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 ...
Go ahead and post what you like. For everyone you post, I will post a positive account from the "Narratives"
Horrible crimes happened because of it.
Abortion is legal also, so it would seem in some States, the right to starve helpless people to death.
Because something is 'legal'doesn't make it defensible.
The 10th amendment says a State can leave the Union when it wants?
That is amazing!
Quit trying to defend Yankee Tyranny like it was a Holy Crusade. It was greed. Pure & Simple.
There is nothing Ýankee' about being against secession.
Andrew Jackson opposed it as well.
Washington and Patrick Henry both wanted to be known as Americans, not Virginians.
You need to stop clinging to a cause that is not only lost, but bad as well.
Well, fine and good.
Let the readers see the punishments meted out to the slaves, the lashings, the chains, the whips.
And then tell me about the kindness of slavery.
The right to rebel comes from the Declaration of Independence, which the Confederacy rejected.
But, even with the right, one must have a reason to rebel.
It is part of securing a "free state" as the 2nd amendment states. The "right to invade a dissenting opinion" is NOT.
A right to put down a insurrection (rebellion) is stated as right in the Constitution.
The election of a tyrannical President that 1/2 of the country didn't even have on the ballot is a good reason, and quite the emergency.
And once South Carolina seceded, Ft. Sumter was THEIR property.
"No, because it is very clear what the South had violated by making a compact with another state. "
And this happend AFTER secession.
"No it does not since they do not a right to leave the Union. "
Show me where it states that.
As pointed out MANY times before: If secession was not legal, then invading the South was against the Constitution, under Article 4, section 4.
If secession WAS legal, then the North needs to provide reason for keeping a fort (Fort Sumpter) in another country.
Either way, the South had every right to try to kick the Yankee butts off of their land. They (the Yankees) were the invading force!
There are many aspects from which the South is still recovering.
Really?
You haven't stated one.
What you are asking for is a list of grievances where the South states things along the lines of "improper tariffs" and taxes. You miss the bigger picture (and therefore the REAL reasons) for looking for a hard article.
Yes, a real grievance would be nice.
But the real reason for the secession (as pointed out by Stephens, the Confederate vice President) as that the North was not going to allow the South to spread the cancer of slavery into the new territories.
That is the 'great' heritage of the Confederacy, it got 600,000 men killed so it could spread slavery.
Save your revisionist nonsense about the Confederacy and freedom, they are an oxymoron.
"But, even with the right, one must have a reason to rebel."
This, I think, is the essence of our arguement.
So I propose this question:
Where is it stated in law, that one must have a reason for rebelion recognized by the oppressing party?
The election was constitutional.
Lincoln was not on the ballot because the Southern states would not allow a 'black' Republican on it.
Still, since the South divided the Democrat Party over slavery (not Tariffs), they were doomed to have Lincoln elected (as well as the Republican Party)
And once South Carolina seceded, Ft. Sumter was THEIR property
No, Federal property is property, owned by all the states.
Wrong-the slave states had rejected the concept of equal rights.
Equal rights are the basis for the right of self-government.
As Lincoln stated, a people who deny others self-government, do not have the right to claim self-government
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1390366/posts?page=301#301
I stated 5.
"But the real reason for the secession (as pointed out by Stephens, the Confederate vice President) as that the North was not going to allow the South to spread the cancer of slavery into the new territories."
(Again I will note, I am NOT defending slavery)
Slavery at the time was considered legal, even Constitutional. The North proceeded to take this away from the South (and ONLY the South.) Border states that followed the North were not subject to the immediate ban of slavery.
The South was being treated (by their laws and views) as second-class. They had recognized for almost 100 years that slavery was Constitutional.
Taking this away was stripping them of their (recognized) Constitutional rights.
You don't accept it on moral basis, but it was LAW.
Invading the South was NOT lawful.
"Wrong-the slave states had rejected the concept of equal rights."
Why wasn't Maryland invaded then?
Tell that to the Yankee slavers that threw hundreds of thousands of slaves overboard during the Middle Passages, and made billions selling their filthy lucre. Condemn them for shoving cork up a slaves rectum to hide their dysentary, and forcing them to sail in holds crammed together, near starvation. Condemn them for raping the women, and selling husband and wfe, mother and child separately.
Until then, anyone overlooking Northern atrocities is nothing more than another Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson poverty pimping racist shyster.
"No, Federal property is property, owned by all the states."
Mostly correct. Now, what happens when the kid with all the toys goes home?
By leaving, the South dropped all ties to the Union. The Union kept an active fort on SC soil. This made it subject to the state it was in (who claimed no "federal" connection to it)
Post the clause that PREVENTS Secession. Post the clause that requires a state to declare causes for leaving.
So?
Lincoln came into office after some of the Southern states had seceded and joined together.
"No it does not since they do not a right to leave the Union. " Show me where it states that.
It was to form a more perfect union, better then the Articles and that was meant to be a permenant one.
Lee thought the same thing regarding the Union and secession.
As pointed out MANY times before: If secession was not legal, then invading the South was against the Constitution, under Article 4, section 4.
If they are in Insurrection, it was perfectly legal.
Firing on a U.S. fort made it an Insurrection.
If secession WAS legal, then the North needs to provide reason for keeping a fort (Fort Sumpter) in another country.
Well, secession isn't legal, SC isn't another country and the fort had every right to be there.
Either way, the South had every right to try to kick the Yankee butts off of their land. They (the Yankees) were the invading force!
Well, they could try, but since they couldn't do it, the point is a mute one now isn't it?
That wasn't their land, that was American land
"If you fire on a U.S. Fort you would be in rebellion now wouldn't you? " Not if the fort was there against the will of your soveriegn state.
It is not there against anyone's will, it has a right and duty to be there.
"So the South thought it could just take armories and forts that were Federal, as if they owned them. " Federal property on MY land is subject to MY laws. Or does "no quarter" elude you?
No, Federal property is US property, which means all the States own it, not just the state it is in.
"There was no emergency situation for the formation of the Confederacy, which was in violation of the Constitution they had agreed to." As was made evident by the economic (morbid) depression the South underwent while transitioning from slavery to free. Of COURSE there was no emergency... the South was only suffocating under Northern laws. No need to get in a tiff! It's JUST the South.
That transition occured after the South lost the war, not in 1860.
Next time don't start a war you can't finish.
I bet you think "hate crimes" can only be commited against minorities. (And that their are legitimate laws that define them)
That is what is known as a Red Herring and has nothing to do with this discussion.
What you have to show is that the right is in the Constitution, I don't have to prove the negative.
Actually, you do.
Have you not heard of the 10th Amendment? It is pretty clear.....everything not covered goes back to the states and that certainly includes the right to withdraw from a union they VOLUNTARILY entered.
This may provide a clue as to why the Supreme Court refused to try Davis, Stephens, Lee et al for treason, though the radical repubbies were callijng for their heads. The simple fact is that the cause of The South would have been vindicated had Davis been given a trial and every legal mind of that time knew it.
We were right in 1861 and we are right now.
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.