Of course not, but SCOTUS nominee John Roberts' increasingly desperate opponents have seized on a 1980s article:
A fastidious editor of other people's copy as well as his own, Roberts began with the words "Until about the time of the Civil War." Then, the Indiana native scratched out the words "Civil War" and replaced them with "War Between the States."
So, naturally, the Washington Post decided this required full coverage in an article blessed with the neutral and objective title: In Article, Roberts's Pen Appeared to Dip South. And, of course, Post reporter Jo Becker hastened to find some academic ready to condemn Roberts (one wonders how many she had to call):
While it is true that the Civil War is also known as the War Between the States, the Encyclopedia Americana notes that the term is used mainly by southerners. Sam McSeveney, a history professor emeritus at Vanderbilt University who specialized in the Civil War, said that Roberts's choice of words was significant.
"Many people who are sympathetic to the Confederate position are more comfortable with the idea of a 'War Between the States,' " McSeveney explained. "People opposed to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s would undoubtedly be more comfortable with the words he chose."
John M. Coski, the historian and library director of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, said the term was commonplace in the South until the 1960s or early 1970s. He said some people use "War Between the States" out of habit, others think it quaint or iconoclastic, and still others use it because they believe the Confederacy was right to secede.
"You can't always draw the inference that someone who uses the term does so with an ideological intent, but at the same time you can't be blind to the fact that some people do," Coski said. {Ed. Nicely done Professor. You managed to sound objective, while still taking a swipe at Roberts by implying that he might be one of those nasty neo- Confederates.}
This ought to have been a non-story, but of course some of the left-liberal interest groups are all hot an bothered about it. Civilrights.org (an umbrella group) thought it deserved a press release.
I'm on recor d as having no use - none, nada, zilch - for Confederates - neo or paleo or otherwise. If Roberts had changed "the Civil War" to "the War of Northern Aggression," the way the old fart who taught my 10th grade US History course at Hampton High did, I might take a different view (they should have called that course CSA History, even though over 1/3 of the class were African-American descendants of slaves). As things stand, however, this is a MSM-created tempest in a teapot. As Steven Taylor wrote:
... to bring this up in the context of the Roberts nomination, and to quote Professor McSeveny in a fashion that is supposed to raise the specter that Roberts is a closet racist who opposed the civil rights movement, it a tad, well, ridiculous.
And what is that headline supposed to mean? Are we being a tad condescending here, or what?
I will grant that the article goes on to provide an alternative explanation, but it seems quite clear, from the very fact that this piece of information was deemed worthy a story at all, that the reporter and editors and WaPo favor the anti-civil rights angle.
Exactly.
