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 ...
Well, you are going against your own source.
Thank you.
I did not think it had to be explained in detail.
Do you enjoy living in denial of facts?
Anthony Burns--Capture of A Fugitive Slave This is a portrait of fugitive slave Anthony Burns, whose arrest and trial in Boston under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 incited riots and protests by white and black abolitionists and citizens of Boston in the spring of 1854. The portrait is surrounded by scenes from his life, including his sale on the auction block, escape from Richmond, Virginia, capture and imprisonment in Boston, and his return to a vessel to transport him to the South. Within a year after his capture, abolitionists were able to raise enough money to purchase Burns's freedom.
Then they should have left BEFORE Texas seceded, or refugeed. They didn't, and should have been treated as prisoners of war, but it didn't work out that way.
Once Texas seceded, they were traitors.
Their are plenty of Governments that are not democracies, or Constitutional. If you get right down to it, our PRESENT government is not constitutional.
That doesn't mean it isn't a valid government.
There are other examples where LOCAL authorities defied the Feds, and the Feds backed down.
I just believe that it is more likely to have happened.
The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment developed a greater willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control laws, is Texas.(emphasis added)
In Cockrum v. State (Tex. 1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state's authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie knives, but could not prohibit their carry. [ Cockrum v. State , 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402, 403 (1859).]
Yet, by 1872, in English v. State, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions - and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid.(emphasis added) [ English v. State , 35 Tex. 473, 475 (1872).]
What caused the dramatic change? The following excerpt from the English decision reveals how racism permeated legal thinking: (emphasis added)
The law under consideration has been attacked upon the ground that it was contrary to public policy, and deprived the people of the necessary means of self-defense; that it was an innovation upon the customs and habits of the people, to which they would not peaceably submit... We will not say to what extent the early customs and habits of the people of this state should be respected and accommodated, where they may come in conflict with the ideas of intelligent and well-meaning legislators. A portion of our system of laws, as well as our public morality, is derived from a people the most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and derivation of its own system. Spain, at different periods of the world, was dominated over by the Carthagenians, the Romans, the Vandals, the Snovi, the Allani, the Visigoths, and Arabs; and to this day there are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws and customs of each of these nations blended together in a system by no means to be compared with the sound philosophy and pure morality of the common law. [ English v. State , 35 Tex. 473, 479, 480 (1872).] [emphasis added]
Throughout the South during the post-war period, the existing precedents that recognized a right to open carry under state constitutional provisions and the Second Amendment were being narrowed, or simply ignored. The apparent goal of such laws was to intimidate the freedmen into an economically subservient position. By making the freedmen defenseless, employers could be more confident that intimidation would keep their hired hands "in line."(emphasis added) http://www.gunownersalliance.com/racism.htm
No, the Texans who attempted to secede were the traitors.
The locals may have backed down, but the Federal gov't was determined that the law was going to be obeyed.
Lincoln stated that he would enforce it also.
Once again, the South had nothing to complain about.
Well, you can believe what you like, but there is no evidence linking either Lincoln or Stanton to any plot to kill Confederate leaders.
Every renactment of the battles of the war will have to end with the Confederacy defeated.
That is history.
You mean if they oppose the Confederacy they are Damnyankees.
At the beginning of the war, slavery was legal in many areas and Lincoln did not believe he had any Constitutional right to interfere with it where it was.
It was stopping it's expansion into the new territories that Lincoln was pledged to do, which would have eventually ended slavery.
Lincoln was not elected to end slavery but to stop its growth.
The Confederate Constitution makes it very clear what the Confederates intended to do with slavery.
Andrew Stephens made that very clear also in his Cornerstone speech.
What you want to deny the reality of what the Confederacy stood for and was fighting for which was the enslavement of millions of people.
A very noble goal indeed.
The numbers were no where near 50,000.
I gave the numbers in an earlier post.
The North did have a higher proportion of Confederate POW deaths to Northern deaths, but in terms of total numbers they were close to one another, in the mid 25,000 range.
Heyworth did a good job on explaining it.
Thank you.
you are the king of having no facts.
At least in my opinion.
I denounce any war crime done by either side.
I do not see you doing the same.
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.