Well, while I find Cantor an interesting choice for McCain, it may not send the right message. After all, here are the top Cantor supporters:

Real Estate: $208,047
Insurance: $168,665
Securities & Investment: $145,150
Lawyers/Law Firms: $135,750

Real Estate, Insurance, Financial firms and Lawyers are Cantor's power base. Meanwhile he gets lousy ratings from groups like Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, United Autoworkers, League of Conservation Voters, etc. Pro-lawyer/pro-Insurance company but anti-labor/anti-Veterans may not be the image McCain wants.

As to the Confederacy, please. I may have been born in Arkansas, but I would have been the party of Lincoln in those days. The Confederacy explicitly had slavery as its primary focus. Contrary to the claim of states rights, the states that later seceded opposed states rights when states wanted to refuse to outlaw slavery.

Furthermore, when iit came to writing a Constitution, the Confederacy specifically wrote in slavery:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed..."

Blacks as property was WRITTEN INTO the Confederate Constitution. And the Confederate Vice President explicitly stated that one of the fundamental reasons for secession was slavery and the inequality of blacks:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

This was the explicit justification of secession and an explicit difference the Confederate leaders had with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who disliked slavery, though a slaveowner himself, and who believed slavery would die out.

Many who fought for the South, from most common soldiers all the way up to Robert E. Lee, fought for what they saw was honorable and they did so honorably. But the foundation of the Confederacy was racism and slavery and this should be admitted and condemned even by those who were proud of the honor showed by the best the South had.

And may I just say, one of my earliest ancestors to set foot in the United States of America homesteaded in Iowa...and fought with the Union forces from that state. I am proud that my earliest American ancestor fought for the preservation of the Union and the abolishment of slavery as much as I am pround of the many second and third generation Americans in my family who fought proudly for America in World War Two. This is not because I doubt the honor of many who fought for the Confederacy, but because I find the racist and slave holding foundation of the Confederacy to be personally abhorant to both my Lutheran AND my Jewish heritage.