Yes, places Like South Boston, South Detroit, South LA (Oops!  That is just LA Proper).  Seems most of the racists pulled up stakes and moved north. 

That is a generalization and as good as the one the OP of your quoted line  made.

Europe is hardly civil war-free. Chechnya is heating up again, and the mess in the former Yugoslavia still burns some NATO budget. And some people who like to stretch definitions are calling the fight between Mexican drug cartels and the federales a civil war. Casualty levels there are certainly warlike, and some places are pretty much no-go for cops & the army.

Oi, the irony. That kind of line is a perfect example of ignorant bigotry. The South is no more monolithic a culture than any other region in our great not-so-melty-pot of a nation. Rednecks are available nation wide, and some rednecks are actually kind and reasonable people. Rich people with fancy educations are also available nation wide, and some of them are viciously self-centered and bigotted, but they have a tendency to be discrete about it. Try thinking with your brain and not your label-maker.

Sounds like you never paid attention to the state flag when you were a kid. From the '50s until 2001, about 2/3 of it was the stars and bars. For a couple of years, that version was put amongst other historical versions at the bottom of the flag. The version as of 2003 resembles the early 20th versions, with no stars and bars.

Plus, unless things have changed drastically in the last few years, you must be getting around entirely without road travel. Stars and bars motifs were all over the backs of vehicles last time I drove up and down Georgia's stretch of I-75, sometimes just small stickers, sometimes as part of larger stickers with a slogan, sometimes filling the entire back window of truck cabins. Down here in North Florida, the same is still true. But it is also well into the 21st century--a while ago, I saw a bumper with stars and bars on one side and a gay pride flag on the other. Takes all kinds, as they say...

Was actually making a reference to the civil war in Iraq that broke out after The US took over but Bush called it sectarian violence so the US could stay there legally.

I should also say that the winning side comes down to who has the peoples heart unless there is outside help from another country / event.

Some times it can take years to beat the otherside or make peace in some form.

The only difference between a civil war and a revolutionary war is who wins.  If the establishment wins its a civil war.. If they lose its a revolution. 

Oh and massachusetts has the first black governor already.. Duval Patrick....It shouldnt be a big deal anyway. Its not exactly racist to care about the first one but is defeatist.  It shows that the black community feels they have less ability to succeed than they actually do.. You can thank Al Sharpton for that.  I hate that guy.   he enables the black community to accept defeat and just blame it on the fact that they are black... I understand there are still problems where black people are turned down from jobs because of racism but dwelling on it and giving up because this guy said its hopeless is not helping.

Anyone who brings up the whole first insert minority here to become/do insert significant thing here is pretty much a moron. If you're truly impartial it is unimportant what their race is. Just ask Morgan Freeman, he knows everything.

If you believe that everyone is truly equal, then the fact that these important people were different should not be relevant. You should judge people wholly and entirely upon their actions and beliefs, not the color of their skin. This is never true in today's society. The color of your skin is the only thing people care about. Look at all the college scholarships. Look at all the diversity programs instituted by employers for fear of being labeled as racists by the discriminatory press. The fact that people value the first minority to do activity x is the sad culmination of years of public education brainwashing and media babbling. If Lance Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who cares who the first woman was, who the first black man was, who the first Chinese man was, or who the first quadriplegic man was. Now, if the first ______ person to walk on the moon also did something important, of course they should be recognized. But by dividing the Earth into races and hoarding our achievements into spiteful factions, we are not eliminating racism, but rather encouraging it. 

They really were, except for Jefferson. Benjamin Franklin was kind of a bad guy, as was Washington. They were a bunch of war mongers who didn't want to pay taxes, that today would seem quite reasonable . Jefferson owned slaves, but I can sort of forgive him for that because he was just a grrrrreat president.

UNRELATED EDIT: I thought of an exception to the civil war v. revolutionary war rule. The Spanish Civil War. The coup de etat was successful, but it was called a civil war. 

You will probably find exceptions to any definitions, but I think Swerdy's comes closest to the truth.

If you are referring to the controversy of some of the legislators, I think you missed a word in the above.  Assuming slavery is that word, I will answer accordingly (if not, please correct me).

I see no problem with the declaration itself.  It is a part of history and one that many still acknowledge for the impact it had on the south.  Confederate history is a very short one, but also a very deadly one not only for the former CSA, but for the USA as well.  And to deny the men who fought and died in it is to ignore a critical piece of history.  There was great evil done during that war, and afterwards, but it lead to the strengthening of the new nation and I believe resulted in the USA being a world power today.

There are many causes of the war, not least of which was the issue of slavery.  But the war was not only about slavery, and indeed there is already movements afoot to dedicate resources to education and honoring those that were slaves, and those who died to abolish it within this Commonwealth.  And I fully support it.  It is another thing, that while we are not proud of it, we should not forget or let me swept into the dustbins of history.  As such, the acknowledgement of slavery is not interchangeable with the remembering of the CSA.  Even Doug Wilder acknowledged the distinction with his proclamation in 1990.

The problem is that Mark Werner politicized it (where it had not been before), and of course the Idiot Kaine just followed suit (if he had 2 brain cells to rub together, he might be dangerous).

So I see this as being a lot of hoohaw about nothing.  But of course a good opportunity for some to politicize the event for their own personal gain.  It does not detract from anyone to acknowledge it, nor does it promote the ante-bellum institutions that lead up to it.  It is a part of history.

Do we have to celebrate VE day with a day of mourning for Dresden?  Slavery did not start and end with the CSA.  It did end as a result of the war, but was in place long before.  Why equate the 2?  They are not the same.  One is a great stain upon the American past initiated by England and perpetuated by not only the founding fathers, but by ALL 13 colonies.  Should we acknowledge slavery and the abolition of it?  Definitely.  Do we have to every time we want to commemorate any event in history that co-existed with it?  Hardly.  Why do we celebrate Independence day without simultaneously beating ourselves up about the fact that it institutionalized slavery for 40+ years past when it would have expired had we NOT rebelled?

Because the 2 are not synonymous. You see McDonnell as a jerk for recognizing a historical era of the Commonwealth.  Yet you do not do the same for all the others who are doing the same thing with celebrations like Independence day.  if the whole source of the CSA was the creation, institution and abolishment of slavery, I would agree with you.  But the creation of this country, and the war that followed "4 score and 5 years" later are not celebrations of slavery.  They are honoring different events that did co-exist with slavery.

It may be, but I guess some background on me is needed.  I was born in Virginia, and am Southern by birth.  But my ancestors did not own slaves in this country (note the qualification).  But at an early age we picked up roots and traveled the world on the US military plan.  So I am not versed in some of the terms used.  I completely missed that, but will remember it.

That being said, I expect you have heard of recent events.  Which tells me 2 things.

1.  McDonnell is running for VP in 12.

2. He is a politician.

As for the rest of your post, I think our major disagreement (excluding McDonnell himself) is how we remember/honor the different parts of our history.  To give you an example of my feelings on the matter, while I fully acknowledge the role of my ex wife in the birth and rearing of my children, my sons are not going to insist their mother attend my wedding to my new bride, just because they are in the wedding party.

Hey!  We got something else in common!  Our "sperm donor" nomenclature.

As for the analogy, you have to look at it from the perspective of the children.  They were with me celebrating my marriage, and yet they did not include their mother.  (Likewise I was not invited when she remarried).  That did not mean they did not respect, love or honor their mother, only that it was not the proper place for them to stand up and say "I love you mom".  There are other occasions when they do that (like on mother's day).  Celebrating my marriage did not detract from that.

just as honoring the fallen in the civil war does not detract from the history of slavery.  What is happening is that instead of being able to place flowers on the graves of our ancestors (who may or may not have been slave owners - the point is really immaterial), we are being told we have to first kneel at the slavery alter to do so.

Interesting sidebar, the apparent hold out on the apology of McDonnell is the most racist jerk in the GA.  The only good thing you can say about him is he is no longer trashing the city he once was mayor of.

I guess it is in how you view it.  if you view it as a sole thing (the only thing we are doing in this state is honoring the war dead of the Civil war), you would be correct.  However, as perfunctory and regular as the Civil War proclamation use to be (before Warner and Kaine), so is the proclamation from each governor about how evil Slavery was and that we are glad it is over.  It is just not done at the same time.  Even L. Douglas Wilder did not confuse the 2.  He did include Lincoln in his proclamation (and got heart ache for that as the feelings among most Old Dominioners is akin to yours in that respect).  But at least that was very War related and I saw no problem with it.  He may have been the last casualty of the Civil War after all.

But in writing the above paragraph, and remembering a previous statement of yours, I wonder if Wilder really knew what Lincoln was?  You must have loved that proclamation!