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 ...
Note, the word Negro added for the first time in the Constitution.
Here is how the 'noble' Confederate Constitution reads,
No bill of attainder or ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed
Note, in the American Constitution, no mention is made of Negro or any slavery.
This was the 'error' that Stephens' said the Confederate Constitution would correct.
As for Lincoln, his goal was to end slavery peacefully, or as he stated, put slavery back on the road to extinction.
Your Confederate Constitution made it permanent.
Funny about that is, Lincoln proposed the same thing. Keeping slavery legal, but not expanding it!
No, slavery was already legal in the Southern states, Lincoln was intending on stopping it expansion.
Do you deny that or are you going to continue to lie to attempt to spread your guilt of slavery over the man whose goal was to end it?
Huh. What do ya know? They agreed with the North on something. AND vice versa.
No, not at all, the South saw slavery as a virtue and wrote it in the Constitution as such.
They even mention the very race to be enslaved.
Lincoln was elected to stop the growth of slavery.
Your attempts to make Lincoln into a Jeff Davis shows how immoral your Confederate philosophy really is.
ALSO:
If what the CSA did in terms of secession was illegal, that means it would not be recognizable as an act by the US federal government.
This means the Civil War was in DIRECT defiance of Article 4, section 4 of the Constitution, where it is stated that-
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"
This means that if it was not possible for the CSA to leave, that the subsequent invasion of the South was against the Constitution itself!
"As for Lincoln, his goal was to end slavery peacefully, or as he stated, put slavery back on the road to extinction."
Well, he did a crappy job.
"Your Confederate Constitution made it permanent."
Whatever happend to all that talk about it being "Americans versus Americans"?
"Your"
Ptoi!
"No, slavery was already legal in the Southern states, Lincoln was intending on stopping it expansion."
You are failing to make sense here (again) re-read what you responded to on that.
Just taking a time-out for a minute here to say this:
You are a wonderful debator, and it is awesome talking these points in this manner.
Just please remember, it IS an American sitting on the other side of the screen. I try to do the same for you.
God Bless
-Mac
No it isn't.
The argument was put forth that slavery had existed for centuries.
Well, alot of sinful activies existed for centuries, even some that God allowed (but not condone) due to man's own hardeness of heart.
"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.
When one joined the Union that was the agreement to abide by the rules stated.
Your arguement is tatonment to a contract being made and then one party saying because the contract could not be broken for any reason, it could be!
You are YET to support your claim.
I do not have to support my claim.
Nowhere does it say that any State can leave at its will, nor can any State be ejected against its will.
The Union was meant to be indivisible.
"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.
I do not believe a right of secession does exist.
So, the South, not liking the fact that Lincoln was going to stop the expansion of slavery split first its own Democratic Party, and then attempted to split the nation over it.
The South had no just cause to leave the Union, no just cause to revolt, no just cause-period.
"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.
Well, try it!
And don't forget to bring back the old Confederate Constitution while you are at it, you know the one that gives you the right to own Negro slaves.
Now, we get to play the legal word games.
True, that is why the North did not 'invade' the South.
The Northern states were enforcing the laws that were in violation due to an insurrection.
Well, it was you that fired on the U.S. Flag.
He stated that he was under obligation to uphold the U.S. laws, but you were under no obligation to revolt.
You chose to revolt, and he was forced to take action, as any decent U.S. President would have.
"Your Confederate Constitution made it permanent." Whatever happend to all that talk about it being "Americans versus Americans"?
It was a Confederate Constititution, an anti-American document.
One that your ancestors wrongly fought for.
"Your" Ptoi! "No, slavery was already legal in the Southern states, Lincoln was intending on stopping it expansion." You are failing to make sense here (again) re-read what you responded to on that.
No, I am making perfect sense, but you do not want to understand the truth.
Lincoln was not elected to end slavery where it existed, he was elected to stop its expansion.
That is all that he ever claimed he could do according to the Constitution.
No, I don't. Who's "most people"? Most of the people you know? The SCV members? But they are already among the converted, presumably. I am talking about his appeal to the wider world, and there, I must tell you, he is not as persuasive as he might be if his skills as a writer, diplomat, public speaker, and teacher were more developed. All Southern heritage groups need someone more cultured to show the rest of society the validity of their ideas and goals.
It's apparent that we travel in different circles. I'm interested in persuading middle America and the better-educated that Southern heritage is worth preserving, while Bowling appeals principally to the SCV membership. To be frank, this short-sightedness is what prevents too many Southern heritage groups from successfully evangelizing, so that they will continue to be unfairly considered kooks and racists.
And that is why it is good that the Confederacy lost!
I try to do the same for you.
well said.
Amen.
"And don't forget to bring back the old Confederate Constitution while you are at it, you know the one that gives you the right to own Negro slaves."
Please don't tell me, that after I posted a nice comment to you directly, that you would continue to assert that I'm some racist hick.
And as for trying the secession: Why the hell would I try it now? What was done was done. I'm over that part. The part I want cleared up once and for all is that the CSA was not founded on racism. In true Democrat form, it was founded on an opposition to others. (BTW, to seceed, all I need to do is renounce my US citizen-ship. To get my state to do the same, we need to first get all your Yankee butts out of it)
Next thing you'll tell me is that the KKK was founded on racial divides. It WAS a brotherhood. It is NOW racist, evil, and hate-filled.
And they had to trample the Constitution to do so?
They INVADED (what YOU would call) US States.
Consider the comment withdrawn and I apologize for it.
And as for trying the secession: Why the hell would I try it now? What was done was done. I'm over that part. The part I want cleared up once and for all is that the CSA was not founded on racism. In true Democrat form, it was founded on an opposition to others. (BTW, to seceed, all I need to do is renounce my US citizen-ship. To get my state to do the same, we need to first get all your Yankee butts out of it)
Well, in that we disagree.
The CSA was formed on racism, as noted by Andrew Stephens in his Cornerstone speech.
The CSA writes slavery into its constitution as an explicit right.
The root cause of the move for secession was over the right to expand slavery.
This does not mean every State seceded because of this issue, Virgina was at first against secession but then voted for it when the orders to moblize troops was given.
Slavery, and it's defense, must be seen as being at the heart of the CSA.
It was only at the very end of the war, with defeat in sight, did they consider arming slaves to fight for the CSA in return for their freedom.
And this met with great resistance also.
Next thing you'll tell me is that the KKK was founded on racial divides. It WAS a brotherhood. It is NOW racist, evil, and hate-filled.
I think we should leave the issue of the KKK and Reconstruction for another thread!
"One that your ancestors wrongly fought for."
LoL. MY ancestors were busy fighting the Brits for their land and kilts at the time.
That, and getting land in Oklahoma.
"That is all that he ever claimed he could do according to the Constitution."
I'm pretty sure he could have made a sound arguement against slavery given the wording of the Constitution. If he was as "anti-slavery" as you say anyway.
No, it was not an invasion, it was an effort to put down an armed rebellion.
Did Washington invade Pennsyvania when he put down the Whisky Rebellion?
Amen.
It seems everyone fought the Brits at one time or another!
That, and getting land in Oklahoma. "That is all that he ever claimed he could do according to the Constitution." I'm pretty sure he could have made a sound argument against slavery given the wording of the Constitution. If he was as "anti-slavery" as you say anyway.
No, slavery was legal and no one was going to get elected on the basis of removing it from where it already existed.
Lincoln's stated goal was always to return to what the Founders had intended, isolate it and eventually it would die a natural death.
Lincoln's expressed goal was to send slavery to its extinction, but preserve the Union at the same time, which was man's best hope for freedom.
He knew that the nation could not permanently exist as both a slave and free nation, it would either be totally one or the other.
Thank you for the discussion.
I again apologize if I got too heated in my rhetoric.
I am not here to argue FOR slavery. Only to argue for the legality (and moral equality-prior an invasion) of the North and South in the War Between the States.
The South was well within it's rights to act as it did. The North was not. Moral or not.
Well, many of the seceding states did issue "Declarations of Causes," but the Confederate side of the debate tends to downplay those as the private opinions of a few people because they explicitly state that it was all about preserving slavery. The fact is that there are loads of documents and speeches from the south saying that secession was an attempt to protect slavery, but these are always discounted.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Georgia_Secession_Causes.htm
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html
Thanks for the info.
In the scripture, Polygamy was SPECIFICALLY condemned by Jesus. Slavery was not even mentioned.
Show me where the Bible condemns slavery. You won't be able
to do so, because slavery was ingrained in Jewish society at the time. Obviously, Jesus did not worry too much about it.
By the standards of our day, MANS standards, we realize slavery is wrong. Again, the Bible doesn't condemn it.
OK...you have proved your point that some founding fathers condemned slavery. However, in the case of Jefferson, you haven't proved anything other than the man was a hypocrite.
He certainly lost little sleep over the issue, as he refused to free his own CHILDREN, that were born slaves.
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.