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 ...
actually about 99% of dixie's lads in gray fought FOR LIBERTY and AGAINST the INVADER!
the 96% of NON-slaveowners in the PACSA cared NOTHING for some rich guy's "right to trade in human flesh". period. end of story.
your "gubmint pubic screwl edumakashun" is showing again.
aren't you tired of being LAUGHED AT by the intelligent FReepers here?
free dixie,sw
But when I was growing up, seeing peers with their redneck mobiles (pick-'em up trucks) and a confederate flag flying from them...I couldn't help but be a little embarrassed.
I was always like, "hey fellas, the south lost".
Some would disagree with you.
"African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depoulation and barbarism." - South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keitt, 1860
"The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South... This war is the servant of slavery." - Rev John Wrightman, South Carolina, 1861.
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention
This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery, or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us...If we take the former, then submission to negro equality is our fate. if the latter, then secession is inevitable --- -- Address of William L. Harris of Mississippi
If more than the 3% of slave-holders were obliging slavery (and not personal/state freedom) Why was the KKK to come out and NOT be in favor of *slavery* (at the time)?
"Some would disagree with you."
I've been disagreed with before. By many, and more educated. I've also been right in many of those cases.
Though seeing these Congressmen and Senators (Read: rich enough to hold office) state their personal opinion is no suprise.
Could it possibly be because the Klan was not formed until after the rebellion and after the passage of the 13th Amendment? And that it was formed in response to all those free black people suddenly wandering around?
"And that it was formed in response to all those free black people suddenly wandering around?"
Actually, it was formed in response to all the NOT-free white people walking around.
And it was formed (after they lost) as a brotherhood, not a dissenting faction. They had no real political motives but to establish brotherhood (at the time)
Had the general consensus at the time been that the "South must have slaves back" the KKK would have been founded on a much more radical stance. It has since gone towards the evil means, but it was (even if for only a few years) a harmless brotherhood.
"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."
I'd buy that, if it were the case for the average man in the battle field durring the Civil War.
Just reminding you that this post is here.
So did the average man on the battlefield complain about tariffs or Supreme Court decisions? I imagine that the average southern soldier believed that the southern secession was legal and claimed he was defending his home against invasion. But the alleged invasion was in response to the southern rebellion, and by far the single most important reason for that action was defense of the institution of slavery.
How about Union Month, because it was the war that settled whether we would be united or not. Also because the unions were vey importnat inour hitlersty
Look for the Uuuuunion label...
"But the alleged invasion was in response to the southern rebellion, and by far the single most important reason for that action was defense of the institution of slavery."
I beg to differ here.
The point most of the soldiers were fighting for was freedom. Freedom guaranteed in the Constitution that their blood signed.
They saw the contract getting trampled on, and so decided to leave.
The average Bubba in the Civil War WAS complaining about the Supreme Court. They were'nt dumb hicks like so many Northerners at the time would like to believe.
Ever read a letter that a 19 year old wrote at that time?
They were much better educated than most of us today. And most of us today complain about the Supreme Court.
I'd like to make a point about indentured servitude which they DID have in the north. The way it is taught in school it sounds like a sort of apprenticeship which could be hard at times.
The truth was it was a way around the anti-slavery laws and if you wound up in indentured servitude, you didn't get out, in fact you were lucky if your family got out. That's where that song "I sold my soul to the company store" comes from but the actual Northeastern IS was even worse.
Moreover, life was harsher for negroes in the North than in the south. The freaking damn yankee bastards still lie about the war, and everything else. They are the ones who are as bad as the french.
Along with that kind of suffering, the little-told tale of the Scots-Irish in the US at the time is also deafening.
What did someone do if they didn't want to risk a slave? (slaves were very costly and very valualbe, to both sides)
They sent in an immigrant (typically Scottish or Irish) and paid him nickles for a week's work (by today's standards)
They devalued other human lives, but noone talks about it.
And it was THE MO of the North from the 1830's to the early 1900's
Only to those who wouldn't own slaves.
"The Scots and the Irish were the n[lowest class] of the world in those days."
Figured that would happen. So, for record's sake: this is post #255.
For abut 65% of the population at any rate.
The average Bubba in the Civil War WAS complaining about the Supreme Court. They were'nt dumb hicks like so many Northerners at the time would like to believe.
What ruling, exactly? Surely not Scott v Sandford?
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.