Posted on 04/24/2005 6:08:20 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Southern heritage buffs vow to use the Virginia gubernatorial election as a platform for designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month.
The four candidates have differing views on the Confederacy, an issue that has been debated for years in the commonwealth.
"We're not just a few people making a lot of noise," said Brag Bowling, a spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the oldest hereditary organization for male descendents of Confederate soldiers. "This is not a racial thing; it is good for Virginia. We're going to keep pushing this until we get it."
Each candidate recently shared his thoughts on what Mr. Bowling called a "litmus test for all politicians." Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine would not support a Confederate History and Heritage Month. Former state Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore would support something that recognizes everyone who lived during the Civil War.
Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr. and Warrenton Mayor George B. Fitch would support a Confederate History and Heritage Month. Many past Virginia governors honored the Civil War or the Confederacy.
In 1990, former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, the nation's first black governor, a Democrat and a grandson of slaves, issued a proclamation praising both sides of the war and remembering "those who sacrificed in this great struggle."
Former Govs. George Allen and James S. Gilmore III, both Republicans, issued Confederate History Month proclamations. In 2000, Mr. Gilmore replaced that proclamation with one commemorating both sides of the Civil War -- a move that enraged the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, has refused to issue a gubernatorial decree on either side of the Civil War.
Mr. Kaine, another Democrat, would decline to issue a Confederate History and Heritage Month proclamation if he is elected governor, said his campaign spokeswoman, Delacey Skinner.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
Indentured service is not slavery.
One sold himself to pay a debt, hence was receiving compensation for his labor.
Once the debt was paid, the man was free again.
There were still armies in the field after April, but the Confederate Government had collapsed.
Also, I think the last armies surrendered in June.
So much for 'fighting on'.
And you would be in violation of the oath you had taken.
For someone who claims to be a Christian, you have a very odd sense of morality.
Bin Laden is guilty of murder, thus, killing him would be a legimate execution.
You cannot even name the reason for secession, thats how bogus the cause was.
Lol! ...and how many votes did Jefferson Davis receive when he was elected ? For a so called history major, you write some funny stuff!
In the General Election that took place in September 1930, the Nazi Party increased its number of representatives in parliament from 14 to 107. Hitler was now the leader of the second largest party in Germany.... Incidents such as these worried many Germans, and in the elections that took place in November 1932 the support for the Nazi Party fell. The German Communist Party made substantial gains in the election winning 100 seats. Hitler used this to create a sense of panic by claiming that German was on the verge of a Bolshevik Revolution and only the NSDAP could prevent this happening. A group of prominent industrialists who feared such a revolution sent a petition to Paul von Hindenburg asking for Hitler to become Chancellor. Hindenberg reluctantly agreed to their request and at the age of forty-three, Hitler became the new Chancellor of Germany. Although Hitler had the support of certain sections of the German population he never gained an elected majority. The best the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) could do in a election was 37.3 per cent of the vote they gained in July 1932. When Hitler became chancellor in January 1933, the Nazis only had a third of the seats in the Reichstag.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm
The Nazi Party came into power first by elections.
Then they shut down the opposition.
Those were armies that had no civilian leadership.
If the Government doesn't exist, the war is over.
Your posts must be being done for humor purposes.
I know you cannot think that anyone takes your constant ranting and raving seriously-do you?
Lincoln was certainly a genius.
He figured out a way to divide the Democratic Party over slavery to get himself elected President.
Then after he is elected, he makes sure the South secedes over slavery (since he will not compromise on its expansion).
Then, when he finally takes office, he makes sure the South fires the first shot to start the war.
Now, with someone this smart, how did you guys hope to win!?
heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity.,
No, it sounds more like the principles of John C. Calhoun, the Confederacy, and Jim Crow.
It was conjecture not fact.
That nonsense has already been discussed on these threads. The facts spoke for themselves, that's why one of you hit the abuse button, to get the facts redacted from the thread.
No, there are no facts to that story.
In fact, it was discussed on the History Channel at some length
The idea that Lincoln would authorize a calvary unit to free pow's and then attack Richmond is simply ridiculous. It's perfectly in line with the actions of a madman who instigated a war killing over 1 million people.
The ones who instigated the war were the Southern slave owners who did not want to see slavery die.
The Confederacy itself could not surrender because by now there was no "Confederacy."(emphasis added) Richmond had fallen, the government officials had fled, and many of the papers had been burned. It would be up to each commander in the field to surrender his army as the news from the East reached him. The following are brief descriptions of how each Confederate fighting force surrendered. http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatesurrender.htm
And that if the ransom was not paid they were made slaves.
So, your documentation does nothing to discount why we went to fight against the pirates, who were enslaving our seamen.
It's a simple concept.
Yes, it is very simple, when you want the truth.
The facts state that if the ransom was not paid the seamen were made slaves-true or false?
The trial facts are in the book that I cited. If you have the book, post a trial citation. It will be for a FEDERAL court, as these were FEDERAL crimes.
Get the book and look it up.
It is called the CounterRevolution of Slavery.
No, I said that US was a unique nation in freeing enslaved nations. I also consider Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Communist nations in that list. You think that Germany, Japan and communist nations joined the US to end slavery??????????????
You really do have a problem with reading don't you!
No, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Communist nations were enslaved nations.
Thus, the US freed the peoples of those nations and the Southern held slaves.
Or fight to expand slavery. as did the Confederacy Nope, per the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, slavery and blacks could expand/emigrate into ANY state. To prevent sharing this country with blacks, Lincoln announced that he would not uphold his Constitutionally duty. That being the case, the seceding states saw no further reason to remain in a VOLUNTARY union with hypocritical, lying, law breaking yankees.
You mean that the South wanted to expand slavery.
Lincoln maintained that he would do what he could to stop the spread of slavery.
Even Douglas did not believe that Dred Scott gave the South the right to expand slavery, and that is why the slave owners split the Democratic Party over it.
Yea, having the right to take your slaves into the new territories-what a noble concept the South stood for.
Read Lincoln''s 2nd Inaugural and see what conclusion he had reached on why the war was being fought. Nope. That address was after the war had waged for years, to find out WHY the war was being fought one has to peruse his first inaugural address -the one where he states it was all about the MONEY.
No, because the South seceded over slavery, not the tariff.
The South divided the Democratic Party over slavery, not the tariff.
And when Lincoln got elected and said he would not compromise on the expansion of slavery, it was this that led to secession.
A fact stated very clearly by Andrew Stephens in his cornerstone speech.
Certainly the South seceded to keep slavery. Nope, they had a much higher reason than that - to separate themselves from people like YOU! And I always look forward to see what new spin you can contrive to avoid the facts If your reading comprehension skills would improve, you'd see that the facts have been presented, only your prejudice and bias blind you to them.
No, what I have is the facts on my side, what you have on yours is nothing but self delusion and hate.
Which he did not.
But seriously, the CIA ran covert operations,tried to kill Castro and during WWII, we killed Yamamoto covertly as well. There is no difference. You have to differentiate between the two.
That oath would no longer be binding if I left the service.
Well, to some Lincoln is guilty as well. Sherman's Army, case & point.
AGAIN:
Read the Texas Articles of Secession. Several reasons were
listed.
Thus, you broke it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.