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 ...
"A construction worker is paid for his labor."
And slaves are given room and board. Do read the remainder of my posts please. They are one statement for a reason.
" However, they are still deprived of their right to sell their labor as they see fit."
And how many members of the construction crew get to choose who buys the buildings they make? Or what buildings they make? I'm willing to bet a conservative construction crew memeber or two was involved in abortion clinic construction at some point in their lives.
"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?"
Ever heard of "imminent domain"?
"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."
Fool. Did you intentionally mis-read the part where I mentioned the room and board for slaves? Construction workers don't get free-anything. Just because it isn't cash, doesn't mean it isn't payment.
"You bet it is 'poorly' that means that their labor is being stolen. "
I'll keep that in mind if we ever talk about taxes.
"They do not get back fair compensation for their time."
And who would dictate what "fair" is? If you have an aswer for what "fair" is, I promise you're drinking the same water as Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson.
"That is exactly what you are doing by saying that slavery is not theft of one's property. "
I'm getting rather tired of your baseless "wisdom"
You're full of it, and you know it too.
"You asked for a scriptural basis against slavery, I gave you several."
And I gave you several countering that, and why your translations were wrong. Get over it. You lost.
And stop stating I'm defending slavery. I'm defending the point that you are wrong. Slavery happens to be the topic.
And as a response to your "would YOU liek to be a slave?" question I ask this: Would you like to be a slave-owner? I wouldn't. Can you honestly answer the same? It seems you have some fixation on the matter. We will see.
"No, the colonies had a legimate reason to rebel. "
You aren't grasping what I said: If "for the sake of unity" is just cause for figthing, then the Brits had "just cause" to fight us then. If "for the sake of unity" makes the fight just, then King George was right to pursue a fight with us.
"The South attempted to destroy what she had no right to destroy, the Union."
That's like saying that in a company that was formed by 5 guys, 2 of them have "no right" to leave and form their own company.
"Far more moral then keeping 3 millions slaves in bondage and then crying about your right to self-government."
In 1860, Kentucky alone had 225,000 slaves. Don't quote numbers here in hopes of sounding important. From here, your's is but a whimper.
Are you going to respond? Or just laugh?
Refute it. Don't scoff. Come up with the facts.
"That is historical fact, the first gun control laws were in the South. "
I'll note you carefully omit the idea that we since learned from that.
Kennesaw (the area I live in) was the first to enact a gun law the forced people to own them.
Look up time periods since 1865. You might find something insightful. Who knows. You may even figure out that we aren't dumb hicks.
Lol! Is that anything like eminent domain...?
heh, I was being series! I'm stuned that such a mistake could be made! (beeber)
Thanks for the realignment!
Yes, I would agree. We should get one, and it should be nowhere near the 4th in either time or importance. But it should be there.
Of course, then the Yankees will want their own day off. Dunno why. It's too damned cold up there to celebrate anything anyway. But I suppose we could give them a day off too.
I know! We'll call it a "Snow Day" and then they can actually do what you're supposed to do on a snow day; take it easy and be with family! (DamnYankees settling down and enjoying life for a day? We might get Hitlary out of office if we keep up such revolutionary thoughts!)
No, the sole problem is that Lincoln was a great man and that is what you and your Paleo-Confederate buddies cannot stand.
You consider saying that you guys have no evidence for your charges against Lincoln, stupid, hate-filled and ignorant?
You really do have only one oar in the water, don't you!
First, Lincoln did not destroy constitutional government, he preserved it.
Second, talking about the Southern bullet that killed him is indicative of the spirit that infects you Paleo-Confederates-hate.
You are insane. I have a right to dislike that man, and will do so.
Disliking someone and talking about the bullet that killed him are poles apart-as you well know.
If the cause is just, which yours is not.
Bringing in Scripture to defend those who were fighting for the expansion of slavery is a bit too much.
You consider the 'room and board' a slave got-payment for his work?
And you call me a fool?
"You bet it is 'poorly' that means that their labor is being stolen. " I'll keep that in mind if we ever talk about taxes.
You compare taxes (paying for Gov't services) the same as being a slave?
"They do not get back fair compensation for their time." And who would dictate what "fair" is? If you have an aswer for what "fair" is, I promise you're drinking the same water as Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson.
Fair is what a free labor market would allow.
"That is exactly what you are doing by saying that slavery is not theft of one's property. " I'm getting rather tired of your baseless "wisdom"
Nothing baseless about it, slavery is stealing, getting someone to work you for you that does not want to with the threat of the lash or death.
Nice system you are defending there.
You're full of it, and you know it too.
I am?
"You asked for a scriptural basis against slavery, I gave you several." And I gave you several countering that, and why your translations were wrong. Get over it. You lost.
And you retort is that slavery isn't theft?
You call that a reply?
No sane man alive would believe that nonsense.
Of course, you would not want to be a slave, even though your room and board were provided for now would you?
Of course not!
It is indeed amazing how insane people will get when defending an evil cause, like the Confederacy.
And stop stating I'm defending slavery. I'm defending the point that you are wrong. Slavery happens to be the topic.
Of course you are defending slavery!
You are trying to justify what cannot be justified, all in the name of the cause
And as a response to your "would YOU liek to be a slave?" question I ask this: Would you like to be a slave-owner? I wouldn't. Can you honestly answer the same? It seems you have some fixation on the matter. We will see.
No, I would not be a slave or own one.
That is why I know Lincoln was right when he crushed your Southern rebellion.
Black people weren't ordered to be armed, that is for sure.
As for being a dumb hick, you used the words, I didn't.
"If the cause is just, which yours is not."
(Setting aside the arguement on whether the South had such a "just cause" or not at the moment)
You are yet to establish that secession requires a "just cause" to be Constitutional, or even Biblical. You are also yet to establish what "just cause" the North had in invading. The South made no attempts to assimilate the North, why did they (the North) attack it (the South)?
Trust me, the Confederates that fought and died were fighting for a cause. The Yankees recognized this durring battles. Many wrote home about it (as has been discussed earlier in this thread)
And no: "slavery" was not on their "to die for" list. If it were, we'd still have that sentiment today. (Another fact you ignore)
It depends upon your point of view. I believe Booth was carrying out an assassination ordered by the Confederate Government. A covert act. Therefore justified.
Black people weren't ordered to be armed, that is for sure.
EVERYBODY was ordered! Black, White, Polka Dots. The law called for anybody who moved into Kennesaw to own a gun. Period.
Again, look it up. You might actually (gasp upon gasp!) LEARN!
I will tell you one more time, because apparently you STILL haven't got it: SLAVERY WAS WRONG, and IS WRONG. The only thing I have ever questioned is the way it was abolished. It should have been done gradually. And my ancestors, and most of the soldiers were fighting for other reasons. Therefore, their cause was just. THAT is what I am defending, not slavery. Scripture is appropriate.
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.