Posted on 07/09/2002 7:38:15 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
RICHMOND - Jeff Ellett has had his new, Confederate license plate on his red-and-gray pickup for about three weeks now, and it's attracted plenty of attention.
Positive attention, that is.
``I've had people at work, or on the street, or in shopping centers ask about it,'' Ellett said. ``Now it has caused some of these people to say, 'Let me see if I have any Confederate ancestors, so I can get the plates.'''
Applications for membership in the Virginia chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans have more than tripled since the group won the right to display the rebel flag on specialty state license plates this spring, organization says. Only members of the group, who are descendants of Confederate veterans, are eligible to display the plates.
``They are proud of their heritage and they want to display the flag,'' said Michael D. Kendrick, a recruiter for the group's Virginia chapter, who has received 40 to 50 application requests a week since the plates began appearing.
The group has about 3,200 members in Virginia. A spokeswoman with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles said the agency had issued 550 such plates as of
July 2.
Frank Earnest, quartermaster of the SCV's Virginia Division, said the new plates also are an added incentive for potential applicants who must dig through old records to produce proof of their ancestry.
``The ones who have to do more research get motivated by the fact that they can get the plates,'' Earnest said.
The group's state commander, Brag Bowling, said the flurry of applications also is typical of every time the Sons of Confederate Veterans is involved in a public squabble over what they consider to be their rights.
``Because people don't like to hear that their heritage is less meaningful than anyone else's,'' Bowling said. ``It makes people mad, and that helps our organization grow.''
Virginia's decision this spring not to fight the courts ended its three-year legal battle to stop the Sons of Confederate Veterans from displaying its logo on license plates.
The SCV sued Virginia in 1999 after the General Assembly approved a plate for the organization but refused to allow the group's logo, which features a Confederate flag. Some legislators argued that the flag represents bigotry.
But U.S. District Judge Jackson L. Kiser ruled in favor of the group in January 2001, on the grounds that Virginia's refusal to issue the tag because of its Confederate flag logo amounted to discrimination against the SCV, and violated the group's right to free speech.
The state maintained that the license plates constitute public speech and the state had the right to regulate which groups and designs are allowed on plates that represent Virginia.
But a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Kiser's ruling this spring. A few days later, state officials announced their decision not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
``You cannot suppress a powerful symbol,'' Bowling said.
Owen Yates was one of the first to put in for the plates, even before the issue was settled in the courts. He is so careful with them that he has enclosed them in a locking plastic holder to keep them safe.
``I'm proud of my ancestors; they fought for the state,'' said Yates, an SCV member who works as a consultant at the DuPont plant south of Richmond. ``It was a different time. People had lots of loyalty for the states.''
He added: ``But then, I'm from the old school. I want to go back to the '50s, when I didn't know we had a racial problem.''
That was an act of a military governor during military governorship of a rebel state, which is quite different from a situation in which the President of the Confederacy was threatening to shoot Confederate women. By the way, before the war, Benjamin Butler was a Democrat who backed Jefferson Davis for President in 1860.
Thank you for illustrating that the "War Between The States" was not about slavery. It was indeed about the ill-informed, insipid opinions and beliefs evidenced by your post.
As the Mississippi secessionists put it:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery..."
I've been a member of FreeRepublic much longer than you Twod and my credentials as a principled defender of liberty are well established, whereas Confederate glorifiers like you clearly do not belong on any forum with the word "free" in its name.
And that position was States' Rights. Thanks again for proving my point that it was the elitist ignorant arrogance of people such as yourself that was the cause of the war.
Actually, the secessionists complained bitterly about Northern states asserting their right to not assist slaveholders with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. Moreover, the Confederate Constitution prohibits any state from abolishing slavery. So much for "states' rights" as a Civil War issue.
No combatant of the time was prepared to die for the continuance or the abolition of slavery as being the ONLY reason for taking up arms.
Thanks again for proving the point that it was states' rights. Northern states could "assert" their rights but not Southern states.
As Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest said: "If we ain't fightin' fer slavery then I'd like to know what we are fightin' fer."
Any of you desiring to obtain legitimate Confederate citizenship, log-on to www.csagov.org and visit your respective state to sign up for citizenship in the restored Confederacy.
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.