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 ...
Bump. And if the union fought against slavery, then they fought against the US Constitutuion! The yankee slavers on board want to pretend that slavery was non-existant in the north, or in the union since inception, and protected.
When I lived in Europe I saw a good number of Confederate Battle Flags. I think it is a universally recognized sign of rebellion and independence.
Once an young Irish colleague objected to the Battle Flag decal I had on my PC. I just smiled, stated it was a southern thing and she wouldn't understand, and then asked her how her people felt about the British.
The South had no right to rebel.
Thus, it was the North that was correct in its reaction to the South.
The Bible and Slavery
The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.) Personal and civil liberty is the result of applying the truth of the Scriptures. As a person or nation more fully applies the principles of Christianity, there will be increasing freedom in every realm of life. Sanctification for a person, or nation, is a gradual process. The fruit of changed thinking and action, which comes from rooting sin out of our lives, may take time to see. This certainly applies historically in removing slavery from the Christian world.
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God's original created order, and as God's created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated. Christian nations (those based upon Biblical principles) have led the way in the abolition of slavery. America was at the forefront of this fight. After independence, great steps were taken down the path of ending slavery — probably more than had been done by any other nation up until that time in history (though certainly more could have been done). Many who had settled in America had already been moving toward these ends. Unfortunately, the generations following the Founders did not continue to move forward in a united fashion. A great conflict was the outcome of this failure.
When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery. But this does not mean that slavery was God's original intention. The law of Moses was given to fallen man. Some of the ordinances deal with things not intended for the original creation order, such as slavery and divorce. These will be eliminated completely only when sin is eliminated from the earth. God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved. God desires all men and nations to be liberated. This begins internally and will be manifested externally to the extent internal change occurs. The Biblical slave laws reflect God's redemptive desire, for men and nations.
Examination of the Biblical view of slavery enables us to more effectively address the assertion that slavery was America's original sin. In light of the Scriptures we cannot say that slavery, in a broad and general sense, is sin. But this brief look at the Biblical slave laws does reveal how fallen man's example of slavery has violated God's laws, and America's form of slavery in particular violated various aspects of the law, as well as the general spirit of liberty instituted by Christ.
The Christian foundation and environment of America caused most people to seek to view life from a Biblical perspective. Concerning slavery, they would ask “Is it Biblical?” While most of the Founders saw it was God's desire to eliminate the institution, others attempted to justify it. At the time of the Civil War some people justified Southern slavery by appealing to the Bible. However, through this brief review of the Old Testament slave laws we have seen that American slavery violated some of these laws, not to mention the spirit of liberty instituted by the coming of Christ. (emphasis added)
Slavery and the New Testament When Paul wrote how slaves and masters were to act (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Col. 3:22-25; Titus 2:9-10), he was not endorsing involuntary slavery or the Roman slave system. He was addressing the attitudes, actions, and matters of the heart of those Christians who found themselves in slavery or as slave owners. This encompassed many people, for half the population of Rome and a large proportion of the Roman Empire were slaves. Many people were converted to Christianity while slaves or slave owners, and many Christians were enslaved.
Sinful man will always live in some form of bondage and slavery, as a slave to the state, to a lord or noble, or to other men. As a step in man's freedom, God's laws of slavery provided the best situation for those who find themselves in bondage. God's ultimate desire is that all walk in the liberty of the gospel both internally and externally.
As the gospel principles of liberty have spread throughout history in all the nations, man has put aside the institution of overt slavery. However, since sinful man tends to live in bondage, different forms of slavery have replaced the more obvious system of past centuries. The state has assumed the role of master for many, providing aid and assistance, and with it more and more control, to those unable to provide for themselves. The only solution to slavery is the liberty of the gospel.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=94
Next you will be talking about the curse of Ham.
Jefferson, too, sought similar goals, but by living twenty-seven years longer than Washington, Jefferson faced additional hostile State laws which Washington had not. But before reviewing Jefferson’s words and actions regarding slavery, a brief review of the overall trend of the laws of Virginia on the subject are in order.
In 1692, Virginia passed a law that placed an economic burden on any slave owner who released his slaves, thus discouraging owners from freeing their slaves. That law declared:
[N]o Negro or mulatto slave shall be set free, unless the emancipator pays for his transportation out of the country within six months. 24
(Subsequent laws imposed additional provisions that a slave could not be freed unless the slave owner guaranteed a security bond for the education, livelihood, and support of the freed slave in order to ensure that the former slave would not become a burden to the community or to the society. 25 Not only did such laws place extreme economic hardships on any slave owner who tried to free his slaves but they also provided stiff penalties for any slave owner who attempted to free slaves without abiding by these laws.)
In 1723, a law was passed which forbid the emancipation of slaves under any circumstance–even by a last will and testament. The only exceptions were for cases of "meritorious service" by a slave, a determination to be made only by the State Governor and his Council on a case by case basis. 26 Needless to say, this law made the occasions for freeing slaves even more rare.
In 1782, however, Virginia began to move in a new direction (for a short time) by passing a very liberal manumission law. As a result, "this restraint on the power of the master to emancipate his slave was removed, and since that time the master may emancipate by his last will or deed." 27 (It was because of this law that George Washington was able to free his slaves in his last will and testament in 1799.)
In 1806, unfortunately, the Virginia Legislature repealed much of that law, 28 and it became more difficult to emancipate slaves in a last will and testament:
It shall be lawful for any person, by his or her last will and testament, or by any other instrument in writing under his or her hand and seal . . . to emancipate and set free his or her slaves . . . Provided, also, that all slaves so emancipated, not being . . . of sound mind and body, or being above the age of forty-five years, or being males under the age of twenty one, or females under the age of eighteen years, shall respectively be supported and maintained by the person so liberating them, or by his or her estate. 29 (emphasis added)
That law even made it possible for a wife to reverse a portion of an emancipation made by her husband in his will:
And . . . a widow who shall, within one year from the death of her husband, declare in the manner prescribed by law that she will not take or accept the provision made for her . . . [is] entitled to one third part of the slaves whereof her husband died possessed, notwithstanding they may be emancipated by his will. 30
Furthermore, recall that Virginia law did not recognize slave families. Therefore, if a slave was freed, the law made it almost impossible for him to remain near his spouse, children, or his family members who had not been freed, for the law required that a freed slave promptly depart the State or else reenter slavery:
If any slave hereafter emancipated shall remain within this Commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right and may be apprehended and sold. 31
It was under difficult laws like these–under laws even more restrictive than those Washington had faced–that Jefferson was required to operate. Nevertheless, as a slave owner (he, like Washington, had inherited slaves), Jefferson maintained a consistent public opposition to slavery and assiduously labored to end slavery both in his State and in the nation.
Since the State laws on slavery had significantly stiffened between the death of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson twenty-seven years later (as Jefferson had observed in 1814, "the laws do not permit us to turn them loose" 44), Jefferson was unable to do what Washington had done in freeing his slaves. However, Jefferson had gone well above and beyond other slave owners in that era in that he actually paid his slaves for the vegetables they raised and for the meat they obtained while hunting and fishing. Additionally, he paid them for extra tasks they performed outside their normal working hours and even offered a revolutionary profit sharing plan for the products that his enslaved artisans produced in their shops. 45
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=11
Check out post 217.
Many reasons that I proposed as "personal" but it seems, were in fact, quite the policy makers.
Think of it this way:
If it WAS about slavery, then only 3% of the South (the only slave owners) were making the majority of the calls.
Considering the amount of support and the number of fighters on the side of the CSA, I must conclude that this is NOT the case.
The average fighter was largely uneffected by slavery in their own lives.
It violates 'love thy neighbor as thyself'(Lk.10:27) and 'love worketh no ill to his neighbor'(Rom.13:10)
Slavery is in violation of both these commands, unless you think that making someone working for you without pay is not harming him.
How about thou shalt not steal?
You don't think the slaves were robbed of their wages?
The issue that led to the war was slavery.
That particular individuals chose to fight for other reasons is (such as Lee) is irrelevant to the crucial question of the moral validity of the Confederate cause (what they were fighting for).
At first, slavery was not the crucial issue in view, it was the Union.
As the war dragged on, Lincoln came to see that slavery had indeed always been the issue that had to be dealt with if in fact the Union was going to be saved.
This is the essence of his greatest speech, the 2nd Inaugural address.
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then, a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new would be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this, four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war, seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invoked His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
'love thy neighbor as thyself'(Lk.10:27)
He didn't actually quote that for 1. (at least, not here)
For 2: Jesus explains that "your neighbor" is simply one who is down on his luck. Any man that needs help.
One can love a servant.
And in Timothy 6:1, slaves are called to revere their masters.
And you quoted a passage rather well, while avoiding the larger part of the same chapter. Romans 13 deals largely with submission to authority.
And as for "thou shalt not steal"
I could have sworn there was also a set of rules set aside in Exodus 22 that states that "if a man steals, and is unable to pay the owner back, he is to BE SOLD to pay for the debt."
That's right: slavery is used to make up for theft.
How can 3% of a population be the origins of THE ISSUE in any matter? It was much more than that.
A sense of nationalism? (or stateism in this case) Economic freedom from an industrial counterpart? A flat out disagreance with how things were being run?
None of these are "legit" to you, yet that's the cause many in the CSA troops wrote home about.
Troop write home about alot of things.
During WW2 troops were not writing home talking about their fight for freedom, or against Nazism.
The political decisions that led to the Civil War were about slavery.
Your appeal to the numbers of people who held slavery is irrevelant.
The fact is, the slave owners made their 'peculiar'institution a Southern issue, and men went to fight to protect the 'Southern way of life' which included slavery.
Let's put that in perspective. You say only 3% of the south owned slaves. In 1950, almost a hundred years after the rebellion, only about 2% of the population owned corporate stocks worth more than $1000, the average price of a single slave. So slave ownership was more widespread than stock ownership was almost a century later. The other fact that you ignore is the fact that the slave owners had wives and children. When I was growing up we had one car and it was in my father's name. You could say that only 20% of the family owned a car. But 100% of the family derived benefit from his owning that car. So maybe 3% of the southern population owned slaves, but in some states almost 50% of all families enjoyed the benefits of slavery. Add to that the economic benefit that these more affluent families created, spreading through their business and purchases economic gains to those families who did not own slaves. So the benefits of slavery were widespread throughout the south, touching perhaps a majority of the people living there. So looking at it your way it would be easy to question why a region would launch a war to protect an institution directly benefiting 3% of the population. But looking at the facts, then it's easy to understand why the south would resort to a rebellion to protect an institution that most people benefited from.
well, we should. they were still americans. After all, we celebrate, african american, latino, etc. why not. are are the confederate soldier worth less than their slaves and our friends south of the border.
have you had your damnyankee kool-aide this AM?
AND bowed down to the statue of the TYRANT too??
free dixie,sw
i believe yours is wrong however.
free dixie,sw
even STUPID, IGNORANT and WRONG ones. it's called LIBERTY.
free dixie,sw
Such a shame he couldn't have just done it to the officer and left the horse out of it, imo....
"The political decisions that led to the Civil War were about slavery."
No, the political decisions that led to the Civil War were about the Constitution, and the violation there-of by the North.
This effected a "null-and-void contract" mindset in most of the States that left.
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.