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 ...
the FIRST & MOST NOTORIOUS of the damnyankee CONCENTRATION CAMPS was at Point Lookout,MD where THOUSANDS of helpless CSA POWs & INNOCENT civilians were abused,assaulted,tortured,starved & MURDERED on a wholesale basis.
the "best guess" of the MD State Historian is that the DEAD & DISAPPERRRED at PLPOWC numbered about 15,000 people.
free dixie,sw
Then that is your decision.
As far as I can read, in Texas V. White, what was established was that since the State of Texas CLAIMED soveriegnty durring that period, they were soley responsible for their actions.
"But then again, in all fairness, there was enough blame to go around on both sides."
Agreed with the stoutest of heart!
Personally, I think these letters are on board the U-Boat on display in Galveston, next to the practical cotton harvester of the 1850s and the national HQ of the KKK.
But, just in the way of due diligence Watie, I've gone to the website for the main campus of SIU, the one at Edwardsville. I've looked at their library's listing of manuscripts in their special collections and find nothing by Lincoln. I do see that their university press has published some books of John Hay's letters. Maybe you're confusing those just as you confused a magazine article in a boating magazine 30 years ago for a scholarly book., I don't suppose you can point to anything anywhere that says SIU has a stash of Lincoln letters that have never been published, can you?
I thought not.
MacDorcha is one word too.
I just emphasized the "Damn" and the "Yankee".
free dixie,sw
about 20% of those were "persons of colour" & "the poorest of the poor whites" who were SLAUGHTERED by the invading damnyankees just because they COULD.
free dixie,sw
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners."
I read something else.
There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
I'm not sure, but doesn't seceeding constitute revolution the sense that power is lost to the Federal, and given to the Confederate?
Huh?
I think you misunderstood my post. If you didn't, then please point out where I am wrong?
I would think not, if the government agreed to cede that power to the states that were leaving. Congress admits states, I see no reason why Congress cannot vote to allow them to go.
Well, then that means the state's leaving was legal.
It applies under all the laws given by the Constitution.
No, because it was done without the consent of the other states.
The other states were not involved.
Congress and the state wishing to leave are the only ones involved in the process.
The other states were not involved.
Congress and the state wishing to leave are the only ones involved in the process.
The interests of the other states were certainly impacted by secession. There was a national debt to consider, minor by today's standards but an obligation built up by the nation as a whole when the seceding states were a part. Why should those states leaving be able to walk away from it? There were international obligations like the treaties that limited the slave trade. What was the obligation of the seceding states on that? The midwest states were dependent on the Mississippi. Cutting off access for them, like Mississippi did, certainly did involve them. To say that the southern actions affected nobody but them is completely wrong.
Congress and the state wishing to leave are the only ones involved in the process.
Congress IS the states. How else could we expect to get their approval except through a vote in Congress?
"Why should those states leaving be able to walk away from it?"
Paying a debt is one thing.
It was owed.
Seceeding is another. It is based upon the idea that the states all joined in a contract.
When the contract was broken (in their eyes) then they had no reason to stay. (And the Union had no reason to keep them)
But by saying that the states could unilaterally walk away from the Union at will you are saying that they could also walk away from their obligations at will. What was to stop them?
Seceeding is another. It is based upon the idea that the states all joined in a contract. When the contract was broken (in their eyes) then they had no reason to stay. (And the Union had no reason to keep them)
The contract was broken merely because they said it was? Why is their side automatically the right one? What if the other parties in the contract didn't think it was broken?
And if you insist that the Constitution was a mere contract, then what contract allows only one side to break it?
"The contract was broken merely because they said it was?"
No, I meant that more in the aspect of (in a more diplomatic way) the North is still refusing it's wrongs today. So I must argue from the point of the "wronged"
SC was not a soverign nation, was never a soverign nation and never will be one. Firing on the US flag is treason-simple as that!
Which two sentences do you have a problem with?
Was SC ever a sovereign nation?
Isn't firing on the nations flag an act of treason?
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.