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 ...
Neither is the state the good guy either.
To be in a tyrannical State is no better then to be under a tyrannical Federal government.
The State 'rights'philosophy was developed by Calhoun to counter the idea of God given rights in the Declaration of Independence, not to protect freedom.
Secession is simply revolution.
That is correct, that is the right of revolution.
And revolution must have some just cause.
So how was the North abusing the South?
Was the South represented in Government?
The only complaint the South had was that the anti-slavery movement was growing and they could not expand their despotic institution any longer.
A wonderful cause to fight for.
"Those congressmen of those states attempting to secede resigned from the Congress."
And where is the evidence that this was unlawful? Lincoln wasn't even most on the ballots in the South and he still won.
So, show me the long train of abuses by the North.
Moreover, as Lincoln stated, a people who would deny others the right of self-government, have no right to claim it for themselves.
"To be in a tyrannical State is no better then to be under a tyrannical Federal government. "
If you added "Except in a 'tyrannical' State, at least the people got what they voted on" you'd be dead on the thinking of the CSA back then.
No, Lincoln did not think that.
He states that he might not have felt the Negro his equal in many areas, but that the Negro had the same rights as any other man, and the Declaration was directed to all men.
This view of the Declaration, that it was meant only for white men, was a recent view, one pushed by Taney and Douglas.
No Founder of this nation ever suggested that the Declaration did not mean that all men were equal before God.
That slavery existed was a burden that the Founders sought to end (blaming the British King for it) by limiting slavery's growth.
If you want Lincoln's views on this, I would be happy to give you the page numbers from his writings.
There are always winners and losers in every election.
The South had more then its fair share of representation in the Federal government (2/3 rule counting slaves).
So what was their beef?
Lincoln was not on the ballots in Southern states because they did not allow it, now how is that lawful?
The Democratic Party split its own vote over the slave issue when Douglas would not give in to the slave block.
The South first seceded from the Democratic Party, then they attempted to secede from the Union and it is illegal because the Union is indivisible.
It would be no less illegal if the Northern States attempted to throw out the slave states from the Union.
"The South first seceded from the Democratic Party, then they attempted to secede from the Union and it is illegal because the Union is indivisible. "
Please, show me where it says "leaving the US is illegal" in the Constitution. People can drop US citizenship any time. It's just like any other nation in that regard.
"So what was their beef?"
What was the beef in them leaving if they had such control then?
The South wanted out. If you're going to ask me what specific cause each person wanted out FOR I couldn't say. Aside from freedom from the Fed, I have no answer. And I'm afraid noone can have an answer to it.
"No, Lincoln did not think that. "
Then he pulled a helluva lotta "Kerryism" in his speeches. The man made it VERY clear time and time again that he felt (or at least, for votes, he felt) that slavery should not be abolished entirely.
You think an individual giving up his citizenship is the same as State leaving the Union?
No nation gives the right to disolve itself, that would be anarchy.
If the South had no justification for revolution, they had no right to leave a Union they had agreed to.
Lincoln did want slavery abolished totally eventually but according to Constitutional means.
Thus, his intention was to use the same method that the Founders had used, limit its growth and thus, send it to eventual extinction.
Lincoln would uphold the Constitution and not attack slavery where it was already legal, but he and the Republican Party were adamant against any further expansion of it.
This was what the South was fighting for, the right to expand slavery-the noble cause of the Confederacy.
Hmmmm, if Davis ALLOWED more slaves to be imported, you'd simply claim he was an evil slaver. Yet he attempts to prevent the slavery of more individuals, yet you condemn his action. incoln supported PERMANENT slavery, and limiting it, then to you it was good, but Davis LIMITING slavery bad.
Personally, I think it was the action of a President that chose to abide by the Constitution.
Although I agree with you that SOME of the founding fathers may have felt that way, the prevailing thought at the time, was that negroes were not considered equal. Due to the fact that the MAJORITY of people north & south felt this way, I would think that if you had to make an assumption regarding the Declaration, that assumption would have to be that the Founders meant, white anglo-saxon types. Not just, by any means, but correct. Also, in the Speech, Lincoln made to the Illinois legislature, he certainly gave the impression he agreed with that belief...
MOST of the entire world, Africa included, held slaves. The United States of America - including the Yankee states, held slaves. The first congress' limited naturalization to whites. God had Joseph enslaved, and millions of HIS chosen people - do you condemn HIM?
There only being a handful of blacks in the territories for almost 30 years, the insistence by Lincoln keep the territories lily-white was due to Lincoln's white supremacist motivativation - to prevent whites from competing with blacks for jobs.
Secondly, Lincoln's position was opposite that of SCOTUS, who held that ALL territories weld held for common use of all the states.
That was not enough for the South, which wanted to the right to expand slavery
What part of a handful of blacks being in the territories for in 30 years do you not understand? Expansion was not the issue.
What Lincoln was suggesting was already legal and was only stating that he would uphold the Constitution,which meant that slavery where it existed would not be assaulted.
His opinion was contrary to that of the United States Supreme Court which held otherwise 7-2.
He would not allow it to expand and that was the platform of the Republican Party, to stop the expansion of slavery, not end it.
So who died and made him god? The Constitution would have to be amended to prohibit expansion.
The lies of the Southern apologists never cease.
No lies at all - historical fact easily proven.
Oh the humanity! </sarcasm>
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.