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 ...
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."
The movement in the North was to do away with this. The Underground Railroad was an example of an abuse. Taking labor from one state, and withholding them.
"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)"
Actually, that law was guaranteed by the Constituion, under an article I cited above.
Article IV, section 2.
Lincoln did much the same thing, calling out the army at the drop of a hat, suspending habeus corpus, throwing congressmen in jail, attacking NYC with artillery, firing on Ft. Sumter, authorizing the burning of the South, freeing the slaves in the south but not the north. He was a frickin' dictator, get it, pal?
I only made the point that the meaning was the same as if Christ had said it.
"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!
Yes, and the had been ripped from their homes in Africa!
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.
Wow, how kind of the slavers?
And what happened to the slaves if a British ship came near after British had outlawed the slave trade?
All the slaves were dumped overboard.
The death rate for slaves was very high.
"Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman empire. " Very good. Now, was slavery a fact of life in America at one point?
Yes, it was, due to the British empire, not the American view of equality before God.
"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.
No, the Bible does condemn slavery in principle.
"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.
Well, if stealing is wrong,then slavery is wrong.
If it was wrong, Biblically speaking, why is it seen as a proper means to an end?
Where is it considered a proper means to an end?
Sometimes God allows evil to occur to bring good out of it.
He also allowed men to divorce their wives even though that was not suppose to happen.
"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.
And you did not read the parenthesis?
All those who either transported the slaves or used the slaves were profiting off of them.
what they were getting for it?
The 'right' not to be murdered?
Blacks made a profit too.
Ok, and they were wrong also.
and what about slave masters? They were slaves given charge over other slaves. They earned favor and rank.
And that changes the principle of slavery being wrong because it steals from the slave-how?
As for a slave who is given charge over another slave, he is not in control of his own life to refuse what the master orders him to do.
Money is not guaranteed in the Bible. Only provision for Life Eternal.
Oh, my how pious!
Why then did God even put in the Ten Commandements thou shalt not steal?
Again, in Rom.13 (which you cite as referring to the authority of the powers) Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law
would you like to be made a slave?
I only made the point that the meaning was the same as if Christ had said it.
"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!
Yes, and the had been ripped from their homes in Africa!
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.
Wow, how kind of the slavers?
And what happened to the slaves if a British ship came near after British had outlawed the slave trade?
All the slaves were dumped overboard.
The death rate for slaves was very high.
"Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman empire. " Very good. Now, was slavery a fact of life in America at one point?
Yes, it was, due to the British empire, not the American view of equality before God.
"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.
No, the Bible does condemn slavery in principle.
"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.
Well, if stealing is wrong,then slavery is wrong.
If it was wrong, Biblically speaking, why is it seen as a proper means to an end?
Where is it considered a proper means to an end?
Sometimes God allows evil to occur to bring good out of it.
He also allowed men to divorce their wives even though that was not suppose to happen.
"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.
And you did not read the parenthesis?
All those who either transported the slaves or used the slaves were profiting off of them.
what they were getting for it?
The 'right' not to be murdered?
Blacks made a profit too.
Ok, and they were wrong also.
and what about slave masters? They were slaves given charge over other slaves. They earned favor and rank.
And that changes the principle of slavery being wrong because it steals from the slave-how?
As for a slave who is given charge over another slave, he is not in control of his own life to refuse what the master orders him to do.
Money is not guaranteed in the Bible. Only provision for Life Eternal.
Oh, my how pious!
Why then did God even put in the Ten Commandements thou shalt not steal?
Again, in Rom.13 (which you cite as referring to the authority of the powers) Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law
would you like to be made a slave?
a bump for april as month of the confederacy...
Moreover, if an insurrection is in process, the Federal Government has every right to enter any state to put it down, as they did in the Whisky Rebellion under Washington.
You will note that the word slave is not used in the Article.
Did he?
...calling out the army at the drop of a hat...
Under the authority granted him by the Militia Act to suppress the rebellion.
...suspending habeus corpus...
Something he believed he had the power to do. Since the Supreme Court has never ruled on that then we don't know if his actions were illegal or not.
...throwing congressmen in jail...
Former congressman (singular). And Lincoln didn't do it, Burnside did on his own under authority granted him by Congress. Lincoln just commuted the sentence to being sent to the confederate states.
...attacking NYC with artillery...
You've been watching "Gangs of New York" again, haven't you? Artillery wasn't used to put down the New York riots.
...firing on Ft. Sumter...
Don't you have that backwards? Jefferson Davis fired on Sumter, without the approval of the confederate congress by the way.
...authorizing the burning of the South...
War is hell.
...freeing the slaves in the south but not the north.
Which he did not have the power to do Constitutionally. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war act, an extension of the Confiscation Acts which the courts had ruled to be constitutional. It was issued in his role as Commander in Chief, and not as president.
He was a frickin' dictator, get it, pal?
Not so much, no.
"Yes, and the had been ripped from their homes in Africa!"
By enemy tribes!
(On slavery being a fact of life)"Yes, it was, due to the British empire, not the American view of equality before God. "
Then why wasn't it outlawed at the onset of the formation of the USA? (Or even the Articles of the Confederation)
"No, the Bible does condemn slavery in principle. "
You are yet to cite your assertion here accurately.
"Well, if stealing is wrong,then slavery is wrong. "
Nonsequitor. Might as well say "if murder is wrong, then the death penalty is wrong"
"Where is it considered a proper means to an end? "
I've pointed it out to you 3 times! Slavery is a MEANS to PAYMENT. I can explain it for you. I can't understand it for you.
"Why then did God even put in the Ten Commandements thou shalt not steal? "
Theft is NOT servetude nor slavery.
By your outlook, working for a corporation is "Theft" because time is greater than money, but all we get is money.
I don't believe any material thing was taken from the slaves. Only freedom. The Bible goes on to explain that "theft" is of worldly things. Oxen, silver, grains... No mention of the person.
"would you like to be made a slave?"
What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING? Crap happens all the time that people don't like.
I'd like to win the lottery and never work again. Ooop, God want's me to be happy, so winning the lottery MUST be what the Bible meant!
Neither is "criminal," but that's what we use it for now.
"You have yet to give me a consitutional abuse by the North that led to the South to secede."
Oh, I get it now. You're full of $hi7.
Glad we cleared that up.
I gave you the abuses. FIVE OF THEM.
Yet you complain when the Confederacy broke her chains of slavery to the Yankees.
Is that why you had to have laws passed to track down runaway slaves?
It was in the Constitution, yankees agreed to abide with such.
I mean who would want to leave the kindly master with his right to beat you or sell your family away from you!
Why would the South flee from the North???
Lincoln had you guys down to a tee.
Lincoln never changed his views on colonization, and wanted a lily-white America.
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!.
I would not be pro slavery then, nor am I today. Just some folks (yankees) moan about a legal institution of the time, that THEY agreed would exist. And it's never been a question of how good slaves had anything, it simply refutation of the inane arguments of folks like you, that think every Southerner yearns for the days of slavery, and that all slaves were whipped and beaten. After the war, ex-slave 'Aunt' Charity Andersen WISHED for the old days of slavery, obviously they weren't what you attmept to portray them to be.
IIRC, the convention attempted to grant the federal government the power to put down 'insurrection'. It failed 4-4.
he was also an ANTI-Catholic & an ANTIsemite.
his private correspondence reveals him to be BOTH a RACIST & a scheming, cheap politician. nothing more,nothing less.
free dixie,sw
One quote, please. Just one. Only one. One. Any one you can think of. Let's have it.
free dixie,sw
the last time you pulled some crap like this, nolu chan got banned!
Don't let him BS you sw. Edit your post if you quote.
Nolu chan got himself banned, he didn't need any help from me. But send it freepmail if you're squeemish about it.
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.