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 ...
i won't hold my breath.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
How very convenient.
he was nothing more or less than a cheap, scheming politician,of the selfsame sort as "wee willie klintoon".
free dixie,sw
Nope. You haven't shown any evidence that he is a racist.
our ancestors were/ARE correct about the damnyankees.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Yet, another article on Gun control beginning in the South.
George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal
Vol. 2 (1991): 67.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.
GUN CONTROL AND RACISM
Stefan B. Tahmassebi*
That all such free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians . . . shall appear without arms[1]
INTRODUCTION
The history of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other "unwanted elements," including union organizers and agrarian reformers. Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive action against these groups.
The first gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum South forbidding blacks, whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain blacks in their servile status. After the Civil War, the South continued to pass restrictive firearms laws in order to deprive the newly freed blacks from exercising their rights of citizenship. During the later part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, gun control laws were passed in the South in order to disarm agrarian reformers and in the North to disarm union organizers. In the North, a strong xenophobic reaction to recent waves of immigrants added further fuel for gun control laws which were used to disarm such persons. Other firearms ownership restrictions were adopted in order to repress the incipient black civil rights movement.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tahmassebi1.html
I would not say your fought to the bitter end.
Fortunately, some of the Southerners, like, Lee had more sense then that.
At least your ancestors had the guts to fight for what they believed in, all you Paleo-Confederates on these threads are about is lying about your past and what you believe in.
At least he never lied about seeing non-existant documents.
Now, why would a Paleo-Confederate care about a little thing like evidence
Now, why would a Paleo-Confederate care about a little thing like evidence
Now, why would a Paleo-Confederate care about a little thing like evidence
Sorry for the triple post.
you just can't stand the thought that lincoln was NOTHING more or less than a cheap, power-mad politician.
THAT is the SOLE problem.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
typical, self-righteous damnyankee.
why not ask m.eSPINola what he said about AIs in #645?????
did you write the "admin mod" and ask him?? NO?? i thought NOT.
i'm NOW laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
What wickedness? The fact that Abe Lincoln destroyed Constitutional Government?
You are insane. I have a right to dislike that man, and will do so.
If one believes in a cause, then it SHOULD be defended.
"because thou wert neither hot nor cold I will spew thee out of my mouth"
Sound familar?
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.