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 ...
Pssh. Like frepmail can't get you banned either.
In 1858 Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Chicago affirming the equality of man, and then gave another address the same year in southern Illinois in which he stated that he opposed "bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races."
-www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws198.htm
Lincoln: John Kerry meets Robert Byrd.
Are you a judicial activist, non?
If you read the minutes of the Constitutional ratification debate in North Carolina, it's explicitly stated that slavery wasn't outlawed at that time because Georgia and South Carolina refused to join the union otherwise.
Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention 26 July 1788Elliot 4:100--102
"Mr. J. M'Dowall wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.
Mr. Spaight answered, that there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on.
Mr. M'Dowall replied, that the explanation was just such as he expected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon it as a very objectionable part of the system."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s15.html
Note the promise from South Carolina that they only needed their slaves for twenty years, and then would abolish it.
South Carolina's debate on the subject is interesting as well,although what they say amongst themselves is that they don't even have to stop importing slaves in twenty years--that's just the first anyone can even bring up stopping it.
"Gen. C. C. Pinckney: . . . The general then said he would make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman had thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African trade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend with the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle States, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia, who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions the gentleman has quoted--that, while there remained one acre of swamp-land uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. I am as thoroughly convinced as that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our lands with negroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert waste."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s10.html
So why did
A: The Union accept this?
and
B: The rest of the Union continue to use slaves for over two more decades?
"Note the promise from South Carolina that they only needed their slaves for twenty years, and then would abolish it."
It seems to me that it was stated that SC and Georgia only said they would cease IMPORTING slaves, not that they would stop it all together.
Trailer, my @$$. If you weren't so prejudiced maybe I'd give you a job cleaning toilets in my paid for house.
Now you get return to your pitiful, disgusting little life.
No, just someone who has read the Constitution.
If it was 1858 then it was undoubtably one of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, probably the one in Ottawa, and not a speech in Chicago. But if you like quotes by leaders about blacks then how about this one?
"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Law in nature tells us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude. Freedom only injures the slave. The innate stamp of inferiority is beyond the reach of change. You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables him to be."
That was Jefferson Davis in 1862. At least Lincoln acknowledged that blacks were entitled to the same rights granted whites under the Declaration of Independence. Davis only acknowledged the black man's right to be bought and sold as any other property.
A: The Union accept this?
If you dig deeper into that site I showed the links to, you'll find that basically they were rolling over to the demands of South Carolina and Georgia in order to keep them from refusing to join the union in the first place. Here's the link to the overall page listing a number of primary documents relating to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_1.html
There are minutes from the debates in the several state legislatures over ratification. Here's a bit from Massachusetts: "We are not, in this case, partakers of other men's sins; for in nothing do we voluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellowmen. A restriction is laid on the federal government, which could not be avoided, and a union take place. The federal Convention went as far as they could. The migration or importation, &c., is confined to the states now existing only; new states cannot claim it. Congress, by their ordinance for erecting new states, some time since, declared that the new states shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in them. But whether those in slavery in the Southern States will be emancipated after the year 1808, I do not pretend to determine. I rather doubt it."
Here's James Madison in the Virginia debates: "Mr. Chairman, I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded without encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have entered into the Union of America without the temporary permission of that trade; and if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. "
and
B: The rest of the Union continue to use slaves for over two more decades?
They had been left with a legacy of slavery by British policy. I'm not certain that any were imported into the New England states after the Revolution. The states of the Northwest Territory forbade it from the get-go. The rest were gradually emancipated. Too slowly, I'll admit, and also add that it appears many who were to be emancipated were instead sold south by their masters. But at least they were moving in that direction, and enacting emancipation into law.
So?
What does that have to with not having compassion on them?
(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)
Jefferson tried to do so, but fell one vote short.
"No, the Bible does condemn slavery in principle. " You are yet to cite your assertion here accurately.
I have asserted the principle very accurately, don't do to others what you would not want them to do you.
You would not want to be made a slave, so do not make others a slave.
"Well, if stealing is wrong,then slavery is wrong. " Nonsequitor. Might as well say "if murder is wrong, then the death penalty is wrong"
No, that is a non-sequitur.
Slavery is theft of the fruits of ones labor.
Correct or incorrect?
"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.
No, slavery is not indentured servitude, the two are different.
What payment did the Africans owe to anyone?
"Why then did God even put in the Ten Commandements thou shalt not steal? " Theft is NOT servetude nor slavery.
Theft is anything that does not pay what someone has a right to.
By your outlook, working for a corporation is "Theft" because time is greater than money, but all we get is money.
No, you are getting paid for what you do in the time, what you are producing.
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.
Really?
Better check the Bible again.
Paul writes that the Law is written for the lawless and disobedient... for menstealers (1Tim.1:10)
"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.
It is a simple question dealing with how good slavery was (according to some posts).
If it was so good, how come so few people wanted to be one?
Moreover, if it was bad, then why were we doing it?
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!
No, what God does say, is do no harm to your fellow man, which making them slaves does.
If someone made a slave out of you, would it be harming you?
Criminal is the normal usage of the term, not slavery.
The Founders did not put the word slavery in the Constitution explicity because they wanted it to end and when it did, there would be no reference to it in the Constitution.
Thus, you could read the Constitution today and if you did not know we had slavery, you would not know it by the Constitution.
Unlike the Confederate apologists, the Founders did not view slavery as defensible or good, but as an evil they had to figure a way out of.
You gave me five abuses that led the South to secede from the North?
Well, give me one of them, one that led the South to secede.
What chains of slavery was that?
Might you list some of the ways the South was enslaved?
No representation in Congress?
Not allowed to vote?
Please tell us what horrible abuses the poor Southerners were suffering under!
List them as Jefferson listed the ones the colonies were under!
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.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about slaves.
But Lincoln agreed that the Fugitive Slave Law should be enforced, so that can't be your complaint.
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???
To keep the slave institution growing.
Lincoln had you guys down to a tee. Lincoln never changed his views on colonization, and wanted a lily-white America.
He at least wanted the Negro free from beatings, rape and having their labor used for the benifit of the White man.
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.
I did not bring up the conditions of the slaves, you did, saying that they had it good.
Now, you did not have to worry about enacting fugitive slave laws because things were good for the slave now did you?
Here is what Jefferson wrote about slavery,
Three years prior to that proposal, Jefferson had made known his feelings against slavery in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781). That work, circulated widely across the nation, declared: The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. . . . The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded who permits one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep for ever. . . . The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. . . . [T]he way, I hone [is] preparing under the auspices of Heaven for a total emancipation. 37 http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=11
Frankly, after hearing all of you Southern apologists attempt to defend slavery, if slavery existed today, you would be defending it on the basis that if it were good enough for your 'great granddaddy it is good enough for you'
The first four I posted were prior to the secession of the South. This is the "lead in" aspect.
Now it's your turn:
List the reasons the Union had to keep a militia in seceeded land, and for it to invade said land.
Well it looks like something got passed.
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
That meant that Lincoln had to call up the Militia from other states to put down the insurrection in the Southern states.
Which he did.
Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress April 15, 1861 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES A PROCLAMATION. Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law, Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department. http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/proc-1.htm
Do you guys ever get tired of playing word games?
Well, when you are trying to defend the undefendable I guess that is all you have left to resort to.
I have yet to see one.
Please post me a reason that gave just cause for the South to secede from the Union.
Don't just put up the Constitution and say there it is.
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.