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 ...
Kudos on an excellent analysis. Spot on.
Lincoln supported the limiting the growth of slavery (including not allowing importation of slavery. The only slave trader ever hung was hung by Lincoln)
Davis supported both the keeping and the expansion of slavery.
Your attempts at double-talk are clearly representive of what the Southern defenders are forced to resort to.
Personally, I think it was the action of a President that chose to abide by the Constitution.
The only President was Lincoln.
And he did abide by the Constitution, to respect the rights of slave owning states but to stop any further growth into the new territories.
It was over this that the South decided that they had to leave the Union, so they could expand their slavery over other men.
It was accepted that the Founders believed in what the Declaration said about all men, slavery not withstanding.
It was the principles of the Declaration that led to the strong abolition movements in the new states and outlawing it in the Northwest states.
So, now you are attempting to justify slavery?
Ah, the real South arises!
What happened to Joseph was evil, but God allowed it so good could arise.
There are alot of things that God has allowed due to man's wickedness, divorce being one example.
No man was ever born to be enslaved, and that is the principle of the Declaration.
What Lincoln wanted to keep out was slave labour, which free labour could not compete against.
Secondly, Lincoln's position was opposite that of SCOTUS, who held that ALL territories weld held for common use of all the states.
Lincoln's view was that of the original Founders.
Taney gave a prejudiced view.
But we know that judges never make mistakes now don't we?
That was not enough for the South, which wanted to the right to expand slavery What part of a handful of blacks being in the territories for in 30 years do you not understand? Expansion was not the issue.
Because there was no blacks in the terrorities had nothing to do with slaves being brought into to the area.
What Lincoln was suggesting was already legal and was only stating that he would uphold the Constitution,which meant that slavery where it existed would not be assaulted. His opinion was contrary to that of the United States Supreme Court which held otherwise 7-2.
What Supreme Court decision would that be?
The Dred Scott lie!?
He would not allow it to expand and that was the platform of the Republican Party, to stop the expansion of slavery, not end it. So who died and made him god? The Constitution would have to be amended to prohibit expansion.
The people elected him President as they elected Republicans to Congress.
That is how the system works, you run for office on a platform and if elected, you attempt to enact that platform.
The Confederates did not want to see their precious slavery limited.
The lies of the Southern apologists never cease. No lies at all - historical fact easily proven.
Not historical facts, but historical half-truths and distortions.
How about The Middleton Bros of South Carolina, signers of the Declaration of Independence, who owned one of the largest plantations in that state. Or...Thomas Jefferson, who had a black mistress, yet refused to free his own CHILDREN? Do you SERIOUSLY believe these men believed that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL? Their actions speak quite clear.
If you believe otherwise, I have a great piece of ocean-front property in Colorado for sale cheap.....:)
As for the bondage of the Jewish people, God used that to grow them and then God freed them.
It was Pharoah who wanted to keep the slaves, just like the Confederates, do you defend him?
"No man was ever born to be enslaved, and that is the principle of the Declaration"
Hogwash. Prove it. Show me your sources. Thomas Jefferson certainly never believed that.
OK...explain St. Paul.
He gave instructions on the care of slaves. He doesn't condemn slavery, and neither does the Bible.
Slavery is STILL wrong, but not biblically.
Slavery was something they were born into, but they hoped to end.
The fact that they voted to not allow it in the Northwest showed that they did not want it to expand into the new States.
Thanks for the link.
First, how can something be wrong, but not biblically wrong?
Second, man was not created to be a slave.
That man was in that condition was no different then divorce, which was given due to the hardness of man's heart.
Ofcourse that is what he meant and that is what he said, all men are created equal.
All men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
They are given these rights from the Creator.
So what part of that do you not grasp?
Do you have any writing that states that he or any other Founder felt that the Declaration did not apply to the Negro?
You think an individual giving up his citizenship is the same as State leaving the Union?
Funny, I was under the assumption that each State represented the will of it's people. I guess this is a government of the Fed, for the Fed after all.
If the South had no justification for revolution, they had no right to leave a Union they had agreed to.
I own a gun. Does that make me "justified" since I plan on not using it to shoot someone?
And BTW, I THOUGHT I made it clear that *I* cannot speak for those who came before me. And that noone else can. Liberty in itself is "justification" whether you agree with the definition or not.
According to King George, we had "no justification" for leaving their ownership in the first place. They gave us seat in their Parliment, as we asked. Does that mean that we shouldn't have left colony status?
"Lincoln did want slavery abolished totally eventually but according to Constitutional means."
According to his words, he did not want slavery abolished. He stated openly on several occasions that he did not want to destroy the institution of slavery, only prevent it from spreading. He made little to no mention of "eventually" on the issue.
"Thus, his intention was to use the same method that the Founders had used, limit its growth and thus, send it to eventual extinction."
I seem to recall there being a little and somewhat pesky WAR that went on to send anything the Founders stood against to IMMEDIATE extinction. Of course, you could be refering to slaverty. I don't recall the Founding Fathers condemning it directly in the first place though. Please, provide an example.
"This was what the South was fighting for, the right to expand slavery-the noble cause of the Confederacy."
Oh, please. The Western States came in on the side of the South. If it was about expanding slavery, you better have one helluva paper-trail tracing the massive bribes that must have happend to get the likes of Texas to come in on the side of the CSA.
"Slavery is STILL wrong, but not biblically."
Slavery based on RACE ALONE is wrong. Slavery of A PEOPLE is wrong. To be indebted to someone and to pay it back is an old tradition founded well before the Bible was written. THIS was what was not condemned.
Slavery as persecussion is what is wrong, and as our country has neither need for slaves (based on free-economy) nor capacity for for believing one person is lower based on their origins; we will not (and I will add, SHOULD NOT) allow it.
I own a gun. Does that make me "*not* justified" since I plan on not using it to shoot someone?
Again - conservative - support limited government, want an end to government attacks on religion, am anti-abortion, anti-socialism, advocate limited LEGAL immigration, and government's primary purpose is to defend the republic. I vote for the candidate that most closely matches my views. Most often they are Republican, but I am not a straight party robot. I voted for Mr. Perdue, I swapped emails with him about the Barnes rag and allowing us a vote before he was elected. I was on these threads predicting his victory and the defeat of Max Cleland - remember the media had Barnes and Cleland as locks. And I can't name a soul that wants the likes of Barnes, Carter or their ilk in office.
...yet they similarly attack Republican incumbents (President Bush) but have nothing but praise for DEMOCRATS.
I despise President Bush's proposed amnesty plan, and I voted for Zell Miller as Senator. I guess That makes me 'evil'.
I did say Perdue's new flag incorporates the ACTUAL FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY from 1861 , so if someone REALLY wanted "confederate hertiage", they'd be more than pleased.
You think the new flag is ok - a flag based on the 1st national flag, and are opposed to one based on the Confederate battle flag. How do you feel about a flag based on the second and third national flags?
Instead, they are upset that he didn't include the 1956 flag (gee, I must have missed where the history books said the CSA existed in 1956), which is best known as being erected by a DEMOCRAT governor of the state the capitol solely to protest the desegregation of Georgia schools.
Georgia changed the flag in 1956, two YEARS after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. In 1956, the Georgia Congress did pass a series of bills aimed at segregation - SB1 through SB8. The flag was SB 98, introduced by Senators Willis N. Hardin and Jefferson Lee Davis. Lt. Governor Ernest Vandive stated that the change was in response to the upcoming centennial, and would acknowledge the brave men who fought and died on the battlefield.
If they like the 1956 flag better than the ACTUAL confederate flag of 1861, I'd say the only "hertiage" they're looking to preserve is the one-party RAT rule of Georgia in the 1950s.
You miss the whole point, it's not a matter of honouring the Confederacy with the political flag, it's a matter of honouring the Confederate soldier, and the men - black and white - who died in her defense.
Gov. Perdue promised voters - including me - that he would support a referendum whereby the people of the state could vote on a) the Barnes rag and b) the '56 flag. We simply want him to keep his word.
COUNT 3: Gee, if you think I'm "lying" that a bunch of Georgia "conservatives" have openly endorsed Dems, you must not visit this threads much .. How else would you explain their fawning over every "D" elected to statewide office to Georiga over the last 50 years?
Ask them. I'd never vote for anyone who supports abortion, regardless of their stance on the flag. Maybe others are as passionate about the flag.
No, Pharoh was part of God's plan, just as each of us are. You overlook Saint Lincoln's advocation for PERMANENT slavery. Do you agree with him and support permanent slavery?
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.