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 ...
that's why the oath of the US military says, "all enemies foreign & domestic".
imVho, the domestic ones are MORE dangerous to FREEDOM, if only because they are harder to identify & deal with.
free dixie,sw
NOW it's time (& PAST TIME) for YOU to admit that you don't/can't KNOW how Indians feel about such RACIST SLURS.
free dixie,sw
The most dangerous foe are those willing to kill themselves, such as we have repeatedly seen in Iraq and on 9-11-01.
"The domestic ones are MORE dangerous to FREEDOM, if only because they are harder to identify & deal with", as in the current counter Islamic terrorist wars in both Afghanistan & Iraq. Once again in the last 24 hours, jihadic madmen have taken the lives of our servicemen coupled with scores of Kurds & other Iraqis.
As reluctant as I am to further bat this particular hornet's nest of a thread over a minor issue, a clarification is in order: for the record, I do not recall ever having a discussion with Tex along the lines that he believed I was somehow "erring" as a Christian.
That's all.
The fact is no matter what the average Southerner thought he was fighting for, the result of a Southern victory would have been a Slave Republic.
The Paleo-Confederates have been revising history by trying to get our eyes off the real issue, slavery, by focusing on what the average fighting man was fighting for.
I doubt the average German in WW2 was fighting to exterminate the Jews, but that would have been the result if Germany had won.
suggesting that chattel slavery was even a MAJOR reason for the WBTS is SILLY and makes the northeastern REVISIONISTS, who claim that it was the MAJOR/ONLY cause of the WBTS, look STUPID.
Your attempts to minimize the importance of slavery in the war is what is ridiculous.
Moreover, slavery was the major issue of the war, no one ever said it was the only one.
The Slave states of the South attempted secession in order to create a Slave Republic
They were the tyrants, holding 3 million people in bondage.
The links I supplied you were to articles which gave you orginal sources.
The facts are clear, the South was where gun control laws began, keeping people of color disarmed.
Your refusal to admit that fact doesn't change it.
http://users.adelphia.net/~jmscarry/USDocuments/MississippiBlackCode.html
BLACK CODE OF MISSISSIPPI (Laws of Mississippi, 1865)
In 1865 and 1866, during the battle over the Reconstruction of the South and the Union following the Civil War, several Southern states attempted to regulate the lives of the newly emancipated freedmen. These Black Codes, often thinly veiled copies of pre-war Slave Codes, set regulations for vagrancy, limited employment and travel opportunities, prohibited ownership of arms, set minimal civil rights for freedmen and established harsh fines and punishments for their violation. Most of these Black Codes were suspended by the military governors of the reconstructed states, but they prompted Congress to pursue the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment designed to protect the freedmen's civil and legal rights.
. PENAL LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI Sec.1. Be it enacted, . . . . That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine, not exceeding ten dollars, and pay the costs of such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be committed to trial in default of bail.
No, the U.S. Constitution never uses the word slavery nor does it ever specify a race intended for slavery.
As Lincoln explained, the Founders intended slavery to be temporary and once gone, it would not taint the Constitution for future generations.
BOTH the CSA & the USA had slave-OWNERS. BOTH nation's slave-OWNERS struggled to keep THEIR slaves until the 13th & 14th Amendments went into effect. The CSA intended to make slavery permanent being now viewed as good thing, not an evil that was to be ended.
That is the writing of the leaders of the deep South, who attempted secession because Lincoln was elected, a man who would not allow the expansion of slavery.
BOTH countries "traded in human flesh". the TRUTH is that ABOUT the SAME percentage of northerners AND southerners OWNED slaves.
The Truth is that the North elected Lincoln to stop the spread of slavery.
The deep South would not allow his name on the ballot.
So the North in two elections voted to have a man in power (along with Congress) to put slavery on its way to the ashbin of history.
BOTH nations were AFFLICTED by chattel slavery & NEITHER nation's hands were clean. fwiw, i am NO FAN of the slave-OWNERS on either side, though i particularly am no admirer of the southern slave-OWNERS because they FREQUENTLY COLLOBOATED with the damnyanklee invaders to keep their slaves. OBVIOUSLY slavery was MORE important to them than our dixie LIBERTY
Well, slavery was more important to the slave owners then American liberty, which they tried to destroy by splitting the Union.
We see what Dixie means by Liberty when even after slavery is outlawed the ex-confederates still tried to keep the blacks in bondage with Jim Crow laws.
It is a fact that the North winning the war made the attempts at secession null and void.
No major foreign nations recognized the Confederacy and since the insurrection was put down, the Confederacy for all intents and purposes as a nation never existed as such.
May I remind you that is a bogus argument!
Lincoln accepted most of these measures with one critical exception. Enforcement of the fugitive slave act, repeal of the personal liberty laws, even a constitutional amendment promising that slavery would abide undisturbed in Southern states he accepted. Yet the key was Republican bedrock-no expansion of slavery into the territories. When word leaked out that such a proposal might be offered, Lincoln acted quickly and forcefully. He wrote Lyman Trumball on 10 December, William Kellogg the next day, Elihu Washburn two days later, Trumball again and Thurlow Weed on the seventeenth and John Defrees the next day with one thundering message: 'let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery'"There is no possible compromise upon it'....hold firm as with a chain of steel''I will be infexiable on the territorial question'; 'If any of our friends do prove false, fix up a compromise on the territoral question, I am for fighting again-that is all"; The tug has come and better now, than any time hereafter'....faced with calls to respect and preserve order, Lincoln replied by reminding people of the moral principles of antislavery; thus he would not compromise on slavery in the territories.(The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, by Philip Shaw Pauldan, p.33-34)
Thus, this constant 'big lie'that you and your Paleo-Confederate buddies have been spreading about Lincoln, that he was going to compromise on slavery, is simply another Confederate revisionist myth.
The issue that got Lincoln elected was stopping the spread of slavery into the territories and hence, making more slave states.
This is the issue that led to the South's attempt at secession, the recognition that if no more slave states came in, slavery's days were numbered.
Really?
Slave labor worked quite well for Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Yet, another Confederate myth
The one man responsible for keeping us united was Abraham Lincoln, who the South should thank for keeping then in Union with the free principles of this nation.
A Confederate nation (Slave Republic) would have had more in common with the enemies of this nation, not its friends.
We did fight them did we not?
They were enslaving our seamen, were they not?
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.
Brazil?
Britain did attempt to stop slave traders as did the United States.
We even caught a few, but when they were put on trial in the South, they were let go due to resistance by the slave owners.
Lincoln was responsible for the hanging of the one slave trader that was hung.
I am not sure if he was from the North or South.
First, 25,000 people is not 'massive'.
Second, it is still a town.
Third, when the Ordinance went into effect, it was a town of 5,000.
"It was not meant to be an argument for the North" Then it does not address my reasons posted for being here. You wish to have a debate with me, do it on the terms I agreed to. Or I'll seceed.
The issue is where did the Gun Control Laws first begin.
They began in the South, not the North, as is commonly believed and falsely reported by the Paleo-Confederates.
The debate is over whether or not the Confederacy represented a move toward freedom or away from it.
Since, the victory of the Confederacy would have resulted in the continued enslavement of over 3 million people, and the expansion of slavery into new territories (as stated in its Constitution), the defeat of the Confederacy was a blow for freedom.
The Stars and Bars do not represent freedom, they represent tyranny.
The Stars and Stripes is the flag of free men.
All I say is pick your flag.
Why don't you show me how I provoked and baited you?
What comments were so out of line that it led to you going on an angry tirade?
Thank you.
I will do likewise.
No, Lincoln intended to end slavery, either by limiting its spread (the intention of the Founders and what he was originally elected to do) or payment for slaves (rejected by the slave border states) or an amendment to the Constitution finishing up the Emancipation Proclamation( a war measure)
Your view is too narrow-minded. Slavery wasn't morally wrong to a lot of people North & South at the time. Just because some people didn't oppose it, didn't mean they were for it. In the diary of my Texas ancestor, he speaks of defending his home from invaders, and of a new government that will help defend Texas against the Comanches. Not once is slavery mentioned.
As I said, what the average individual was fighting for is irrelevant to the political issues.
The average German soldier in WW2 would not have said he was fighting either for Hilter or Nazism, but had the Germans won, the result would have been a victory for both.
What we are discussing is the morality of the Confederate cause, a creation of a slave republic, which has slavery written explicity into its constitution as a fundamental right.
The Stars and Bars did not represent freedom, the Stars and Stripes did, and the Confederates who fought under the Stars and Bars were fighting for a wrong cause.
That doesn't distract from the heroism they displayed, but the Germans were good soldiers also, but no one considers their cause just or noble.
I have done neither.
I have not personally called you a single name.
If you have evidence of the contrary, please produce it.
Erring in what?
Speaking the truth?
I have not called you a name either (which you cannot say the same, having called me a moron).
I have explained my side very rationally and calmly.
Now, if you have any posts that indicate otherwise please post them.
I have not gone off in a rant as you and your friends have.
As for getting me thrown off FR, I think you overestimate your power.
I think you have to have a little thing like evidence to prove that I have said something out of line to you.
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.