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 ...
The Feds did enforce the fugitive slave act, even sending troops to do so.
The fact is the South had no reason to gripe about anything except the fact that it wanted the North to accept slavery as being moral which it refused to do.
Taking a mind altering drug is the same as getting drunk.
Or do you think that drunkness is not a sin? (Pr.23:29-35, Eph.5:18)
The fact is that the Bible deals with slavery as a given in a corrupt world.
It never states that anyone should enslave another human being.
It deals with those who are enslaved and how they are to exist in that type of environment.
The South in the mid 1800's began pushing slavery as a positive good, along racial lines, which the Bible never does.
So for the South to bring up the Bible is the height of hypocrisy since they refused to obey the rules that the Bible laid out for slaves, like not returning runaway ones.
Because the government did not want people selling themselves to pay of a debt.
That was too drastic a measure for debt repayment.
We also stopped putting people in prison for the same reason.
No, Lincoln had all three branches of civilian governments working, even holding off year elections (in which the Republicans took a beating).
The Confederacy as a government, ceased to exist with the fall of Richmond, as even your pro-Confederate website stated.
I have not seen any evidence of any racism towards Mexicans.
As for 'tonto'and 'chief' I think you are being a bit hyper-sensitive (P.C).
stand watie calls all of us 'damn Yankees'-so what?
Amen to your post.
He didn't have any troops when he was elected the first time!
What he did have was a divided Democratic party, a Democratic party which rejected the Northern candidate because of his support of tariffs?
No, because he would not go along with the deep South's goal to expand slavery.
No aspect of the American Civil War left behind a greater legacy of bitterness and acrimony than the treatment of prisoners of war. "Andersonville" still conjures up images of horror unmatched in American History. And although Northern partisans still invoke the infamous Southern camp to defame the Confederacy, the Union had its share of equally horrific camps. Prison camps on both sides produced scenes of wretched, disease-ridden and emaciated prisoners as repulsive as any to come out of the Second World War.
Partisans in both the North and the South produced wildly exaggerated novels, reminiscences of prisoners, journalistic accounts and even official government reports which charged the enemy with wanton criminal policies of murderous intent. It took several decades for Revisionist historians to separate fact from propagandistic fancy and deliberate distortion from misunderstanding. Even today the bitter legacy of hate lingers on in widespread but often grossly distorted accounts from this tragic chapter of American history.
Neither side deliberately set out to maltreat prisoners. Arrangements were made hurriedly to deal with unexpected masses of men. As neither side expected the war to last long, these measures were only makeshifts undertaken with minimum expenditure. Management was bad on both sides, but worse in the South owing to poorer, more decentralized organization and more meager resources. Thus, prisoners held by the Union were somewhat better off.
In the first phase of the war, 1861-1862, the relatively small numbers of prisoners taken by both sides were well treated. Both sides agreed to a prisoner exchange arrangement which operated during the latter half of 1862. Under the cartel, captives remaining after the exchanges were paroled. But the agreement broke down, in part because of Northern refusal to recognize the Confederate authorities as anything other than "rebels," and in part over the Negro question.
''In a war of this kind, words are things. If we must address Davis as president of the Confederacy, we cannot exchange and the prisoners should not wish it," declared the influential Harper's Weekly.
Following the promulgation of the Emancipation Proclamation on New Year's Day, 1863, the North began enlisting former slaves into the Federal army. Confederate President Jefferson Davis declared that "all Negro slaves captured in arms" and their White officers should be delivered over to the South to be dealt with according to law. That could mean rigorous prosecution under strict laws relating to Negro insurrections.
Still, special exchanges on a reduced scale continued, but from 1863 onwards, both sides were holding large numbers of prisoners.
On 17 April 1864, General Grant ordered that no more Confederate prisoners were to be paroled or exchanged until there were released a sufficient number of Union officers and men to equal the parolees at Vicksburg and Port Hudson and unless the Confederate authorities would agree to make no distinction whatsoever between White and Negro prisoners.
On 10 August, the Confederate government offered to exchange officer for officer and man for man, accompanying the proposal with a statement on conditions at Andersonville. This offer induced General Grant to reveal his real reason for refusing any further exchanges. "Every man we hold, when released on parole or otherwise," Grant reported to Washington, "becomes an active soldier against us at once either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to fight on until the whole South is exterminated. If we hold those caught they amount to no more than dead men. At this particular time to release all rebel prisoners North would insure Sherman's defeat and would compromise our safety here." (Rhodes, pp499-500)
In October, Lee proposed to Grant another man-to-man exchange of prisoners. Grant asked whether Lee would turn over Negro troops "the same as White soldiers?" When Lee declared that "Negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange," the negotiations completely broke down.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p137_Weber.html
The article is very balanced regarding POW treatment by both sides.
Not the battles that decide the outcome of the war it doesn't.
That is why the Confederacy lost, they lost the key battles.
There is no hard evidence that either did so.
I would expect that the raid no longer be mentioned as being a legimate reason for the murder of Lincoln, since Lincoln had nothing to do with any plot against any of the Confederate leadership, as the historian himself admitted.
Well, post them or a link.
Republican Party Platform (1860)
NINTH. "That we brand the recent reöpening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic."
Regarding the so-called election of 'Confederate President' Jefferson Davis; as all of us know there was never a traditional popular election and nobody has been able to step forth a 1861 popular election vote tally.
At least Lincoln was elected in a national election just as Grant, Harrison, LBJ, JFK, Nixon, & the rest of the American Presidents were, not hand picked by a pack of soar losers representing the South's cotton empire which only functioned because of slave labour.
One of the more well known high priests of the neo-Confederate movement is Thomas J. DiLorenzo, a promoter of modern secessionist, an arch promoter of the Southern platform in 1860, and chief propagandist for 'neo-Confederism' DeLorenzo and his type deliberately ignore the facts that the South illegally succeeded over the issue of maintaining and expanding slavery.
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union: "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."
President Lincoln justifiably reacted to a pro-slaver insurrectionists triggering the Civil War. Liberating the slaves came some two years later, but (selected) Jefferson Davis & (selected) VP arch-bigot Stephens fought to preserve slavery, thus preserving their corporate bottom line in the rebelling Cotton Empire.
The secessionists pro-slavery Confederate leaders were not totally defeated in 1865, for in 1877, after federal troops were mistakenly withdrawn from former slave states, a new form of 'neo-slavery' began with the 100 years of the South's Jim Crow 'legal' discrimination against fellow Americans enforced by criminal terrorists like the KKK.
Example-1931: "I experienced my first involvement with racism in the business when we played Jacksonville Florida in 1931. I knew there was segregation in southern theaters, but was not fully aware of the pain that it caused until then.
"After the show I decided to walk. As I came to the corner, I saw a black man of about eighty coming toward me. When he reached me, he jumped out into the gutter. Thinking he'd seen a snake or something frightening, I jumped into the road with him,where upon he jumped back onto the sidewalk and so did I. We did this dance routine about three times before I grabbed his arm and said, "What the Hell is going on Pop? Why are you leaping up and back like a jumping bean?" Frightened, he answered, "Sir, in this city a black man musn't walk on the same side of the street with a white man." "Mister," I told him, "this is not my city, but it's my country and I can walk with any man I choose to."
"I put my arm about his shoulder and forced him to walk with me around the corner. He said. "Man, you seem nice, but you're liable to get us killed." I tried to clam him, and then let him go on his way and continued walking.
"When I went back to the theater the manager stated, "We don't want any N*****lovers in our theater or in our city, so get movin' before you get in big trouble!"
"We left Jacksonville in disbelief and headed back to New York."
Page 53 & 54 'Moe Howard & The 3 Stooges', by Moe 'Horwitz' Howard, 1977, Citadel Press, Secaucus, New Jersey.
One side note, if Moe & and the boys for example, had been in Germany a few years later, Jews, under Nazi German law, were forbidden to walk on the sidewalk if a German were passing. The similarities between Jim Crow 'laws' and Nazi 'laws' pertaining to Jews & others are horrifyingly similar in numerous respects. States of terror for victims of the 'law'. German law resulted in ovens, Jim Crow law, mob lynchings with 'police' participation.
Moe and the other Stooges would have been murdered for simply being born Jewish. In the Jim Crow South, a man could be murdered for simply being black or vocing objections about 'legal' Southern segrigation.
"If real Americans living in the South in 1860-1861 questioned the decision by a few to rebel against their country, they were likewise threatened, ridiculed, and coerced."
The very same mob rule exists today in areas under control by radical Islamic terrorists.
"Today, they hide behind loads of BS and screen names, but they are the same punks."
One in particular still gets his demented kicks from calling some Americans 'Negroes'. You know who you are. There's always an open invitation to come up to the real world anytime, and spout off your neo-KKK segregationist crap, anytime, slug.
Excellent post, and every bit of it so irrefutably true.
Regarding the repeated lie that Lincoln agreed to a Constitutional amendment to make slavery permenant in the South
[c. January 19-21, 1861]
I learn from a gentleman who had an interview with Mr. Lincoln, at Springfield, within the past week that the latter in discussing the existing state of affairs expressed himself as follows:
---``I will suffer death before I will consent or will advise my friends to consent to any concession or compromise which looks like
Yet another letter regarding Lincoln's view of compromise on the slavery issue
Thank you. Now we await the typical, countering, scripted propaganda 'slavery had nothing to do with the origins of the Civil War'. :)
The Wilmot Proviso, The Fugitive Slave Laws of 1850, The Underground Railroad, Bleeding Kanasas, Uncle Tom's Cabin, John Brown's raid, the Missouri Compromise, the Abolition Movement, Ableman V. Booth, Dred Scott, the founding of the Republican Party, The Kansas-Nebraska Act and on and on, all meaningless pages in the history books, playing no part in the building roots of America's Civil War, according to the modern secessionist spin masters.
Hence, Lincoln's House divided speech.
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.