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 ...
Slavery should not have existed in this country. How many years did slavery occur under our flag? Who owned the ships that brought the slaves to our country? Where were the slave markets located? Where were the textile mills located? What do you think would have happened if the South chose to sell it's cotton to Europe instead of to the North? Do you think the Big Money interest would allow that to happen? How could they prevent the South from doing that? Do you actually think that wars have not been started over less?
The North fought over slavery, Most Southrons did not.
The South did not want to see slavery limited and put on it's way to extinction, as the Founders intended.
The South had begun to fight for slavery as positive good (as many on these threads have already done so) instead of an evil that had to be ended, while keeping the Union intact.
Bouvier Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th ed. (1856): 'NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.'
I win, you lose, so long, farewell, goodbye.
No colony was considered an independent nation and thus, no state can leave the union and become a non-state, which is what it would be if it left the Union.
Name a clause of the Constitution PROHIBITING secession. I win, you lose, so long, farewell, goodbye.
Even in the Confederacy, they were considered states not individual nations.
See above, 'Nations or states are independent bodies.' I win, you lose, so long, farewell, goodbye.
And the Confederacy is in violation of making compacts with other states
Wrong. They seceded, which is NOT prohibited. I win, you lose, so long, farewell, goodbye.
Hey, at least it's Friday.
In the context we are concerned with, secession (from the Latin 'secedere' meaning 'to withdraw') - is a legal action, the renunciation/recission of a prior act. The slaves of Egypt, Africa America, Europe etc had no legal agreemnet to secede from.
You do here.
Wrong, only an idiot would think the Confederacy rejected the principles of the Declaration. You seem to be obtuse or simply ignorant, but the colonies did have slaves PRIOR to the Declaration. Afterwards, the states still had legalized slavery, including YANKEE states. Yankees sailed to Africa to puchase/steal slaves. Yankees used slaves, but even slaves had scruples, and didn't want to be associated with yall.
The DoI was not a document recognizing the political equality of races, or else slavery would have been abandoned and overthrown - it was not. We are all one race, sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, but the founders did not share our enlightened views on race. The equality refrred to was the belief that any man could rule, one did not have to be 'royalty'. The Declaration what it says it is - a declaration of INDEPENDENCE from Britain.
To that end, the Confederacy's secession did represent freedom, freedom for the people of those states from overweening, hysterical, hypocritical, pompous, arrogant yankees like you.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Neither does perpetual, permanent, or irrevocable.
I win, you lose, so long, farewell, goodbye.
Since no State ever functioned as a Nation, the colonies were States not Natons.
The word can be as used as synonyms but can also differ, if function
is considered.
So unless you go show me when any of the 13 colonies functioned as a nation, having its own foreign policy, for example, they are states as in their function in relatonship to one another.
Still more word games.
That is your opinion. I have mine. Read a little about the history of the cotton industry in the era before the War between the States.
"The Declaration never declared anything about secession, it claimed the right of revolution. "
Cite to both your reasoning, and a noted difference in the Constitution between the two.
"No, we put down an insurrection."
I don't beliee that addressed the "attacked natives" aspect.
Please, do tell me more about that. I am DYING to hear the rationalization that the North was indeed sin-free, and morally superior to the South in all it's actions.
FTD-"I haven't heard anyone brag about anything."
FTD-"You lost a war over 140 years ago and you are still crying about it!"
Oh, of COURSE. What was I thinking? The second comment right there was a completely provoked comment.
(Hint: THAT bragging)
"Well, you were arrogant to think that you could win, and should not have revolted."
(And THAT bragging too.)
If people based their morals on if they thought they could win, we would indeed ALL be DamnYankees.
Might does NOT make right. Right does NOT make might. Get over it, you can't stand the fact the someone else had a romantic cause to die for, and you didn't. Even though they were fighting you.
"They were never sovereign independent nations, when they came to together to form the Confederacy. "
They sure as hell LEFT the Union with such power.
And again: upon leaving the Union, they were no longer subject to the Constitution it was twisting.
I guess "nation-state" eludes you. No biggie. Just know they can exist. You'll go further.
"The ones who were wronged were the 3million plus slaves."
And the additional slaves in the North that weren't immediately freed. And the continuation of segregation on both parts for a few generations following.
Again: The South did as it saw was right, and the North did as it saw was right.
Make no confussion, that is at my heart.
However: the South was not morally inferior to the North. And I have been arguing THAT for 500+ threads now.
SORRY!
free dixie,sw
"The South had begun to fight for slavery as positive good (as many on these threads have already done so)"
Again: Cite your assertion.
No worries, I suspected that was the case :)
Memembers of the UN are called "States" but they each enact their own foreign policy.
States are governments. Nations are a people with a bond in Identity.
One is government, the other is society.
We are an American society (similar identity to all other Americans) with out own State governments. Including a Federal government, made of the States.
any of the commonwealths or bodies politic, each more or less independent as regards internal affairs, which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America or the Commonwealth of Australia.
so was/IS TEXAS. also, PERHAPS, California. (BOTH were REPUBLICS at the time they were admitted to the union.)
FREE STATES created the union. they can just as easily OPT OUT of the union, should the union become tyrannical AGAIN.
free dixie,sw
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.