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 ...
Lincoln put down an armed insurrection, just like Washington did when he put down the Whiskey rebellion.
After the war was over?
What justification could there be for that?
A pure act of vengence.
This was not during Reconstruction now was it?
Thus the Kennesaw issue is totally irrevelant to the discussion of gun control laws being put into place to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.
I mean after the Jim Crow laws were in effect, you couldn't have blacks going around armed now could you?
Who knows? nevertheless, Lincoln was snuffed. Now the real issue here is that you don't like the fact that I think it was justified. But I am quite sure that if Kilpatrick's rid on Richmond and the plans to assasinate the Confederate Cabinet had been carried out, you wouldn't shed a tear.
Oh, I read what you wrote.
But, as I said, you used the words, not me and what I consider you and your Paleo-Confederate buddies is far more severe then simple dumb hicks.
When Lincoln ordered his Army to cross the Potomac, he invaded the South. Virginia had seceded, therefore it was an invasion.
Who knows what?
The war was over and killing Lincoln had no effect on the war.
No, I think the Confederate gov't should have been tried for treason, not murdered.
No, SC is part of the United States.
Lincoln was putting down the insurrection.
"Of course you are defending slavery!"
God, you may not be a "racist" in terms of color, but you sure as hell think little of the Southern mind. You refuse to accept my arguments, just to hold on to your little idea that somebody hates while you don't.
Theft:
Synonyms: steal, purloin, filch, snitch, pilfer, cop, 2hook, swipe, lift, pinch
These verbs mean to take another's property wrongfully, often surreptitiously.
Property? Not services? Well, hot damn!
Lev 25:44-46
DIRECT address on (bond)slavery of other nationalities.
And no, I do not argue that we should have them, only that the Bible does no explicitly discourage it. (And therefor, that you are wrong.)
"You consider the 'room and board' a slave got-payment for his work?"
Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking? I mean... FOOD? A home? That's obviously not payment! We all deserve food and a home! "Being fed" and "living in a house" are all guarantees of the Constitution!..
Wait, no they aren't.
Second that!
(and it bears repeating)
"No, I think the Confederate gov't should have been tried for treason, not murdered."
THERE'S a liberal response if there ever was one!
"He was our enemy, he killed our leader. Don't shoot him, heavens no! Try him in the court of law!"
On another thread, he insults H. K. Edgerton - a black man who supports the Confederacy, who marched thousands of miles to educate revisionists and brainwashed folks like M. Espinola . On that thread, M. Espinola wrote, 'I feel sorry for that man, considering the real racists at the so-called 'Southern law center' are taking advantage of him in his apparent confusion.'
M. Espinola insinutes that a Southern black man is dumb and ignorant. Espinola's view are that of Dems, that blacks are good only for voting the party line, and then when necessary, even too dumb to be able to read and cast a ballot. His position is exactly the smae of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Al Gore and John F'n Kerry. Espinola's racist views of Native Americans and blacks is the same as that of dims.
"The North did not ínvade'the South."
Oh, OK. Now that we got it clear that the South (outside of US borders at the time) was an "armed insurrection" let me ask this: did they seceed, or didn't they?
They didn't ask for a bloody war to gain independence, but they got one that took it from them.
"Thus the Kennesaw issue is totally irrevelant to the discussion of gun control laws being put into place to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. "
And this statement is irrelevant to the posts between this one and the first one involving "gun control"
I responded to your claims about gun-control. Had your state been "superior morally" they would have inacted such a law durring the reconstruction.
The fact that they are given the bare necessities to survive doesn't change the fact that they are robbed of the value of their labor. If a slave's labor was really only worth room and board, they would not be slaves in the first place- why would anyone enslave a person and then pay them the actual worth of their labor? No, the slave's labor is worth more than just room and board. By keeping the slave in bondage, the owner is able to steal the difference between the actual worth of the slave's labor and the trifling amount that the owner expends on room and board.
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.
Every construction worker is free to reject a job if they do not like the eventual owner of the building or the purpose that the building will be used for. A slave, on the other hand, has no ability to quit or refuse to do a certain job.
Ever heard of "imminent domain"?
The government taking your property for a public use (and paying full market value, BTW) is quite different from the hypothetical situation I brought up.
It is mind-boggling to me that you are trying to make the argument that slavery does not involve theft.
And who would dictate what "fair" is?
Two free people bargaining without duress in order to agree upon compensation for services.
That is clearly not the situation when one of the persons involved owns the other.
It is mind-boggling to me that you are trying to make the argument that slavery does not involve theft.
"Theft" is of property. The only thing being "taken" is freedom, which is not guaranteed in the Bible, and (bonded)slavery is actually incouraged in Leviticus 24:55.
God would have made the connection between theft and slavery if it indeed existed. It does not.
(And because I KNOW I have to say it: I am NOT advocating slavery, only pointing out the fallacy in the arguements provided to me.)
"Two free people bargaining without duress in order to agree upon compensation for services. "
And if the first needs money for rent, while the other refuses to pay such a price? The first could claim "it's not fair, I need this and I provided a service" while the other can say "the price isn't fair for it's worth"
Again: define "fair"
If you have an answer, you are drinking the same water as Jesse Jackson.
OK..then I think Lincoln was killed for being a Dictator & Usurping the Constitution.
Your True colors are showing.
As of Dec 1860, South Carolina was NOT in the Union.
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.