postwatcher04 - at -

About PostWatch

The Nation

Winds of Change


Virginia Gun Rights

= WatchBlogs =


Biased BBC

ChronWatch (SF Chronicle)

Croooow Blog


Regnum Crucis


  ..::Other Links::..

Independent Women's Forum




Amy Wellborn

Mark Shea

Kesher Talk

Right Wing News

Eleven Day Empire


Where is Raed?

Healing Iraq

The Command Post


PostWatch: An irregular correction to the Washington Post

Brought to you by Christopher Rake


Wednesday, January 08, 2003
8:52 AM

OmbudsGod comments on a Post story brought to his attention by reader Fred Ray about that Califronia Republican party official who emailed a story speculating that things would have turned out better if the South had won the Civil War:

To The OmbudsGod, the article is a bunch of hooey, but not inherently racist. Nowhere does the article call for different treatment of blacks and whites or for a return to the good 'ole days of “Whuppin' slaves and sellin' cotton.” Basically it’s the sort of revisionist drivel that I’ve come to expect from groups like the Free Congress Foundation. The flap over a state party vice chairman distributing the piece is the sort of silliness that is undeserving of comment from the White House.

Ray and OmbudsGod have a point about the headline and the main premise of the story: White House Silent on Racial Controversy--yes, that does remind one of the NYT's "Augusta-Still-Silent" maneuver. But my sorrow for the man, Bill Black, is limited. True, the email was sent back in 1999, and obviously Democrat operatives and others are scouring the planet for anything they can associate with the Lott debacle. But c'mon, Black, what were you thinking? Here's an excerpt from the article, as quoted by the Post:

Certainly Southerners would not be living under the iron rule of an all-powerful federal government, as we all do now. Northerners might not be, either; a Union defeat would have given states' rights a boost in both countries. . . . What would my great-grandfather, Union Army sergeant Alfred G. Sturgiss, say to all of this? If he could see the sorry mess the country he fought for has become, I think he might sadly say that he'd fought for the wrong side."

In which case he'd be as big a fool as writer William Lind was in this case. If you're going to be this wrong about that issue, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Comments: Post a Comment
Powered by Blogger Pro™

Search WWW Search