area
is a region unto itself.
Bigelow, by the way, plans to identify a number of other pockets in his paper: Heavily Catholic South Bend, Quaker-leaning
Richmond, Chicagoland, Amish and Mennonite northeast Indiana, and Fort Wayne are just a few.
The issue of the Confederate flag is complex and extends to lots of things besides slavery.
Surely you have thoughts. Please share.
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
Welcome to the archives for NewsTalk, an IBJ blog published from November 2007 through December 2010.
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
-
So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.
-
Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?
-
So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.
-
Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.
-
RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
34 Comments
Add Comment
â??Virginia is for Loosersâ??
â?¦ who celebrate the
Confederacy,
the pinnacle of
anti-American
fear, hate, greed, and torture.
Had Kentucky seceded, maybe Indiana would have been split up like Virginia and West Virginia or 1/3 of the state would have died in gorilla warfare like in Missouri.
Let's just use this proclamation from Virginia to remember that a strong federal government is very important but it is up to the states to implement national policies.
2. supporter of South during Civil War: somebody living north of the Mason-Dixon Line who sympathized with the South during the Civil War ( informal )
IN legislature didn't meet because there was real fear the southern IN copperheads would vote to secede - Civil War was about state's rights vs. the central government - read "The Real Lincoln" and see for yourself - things today are not that much different as people from IN tend to live their lives and stay in the state more than other states do
I don't own a confederate flag but I do have a southern heritage. My ancestors were slave owners in Virginia in the 1700s and 1800s. I am neither proud of nor embarrased by this fact because it was not me and I did not have control over those people who lived before me. I am merely interested in it as part of my family history.
In Corydon where I live, the Klan wanted to come to town for a rally. The local community organized an effective counter-demonstration that sewed the seeds for an ongoing diversity festival called World on the Square.
By contrast, Central Indiana has had its share of Klan history that the historian's perspective seems to ignore.
To imply that personal opinion is somehow dependant on latitude is ridiculous no matter how far your basketball team progressed in the NCAA tournament and certainly Southern migration to Northern states faded a generation ago, along with manufacturing jobs. I would suggest that stereotypical â??Southernâ?? feelings are as widespread among Hoosiers with New England roots as with those whose ancestors crossed â??the Riverâ??.
To espouse that â??Indiana is as Union as it getsâ?? is ludicrous. In fact Republican (you know! The party that perpetrated the War) Governor Morton was fearful that the Democrat controlled Indiana legislature would not only refuse to appropriate the necessary funds to make war but would consider secession themselves! HE refused to call the peopleâ??s elected representatives to secession to consider the biggest question of the age! It would be a real stretch to say that Indiana would have joined the Southern Confederacy but they along with Illinois (who had an equally heavy handed Governor) and possibly Wisconsin very likely would have formed their own â??Northwest Confederacyâ??. Indiana did eventually provide thousands of troops to the â??unionâ?? cause but thousands more resisted the federal war effort and the unconstitutional acts of the Lincoln administration, which continued it. Even Lincoln himself was convinced that he would be a one term President due to opposition to the War.
The Constitutional textbook in use at the nationâ??s ONLY institute of higher learning (the United States Military Academy) was Rawls View of the Constitution, which clearly states that the sovereign states had a constitutional right to secede. The Commonwealth of Virginia received a written guarantee of the right to secede as a requirement of its approval of the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts proposed it from opposition to the War of 1812, Congressional candidate A. Lincoln referred to it as â??the sacred right of withdrawalâ?? and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase (former Lincoln cabinet member) wrote to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton that â??secession is not rebellion.â?? The Southern states had no desire to threaten the â??unionâ?? (Jefferson Davis said, â??we only want to be left alone.â??). They just didnâ??t want to be a part of it!
God bless Governor McDonnell who sees the value of the lessons of history and Jefferson Davis who saw that dangers of the overpowering growth of the federal government!
Deo Vindice!!!!
Governor Morton called for federal troops to keep the legislation from voting to succeed and forced Indiana to stay with the Union. If you would study the Decloatipn of Independance and the Law of Nations which was the bases for the Constitution. And even Ben Franklin when ask after the Constitution was signed by a news paper,
"What have you given us Mr. Franklin", and he replyed,
"A "Republic" if you can keep it." And even Mr. Lincoln in his inogeral address stated," He would do nothing about slavery." The Civil War was started because a new President wouldn't talk with deligates from South Carolina before war broke out. It was over Taxes that were unfair for the south and all agricultural areas. The right to succession was used several times before the Civil War and it was a tool to get negotiations started or they would leave the Union of States. So please before you speak know the facts. I had several ancesters on both sides of the war several killed and a lot imprisoed at war camps on both sides that we know were filthy and disease filled. This War could have been avoided by negotiation.
What Virginia's governor did is shameful, especially with 20% of the population being Black. "Southern History Month" (with full disclosure of the slavery history) would have been more appropriate.
Unfortunately, as is usually the case with these Internet forums discourse invariably resorts to emotions rather than an exchange of factual information. Your position seems to be based more on some type of animosity toward the Commonwealth of Virginia than a grasp of events and process. I simply donâ??t have time to help resolve your issues but wish you well with it.
As an American with degrees in both the history of our government and its governing documents, I value the U.S. Constitution above all other documents for without it there is no basis for our existence. Itâ??s adoption and amendment is well documented. When dissatisfaction or confliction is experienced by the majority the Founding Fathers provided a procedure for amendment which has been used to a successful end twenty-seven times. It is that process that ended slavery with the 13th Amendment and gave the sovereign states the right to secede with the 10th. It cannot be â??trumpedâ?? by Executive Order or disregarded by any branch of government. In my humble opinion, ANY abuse of that process weakens our â??voluntaryâ?? union. While a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, Texas vs. White in 1869 declared that secession was not Constitutional, at the time of the secession of the Southern states in 1861, secession was legal and thus a war to end it unconstitutional. This was the unanimous advise of EVERY ONE of Mr. Lincolnâ??s cabinet, including Caleb Smith of Indiana. It was also the opinion of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase of Ohio when he advised Edwin M. Stanton in July 1867. As a result President Jefferson Davis was released after two years of incarceration without trial and NO Confederate leader, either civil or military was EVER tried for his role in the War for Southern Independence.
I wish you well as your study continues.
If you are so in support of the Southern cause and your claim of its legality then I charge you to compel Gov. McDonnell to make the Month of May British history month and to fly your union jack and bow to your King George. Cry of the treachery that patriots brought to the King's loyalty. A quiet impressive display of faction and treason that divided an empire. While the Constitution sits before me and there is no article clause or section that permitted the South to defect, you can chew on the laws written neatly within a State or a few States as the King chewed only on his law while extended none of it to the colonies. The South does not have that argument, it lost, Britian lost, and I thought we all moved on. To think that there are people still in support of the Southern cause is terrifying and most of all sad. But, if we are to cheer all those causes of failed conquest then again I know of several other nations, monarchs, and tyrants that you can add to your loser celebration. Maintain some form of neutrality and realize that there is no confederacy and that it was a terrible idea. My month May ... I look forward to watching a couple cars race! Oh, and by the way, thank you for your well wishes in my studies. I will a least admit there is a big thick book somewhere on things I don't know. I wish you all well and GBA!
We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; .
Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight.
Note, the language beginning "...powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States...". You will clearly see the condition of ratification shows the peoples' right to withdraw. Also, this condition was approved by the other states upon Virginia's joining the United States (notice it is not "The United States").
As usual, while I see the usual arrogance of people like you I also see a lack of hard facts to back up anything you state. Perhaps I can put things into terms you can understand as they apply today. In a nutshell we want arrogant people like you (who THINK you know it all) who live in Washington (and its surrounding areas) to mind your own business and stop trying to run our lives (just like in 1861). I hope this clarifies things for you. Have a nice day.
Deo Vindice!
Thank you for your comments. A couple points. Once again as I admitted before, I don't "know it all," I only know that I disagree with you and that your support of the confederacy is, in my opinion, pathetic. Comments are brief editorials that give argument, in my case, to the United States of America and the idea of e Pluribus Unum as God has vindicated time and again; most prominently against the failed Confederacies organized by Virginia. If you recall their was an Articles of Confederation that failed miserably for lack of a simple organized central government. A central government did not have to maintain all power but enough to regulate interstate commerce, perserve fundemental and substantive rights, raise money, defend, and provide for the general welfare. The States and the People of the States entered into the greatest social contract ever known. Esentially the People through the soverign States reliquinshed certain power in exchange for positive protection. No State including Virginia maintained a renege option. The people did, but that required oppression. They instead agreed to participate in the social contract and to uphold their end of the bargain. What happened in 1861 had nothing to do with the denial of rights to States or People, but instead had everything to do with loosing an election. No where does it state that if you loose an election a State or a person may take with it a piece of the Union. To compare Lincoln to King George is again, in my opinion, pathetic, and a mockery on the good of this great nation. Lincoln did not tax without representation. The confederate states were a part of the 1860 election. They held seats in Washington. There is no comparison other than to you two and others who continue to act as if the fight continues. A grandfather once said that this is a war that we will constantly have to win and I didn't realize what he meant until I read your comments. I am sorry that you read my support for the United States as arrogance, but, in the words of an American, I too "feel in the depths of my soul that it is the highest, most sacred, and most irreversible part of my obligation to preserve the union of these states, although it may cost me my life." Andrew Jackson.
GBA
Now, I don't believe anybody has questioned your patriotism or love of the United States. I dare say that all of the other posters are just as ardent patriots as you. I am a veteran of The United States Marine Corps. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. In doing that, I see what harm Lincoln and the Radical Republicans caused this country. Lincoln set us on the road to socialism. If you weren't aware, Karl Marx was a big admirer of Lincoln. My defense of my Confederate ancestors and of the Confederate States of America is perfectly in line with defending the Constitution. If you truly understand how our country was formed, then you will understand the above statement.
I am from Evansville. Believe it or not not it is in Indiana. Residents are seen flying the confederate banner in our area. It is not hate but heritage. Many of us have southern ancestors and resent northern attitudes of racism placed on us. The union won. However, don't be so naive to believe the entire state had union sentiment.