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 ...
free dixie,sw
he will NOT say if is he IS or IS NOT a racist. i simply asked him to say, YES or NO.
you decide for yourself.
free dixie,sw
there are NO "neo-confederates".
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
YOOHOO! are you out there??
did you ask the "admin mod" to read #645.
come clean, you did NOT even ask, did you???
my belief is that you don't want to admit that MANY damnyankees are ALSO RACISTS & ANTISEMITES!
free dixie,sw
With a few exceptions, up until sometime in the mid-20th century, the majority of workers in every state in the Union worked in agriculture. However, the very tariffs that you decry were one of the main reasons behind America's shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy (with all of the attendant increases in standard of living that such a shift brought about).
So, not only was the South's belief that tariffs were unfairly applied incorrect, for the long-term development of the country such a view would have been highly detrimental.
Nonsense. A construction worker is paid for his labor. A construction worker would be a slave if he were forced to construct a building and not be paid for such construction.
A person's labor is their property. Anyone who is forced to give that property to another without renumeration is robbed of that property.
The slaves get "compensated" (albeit poorly) for their labor with room and board.
Perhaps. However, they are still deprived of their right to sell their labor as they see fit. If you were forced by force of law to allow someone else to live in your home in exchange for a sum that was far less than the value of such lodging, would you consider yourself robbed?
I'm quite aware of the fact that there are racists and anti-semites in the North, just as there are in the South.
Unlike you, I'm able to look at people living in my part of the country with an objective eye.
Not in our lifetimes it won't.
But I am glad you have come out of the closet, so to speak.
Yes, he gave his life for his nation.
In the end, the Union was preserved because of his great fortitude and courage.
Your wickedness is being exposed with every post-just keep right on posting.
Well, I figured even a Paleo-Confederate would be able to understand not getting paid for his work, but I guess I overestimated your intelligence.
Slaves do not get the fruits of their labor, the construction worker gets paid for the time he puts in.
The slaves get "compensated" (albeit poorly) for their labor with room and board.
You bet it is 'poorly' that means that their labor is being stolen.
The defining aspect of "slavery" is that they have no freedom. Not owning stuff just makes them poor. Tons of people don't own stuff, despite work.
No, the defining aspect of slavery is that they do not reap what they sow.
They do not get back fair compensation for their time.
Keep on lying, keep revealing the real nature of the Paleo-Confederates.
The fact is you would not want to be slave, so why do you defend slavery? WTF? Do you just ignore my words after you post them then put your own words up instead? I'm not defending slavery! Quit saying I do! That's slanderous!
That is exactly what you are doing by saying that slavery is not theft of one's property.
When did I argue that "cause" you hold to so much? The one about slavery. If we believed such down here, don't you think we'd be arguing it? Get your head out of that hole before you fart and die of noxious gasses.
The only reason the South cannot argue for slavery is because the North ended it.
If the South had won, you would be defending right now, as you and the rest of your Neo-Confederate buddies have attempted to do.
You asked for a scriptural basis against slavery, I gave you several.
Slavery is harming ones neighbor, which we are not suppose to do (Rom.13:10).
So stop putting up your phony defenses of slavery.
Keep up trying to change history.
That is all the 'lost cause' has left.
No, the colonies had a legimate reason to rebel.
So, what reason did the South have for its rebellion?
It was represented in Congress and had no reason to attempt to secede.
Does preservation of a union make a war Constitutional? Or even moral?
The South attempted to destroy what she had no right to destroy, the Union.
The Civil War was both legal and moral.
Far more moral then keeping 3 millions slaves in bondage and then crying about your right to self-government.
The South was a police state before the Civil War because of slavery.
The South was a democratic controlled area due to its rejection of the Republican Party (the party of Lincoln) and supported every liberal Democrat that came along until Goldwater, who did not vote for the civil rights act.
Ever wonder why so many of us today are gun-enthusiests? It's because our pappy learned from his pappy that personal security was a sure route to political freedom.
For the white man that is.
Not for the black man, who the Southerners made sure was disarmed so he could not resist your lynch mobs.
That is historical fact, the first gun control laws were in the South.
What you are doing is using the elitetist's self-serving logic to argue against the common person's logic (the one's who did the fighting).
What I am doing is using historical facts, which you have to ignore to cling to the lies of the Confederacy.
See post 561.
And we are suppose to believe that these letters exist because you say so?
LOL! free dixie,sw
Funny, that is not what Lincoln's second inaugural address states.
And I think Lincoln was in a better position to know what the North was fighting for.
And Paleo-Confederate is different in what way?
Do you see how far these guys will go to defend the South?
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.