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 ...
Really, it says that secession is a right!
No it doesn't, you are just reading that into it!
You such a kidder!
LOL!
No government ever gave a right to secede at will, it would be anarchy, not a government.
A minority's rights have to be protected, but likewise, they have to accede to the will of the majority.
That is what we are seeing being played out by the obstruction of the Democrats in the Senate now.
If losing an election could lead to secession, we would have no stablity at all.
Revolution is the final appeal to abuse by a government not adhereing to its responsiblities to protect all its citizens.
Now, if you think the South had a right to revolt, let's hear the abuses they were suffering under.
They sure couldn't be worse then the abuse of the millions of slaves they held in bondage.
The Confederacy was fighting for the right to expand slavery, that was what the root cause of the war.
So your defense of the Confederacy is a defense of that root cause.
"To say that because slavery is in the Bible means that it is good is no different then saying that because pologmy is in the Bible (it begins in Gen.4), that it should be acceptable also. " Please read MY response to the "slavery in the Bible" question before you attack his opinion on it. It may enlighten you. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390366/posts?page=157#157 Number 157. "God did not intend man to be a slave or to have more then one wife. " Please show an example of this in the Bible. You are, after all, interpreting it for us.
Read Matthew 19:8.
"The Confederacy was anti-American and thus, Anti-Freedom" How could it be anti-American? It WAS American! It may have been anti-federal union, but I assure you, they believed in what the Founding Fathers believed in. A Union OF States, not a Union OVER States.
They did?
They believed in a Union of states, not a loose collection of mini-nations.
The Constitution was created after the Articles of Confederation to make a stronger union, not one that could be broken at the whim of those who did not like the results of an election.
Read Jackson's comments on the Nullification treaty put forth by South Carolina.
The flag that you fired on was the Stars and Stripes and that is the American flag.
The Stars and Bars (you guys could not get your act together to get a national flag), was a flag that flew over battlefields that fought against the American flag.
The very thing that the Confederate Constitution said was a right, to have negro slaves.
So, tell me again about the moral high ground of the Confederacy.
"Show me a government that allows secession!"
This one. Case in point? Provide me with information in the Constitution that states otherwise.
"What secession is really an appeal to is revolution, which Lincoln never denied."
Revolution, I believe would have involved the CSA actually taking apart America from the inside. Not leaving it all together.
"You just did not like the results of the election, the election of a Republican administration that was not going to allow slaves in the new territories."
I didn't like Clinton, and it wasn't because he bombed Baghdad (matter of fact, I look up to that one part of his presidency). Just because you only focus on one issue doesn't mean that was the ONLY issue at hand.
"Because of this horrible outrage to Southern 'honor' you were willing to attack your own nation's flag."
Huh? You're lost now. Come back out of the woods, to the bright lights again.
"And the more I hear you guys try to rationalize your actions, following the same reason that Douglas and Jeff Davis used, the willingless to cast aspersions on the Founders themselves and to attack the very principles of the Declaration,(as Taney and Douglas and the rest of the Democratic Party did), the more I see how truly evil the Confederacy was."
You are YET to actually defend the Founding Fathers in this case, however. You throw about accusations that the South was evil, and that the North was perfectly fine in what it did. And yet, you are still lacking in:
-a coherent defense of WHY the North should have attacked the South.
-Why the South could NOT have seceeded legally.
-a defense of what purpose the Emancipation Proclamation served to slave owning states in the North (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri)
-a rational explanation of how what Lincoln did/said was morally superior to what was happening in Delaware, Georgia, etc.
-Any claims based in the Constitution that backs your assertions of "treason" and/or "illegality"
"His mistake was putting his State over his Nation, which neither Washington or Patrick Henry did, both wanting to be known as Americans not Virginans."
Actually, I believe Washington wanted to be known as an American, not a British Colonialist.
And as for Pat Henry, I do believe he urged Virginia to rise against the British in 1775, not America. Of course, I was only in Boy Scouts in Virginia for several years. What would actually walking through the battle-fields and Yorktown do for me?
you obviously don't agree.
free dixie,sw
"moral highground of the Confederacy" is NOT my arguing point. Though it is nice to see we are finally making a realization here.
I am arguing that the CSA was in full rights to do as it wished according to law. I am arguing that the North LACKED moral highground to attack.
You miss the point entirely by placing your preconcieved notions of "rebel-hicks" on all of us. You think those of us down here actually would argue FOR slavery? You DO need to brush up on your cultures my friend.
free dixie,sw
Lincoln was not advocating permanent slavery, what Lincoln advocated was giving those states that already legally had slaves (it was legal under the Constitution already), the assurance that the 'mean old Abolitionists were not going to come down and take away their slaves.
That assurance was not enough for the slave owners, who split their own Democratic Party over slavery, rejecting Douglas, who did not care anything about slavery either way, and then split the nation over it, because they knew Lincoln would not allow them to take their property into the new terrorities.
It was Lincoln's resistance to the expansion of slavery that led to the South's attempt at secession.
And as Stephens notes in his Cornerstone speech, a right they wrote explicity in the Confederate Constitution.
It is so interesting to watch the Confederates lie about what they were fighting for.
FYI, about the SAME PERCENTAGE (5-6%)of yankees owned slaves as dixie folks.
free dixie,sw
I know it doesn't mean secession.
Funny, that is how Andrew Jackson saw how it read also.
You guys are lucky you did not attempt that secession nonsense when he was President, he would have had you guys hanging from every tree.
Read the passage. What does adultry have to do with slavery?
The rest of your post is just rehash upon rehash of what has already been said in this thread.
Please, provide evidence IN THE CONSTITUTION that what the South did was illegal.
The North did not go to war to have the right to expand slavery.
The North elected Lincoln and the Republicans to stop the growth of slavery.
Lincoln's name was not even allowed on the ballot box in the South (oh, those freedom loving Southerners!)
Also, how does "do not leave your wife for any reason aside from unfaithfulness" address monogamy as opposed to being MARRIED to several wives?
Jesus, in this passge only expressed that leaving your wife AND getting another was wrong. Not that having two in the first place was.
the writers of the BOR were VERY CAREFUL in their writing AND they FEARED powerful GOVERNMENT! (GOOD FOR THE WRITERS. i too fear the government!)
free dixie,sw
must bew your "gubmint publick screwql edumakashun" again!
fwiw, i think lincoln was GARBAGE in semi-human form, as i've read his private letters. make that: GARBAGE & a STONE RACIST, too.
free dixie,sw
In principle, what it is saying is that God did not intend divorce just as He did not intend slavery, but allowed both to exist.
So their existance in history does not mean that God approved of them.
The rest of your post is just rehash upon rehash of what has already been said in this thread.
As was yours.
Please, provide evidence IN THE CONSTITUTION that what the South did was illegal.
Because no where does it state that one when loses an election one gets quit the Union.
All the states agreed to abide the results of the process laid forth in the Constitition.
Show me where the South had any of its rights violated in the election of Lincoln?
Since no Constitutional amendment has been passed to make Secession illegal, you must still think that it is legal.
There is the old 'stand waite' rant again!
Lincoln was a racist?
Why because he believed certain things that were commonly believed in his own day?
The one thing Lincoln did not believe was that anyone had a right to take the fruits of another man's labor.
In that he was a little more enlightened then the 'noble' Southern leadership of Stephens and Davis, who believed being a Negro gave them a right to enslave you.
And also; it seems the CSA DID ban the importing of further slaves. They also kept the rest of the Constitution intact. Only adding that it would not be made illegal to own a negro slave.
Funny about that is, Lincoln proposed the same thing. Keeping slavery legal, but not expanding it!
Huh. What do ya know? They agreed with the North on something. AND vice versa.
I do not see it given in the Constitution.
No more then I see the right of other states to eject a State from the Union.
I guess a majority of States could have appealed to what was not written in the Constitution to make that assertion as well.
"In principle, what it is saying is that God did not intend divorce just as He did not intend slavery, but allowed both to exist. "
Well, that's a non-sequiter.
"Because no where does it state that one when loses an election one gets quit the Union. "
No where in the Constitution does it state that one must stay either. I believe this falls under the "allowance of Amendments" aspect. It was not directly addressed, so assuming one thing is just that. An assumption.
You are YET to support your claim.
"Show me where the South had any of its rights violated in the election of Lincoln?"
Seeings as you are yet to point out whether a law regarding secession even exists, why should I have to play into a ploy of explaining a legal reason WHY they seceeded? YOU believe a law exists. YOU exaplain it's workings.
"Since no Constitutional amendment has been passed to make Secession illegal, you must still think that it is legal."
You are damned right it's legal.
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.