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 ...
I know this much -- WE were still poopin' in a hole in the ground when I was a boy and that was in the '60s. If it wasn't for manufactured housing my people might be still.
In an interesting twist of history, General Ely S. Parker, a member of the Seneca tribe, drew up the articles of surrender which General Robert E. Lee signed at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. Gen. Parker, who served as Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's military secretary and was a trained attorney, was once rejected for Union military service because of his race. At Appomattox, Lee is said to have remarked to Parker, "I am glad to see one real American here," to which Parker replied, "We are all Americans."
Article 4, Section 2.
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
The man comes to the Lord and asks what he must do to inherit eternal life.
The man then cites the two great laws, love God and his neighbor.
Christ agrees with the man.
Then the man asks 'who is my neighbor.
The story of the good samaritan is to show that all men are our neighbors and thus, we should love them as we love ourselves.
For 2: Jesus explains that "your neighbor" is simply one who is down on his luck. Any man that needs help.
No, the Lord is explaining that in reference to loving our neighbor as ourselves, thus the neighbor is all men wheather they are in need or not.
But, even if that were the case, who was more needful then a helpless black being ripped from his home to be sold into bondage?
Thus, we are to love all men as we love ourselves.
One can love a servant. And in Timothy 6:1, slaves are called to revere their masters. Yes, based on the situation they find themselves in, they should do so.
Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman empire.
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 what does that have to do with the morality of slavery?
The Christian slave is serving not the master, but the Lord, Ye are brought with a price, be not ye the servants of the men (1Cor.7:23)
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."
Again, what has that have to do with slavery, which is taking from a man the fruits of his labor.
What you are talking about is indentured service, to pay off a debt.
What debts had the black man incurred to the white's?
That's right: slavery is used to make up for theft.
What theft was the black man guilty of?
The only one guilty of theft were the white masters who made money of the sweat of the slaves (as did those who sold the slaves).
You cite the Constitution, where are the abuses by the North?
Yes, and the point is?
He accused the King of being responsible for the evil that the colonies had to deal with.
In the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression as we refer to it here in Virginia), slavery was the pretext for the war. The real issue of the war was secession. The Constitution didn't address whether or not a state could leave the Union if its citizens so wished. Lincoln abused federal power and forced secession of the southern states. The question was settled by armed combat instead of in the courts.
If Lincoln had not forced the issue, slavery would have gone away within a few decades as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Every "advanced" ancient society (Egypt, Rome, etc.) used slaves for heavy labor because mechanization didn't exist. Industrialization lowered costs and would have made slavery the more expensive option.
G.W.
kool aid drinkers of the world unite! Numerous southern slaves earned monies and purchased their freedom, and the freedom of other slaves. Slaves were provided homes, clothes, food, medicine, attended churches etc. Lincoln wanted a lily-white America.
The first seven southern states had announced their secession by the end of January, and Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March. Just what federal power was he in a position to abuse and force the secession of the southern states?
If Lincoln had not forced the issue, slavery would have gone away within a few decades as a result of the Industrial Revolution.
Replaced with what? The first successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the 1940's.
Well, my friend, the curse of Ham is exactly what the Southern Christians appealed to, and even today still do.
You will find that in some reference Bibles (Drakes)
So, I was not intending to insult you with the reference, but that is the gist of the Southern argument.
Both Lee and Jackson were against slavery so they did not attempt to justify it.
Now, the moral issue of slavery is very clear, someone is getting economic benefit from someone else's labor.
I call that theft, what do you call it?
Christianity gradually moved to end it on the principle that all men are created equal before God.
The Southern theologians turned this upside down and stated that one race had been intended by God to be enslaved due to the curse of Ham.
The churches actually split over slavery.
I agree with you.....You are preaching to the choir! :)
We call it that in Texas too! :)
And what about the vast majority that didn't?
Slaves were provided homes, clothes, food, medicine, attended churches etc.
And on not uncommon occurances, entirely new homes when they were sold from one master to another. You forgot that little fringe benefit of the institution.
Lincoln wanted a lily-white America.
While southerners like Jefferson Davis were perfectly happy with an integrated America, so long as the black part were in their proper place, as property. With title to them safely in Davis' pocket. If there wasn't to be slavery then Davis wanted all blacks out of the country.
They were!
My, what a wonderful existance!
Is that why you had to have laws passed to track down runaway slaves?
I mean who would want to leave the kindly master with his right to beat you or sell your family away from you!
Lincoln had you guys down to a tee.
He said, these pro-slavers (and ofcourse you will protest that you are not for slavery-no one is today-after the North ended it), are always talking about how good the slaves have it,but none want to become slaves themselves!
Funny how that is now isn't it?
"Christ agrees with the man."
This is understood, no need to underline/boldface. There was a reason I stated "He didn't actually quote that" (at least not in Luke 10:27)
He DID do such in Matthew and Mark. John as well I believe.
"But, even if that were the case, who was more needful then a helpless black being ripped from his home to be sold into bondage? "
"ripped from his home"?
you obviously have NO CLUE where the slaves came from. They were sold to white men by victorious black tribes! Slavery was their new way of life!
And aside from that, I promise those slaves were fed regularly (unless in punishment I suppose) "Need" of anything but Freedom (Not guarateed in the Bible) is laughable.
"Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman empire. "
Very good. Now, was slavery a fact of life in America at one point?
"And what does that have to do with the morality of slavery? "
Nothing. It merely points out that the Bible does NOT condemn slavery. Man does.
"Again, what has that have to do with slavery, which is taking from a man the fruits of his labor. "
I was addressing your assertion that "Thou shalt not steal" meant slavery was wrong.
If it was wrong, Biblically speaking, why is it seen as a proper means to an end?
"The only one guilty of theft were the white masters who made money of the sweat of the slaves (as did those who sold the slaves)."
Lol, now it's funny.
White masters MUST have been the only ones selling them. They MUST have been bought from other whites in Africa.
Blacks made a profit too.
and what about slave masters? They were slaves given charge over other slaves. They earned favor and rank.
Money is not guaranteed in the Bible. Only provision for Life Eternal.
Jeff Davis and his government ignored his Constitution at will, seized private property without compensation, declared martial law, trampled on states rights, nationalized whole industries, proposed confiscatory income tax rates, ran the economy into the ground, and oh yes, started a war that brought destruction to almost every corner of the south. That's what it meant to be a Confederate. That's what you want?
Well, it is true that SOME race was supposed to be enslaved, but I am not sure he intended it to be the Negro race......The Southern Theologians implied that "the black skin" was the "mark" placed upon the Sons of Ham.
Horse Hockey!
You know that Lincoln started the whole shooting match, Noni!
You know that for a fact?
That is yet another Southern myth.
They were so well cared for the South had to pass laws for the Federal gov't to go into Northern states to retrieve them (so much for States rights)
The slave owner had the right to beat his slave (read the history of Frederick Douglas), and ofcourse the women were his to do with as he pleased.
That and the fact, that the family could be sold apart at any time.
No doubt there were good and kind masters (such as Washington and Jefferson) but power does corrupt.
Brother, there are only three races mentioned in that chapter, and Ham is the black race.(see Chapter 10:6-7)
So you keep saying. But you haven't convinced me yet, what with that little bombardment of Sumter and all.
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.