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 ...
Anybody who could say that slavery is not theft is simply lying to defend the undefendable.
The Bible states that the the labourer is worthy of his hire (Lk.10:7, 1Tim.5:18) and you want to come back with some nonsense that using a man's labor against his will, while giving him enough to barely survive on, is not stealing?
THINK SON! And READ Leviticus. Theft and Slavery are seperate. Treatment of slaves is different from ownage of slaves. God's Word is His Word.
Funny, how Leviticus is brought up to justify slavery but not Deuteronomy which stated very clearly that an escaped servant was not to be returned to his master.
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee (Deut.23:15).
Did Deut. stop the slavers from demanding that the North return their 'property'?
I DO NOT EXCUSE SLAVERY! I simply know that slavery is NOT a sin, thus says the Lord our God.
You do excuse slavery and that was the appeal that the South made, using theological arguments such as yours to lend creditability to their racist views.
If you enslaved someone today, that would be a sin.
Many men had slavery thrust upon them due to the circumstances of the day, but they had a responsibility to do what they could to end it, not defend it as a positive good.
Take YOUR half-baked ideas back to DU.
So, being against slavery is a 'half-baked'idea?
No, the idea that you would consider yourself a conservative and advance the slave republic's defense of slavery is what is the real threat to conservatism.
I hope you don't regard yourself as a Republican-the Party of Lincoln.
Before you get angry, I would urge you to read the Confederate Constitution and see what the Confederacy was fighting for-the creation of a slave republic.
If that doesn't work, then read Andrew Stephens, Cornerstone speech in which he states that the right of slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederate States.
What does that have to do with stopping people from owning guns?
You are going to bring up some little town as if that represents something?
It is meaningless as to relating to where gun control laws began-in the South.
Democrats were in control when it came out,
When what came out?
AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN: my purpose on this thread is NOT to excuse the South, but to show that the North was NOT Holier than a fly's ass at that point. Excuse the North if you want to get anywhere with me.
The fact is that the Gun control laws were begun in the South.
So the notion that the South represented constitutional freedoms is simply a myth.
Well, I think the fewer places that have slavery the better.
I don't recall who asked it (may have been Rush) of a black American (Militant Black Panther, just so we are clear) but here's the question: Would you (as a black person) be BETTER or WORSE off- having been descended from slaves in America- than if you still lived in Africa? YES, slavery is evil. But some people's lives ARE better now for it. I do NOT excuse it, but it must be known by yourself that "the world is better for it" is NOT a viable excuse if we were talking from the morality of the time. Monday Night Football isn't how we judge our actions' wisdom. It's in the moment we do so or before.
If the North had not won the war and defeated the slave republic, those same Blacks might well be slaves today.
Also, the major slave traders have been Islamic and they enslaved Whites as well as Blacks.
That is why we fought them in the Barbary wars.
Fighting against those who would enslave others is what makes this nation unique in the world.
The CSA was never recognized as a legitimate nation by any other major power.
The CSA (or the Slave Republic) was simply a failed insurrection against the legitimate Constitution of the United States.
Sorry to crash the party, guys: I know there is an genuine, heartfelt attempt to "cool" things down in this thread by the more sensible participants.
But such tripe as this is difficult to resist; it kinda sums the matter up, in a generic Ignoratio Elenchi sort of way, and tends to say it all...
(*All emphases added by AJC)
I have read both. I have told you before that some of the leaders WERE for slavery. Stephens to be sure. I would point out that the Confederate Constitution prohibited the import of slaves, just as the US Constitution did. You still haven't answered the question in my last post regarding my ancestors. Why would they fight, being ranchers in a non-slave, non-agriculture area. To most of the average Southerners, it was a matter of fighting the invader.
HA! ROTFL! :)
"That is why we fought them in the Barbary wars. "
Did you just say the Barbary Wars were fought over slavery?
Next thing you'll tell me, we fought Germany in WWII because they had the Holocaust.
Let us put aside what the average Southerner was fighting for.
We are looking at what the Confederation stood for.
It did ban the importation of slaves, but that was only due to the desire to get foreign recognition from England who was going after slave traders.
There was a strong move to renew the slave trade and no slave traders caught were ever convicted by the Southern states.
The Confederate Constitution would allow the expansion of slavery into any new territory, which is what the war was about.
The slave states refused to be limited in slave expansion.
The Confederate Constitution wrote Negro slavery into it as an explicit right.
To fight for that Constitution was to fight for slavery.
"You are going to bring up some little town as if that represents something? "
"little town"? BWAHAHAHA. Now I KNOW you have no clue what you're talking about.
Be gone, you're lack of knowledge betrays you.
"Anybody who could say that slavery is not theft is simply lying to defend the undefendable."
::sigh:: I give in, you're right. I'm a nail-biting, slavery touting, KKK-loving bigot who wants all inferior races to be subject forever and ever to whitey. All I ask is that you let me be such and own one slave. Just one. It's all I ask.
(knocks out a few teeth, covers self in dirt, puts on a straw hat, and hits self in the head till IQ drops to the double digits)
There, now I'm conforming to your opinion of me. Happy?
"The CSA was never recognized as a legitimate nation by any other major power."
And besides France (self-serving at the time) who recognized the USA as a nation before the end of the Revolutionary War?
I understand the atempt to cool things here. I also understand that forthe is batiing me.
I'll try to chill, but something is going to have to be said to forthe before he'll stop accusing people of both ignorance and racism.
You consider this large?
The town of Kennesaw GA, with almost twice the population of Loris, has crime levels below the national averages for personal and total crime, whereas the Town Proper of Loris has twice the national averages. Kennesaw is the fourth lowest crime town in the United States since the above noted ordinance was passed. In the towns surrounding Kennesaw, crime has mushroomed since 1982 (when the ordinance was passed), whereas Kennesaw's continues to lower into the single digits Kennesaw National Average Population: 25,183 http://www.deadbangguns.com/Kennesaw/index.html
I notice that article still calls Kennesaw a town.
The fact is that the Gun control laws were begun in the South. " And *how* is that an arguement FOR the North?
It was not meant to be an argument for the North, just a correction on the view that the South is the baston of constitutional liberties, when in fact, the only liberties that the pre-Civil War South and the Jim Crow South were concerned with were White man liberties.
Well, at least you are back in form, ranting and raving.
I believe Spain did as well.
I think Holland also.
But France was enough.
I've got you on my 'insane bozo #3lunatic' filter, but this is over the top. The US did not wage war with the Barbary pirates over slavery. President Jefferson fought them after the >>>>>> pirates <<<<<< (the pasha of Tripoli) declared war on the US, demanded tribute payments, later held US sailors for $60,000 ransom each.
Fighting against those who would enslave others is what makes this nation unique in the world.
Ludicrous, inane comment #2. Great Britain amd Brazil both fought against and stopped yankee slavers.
4 times the national average; and you consider it "some little town"
Town yes, but it's massive.
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.