Posted on 06/23/2012 7:52:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
the south today HAS moved from God
I live in Dixie now, and I tell ya, while people all say they love Jesus...and they DONT say that in the North, you would be hard pressed to see it in their lives
people who claim to be Baptists drink, smoke, sleep around, if you go to a singles website, all the BAPTIST women want to meet you in a bar for drinks first
soem insist on knowing what a good kisser you are first before they agree to date you.
Honest, I fell out laughing when I was asked that one, but it’s true, more than once. ( I kind of agree, but I would NEVER have said it that way)
But Bible Belt?
No, growign liberal Christianity. STILL, more Christianity than New England, I will admit, but Bible Belt??
stretch pants, more like.
In fact, in most of the Baptist Churches, about 40% of the congregation is all us Northerners. That was true of the 3 Baptist Churches I tied until I stayed in the last one for the last 18 months
The confederacy was about the right to secede, a right that every state has. The Union infringed on that right. Repeatedly. The north deserves the downward economic and social trend it has experienced for the way it treated the South.
The confederacy was about the right to secede, a right that every state has. The Union infringed on that right. Repeatedly. The north deserves the downward economic and social trend it has experienced for the way it treated the South.
You sound like a Redleg to me. Fu!
We became Southerners in 2010 when we moved to Tennessee from California. We are so glad to be in the Bible Belt! I know it sounds backward, but the south is much more civilized than California, NY, etc., when it comes to the issues that matter in life.
I never said we were right about Slavery, but here’s a little known group of Facts...
#1: The first slave was owned by a BLACK man
#2: Not ONE slave was brought to America under the Stars and Bars they were all brought here under the Stars and Stripes
and
#3: General Grants wife refused to free her slaves, they had to be taken by force. A fact that has now been scrubbed from the History Books.
Try READING up on Shermans March to the Sea.
Quit saying what you’ve been “taught” in public school, and try looking into things for yourself.
wrong
And those facts prove what? Slavery was right? And you states were under the stars and bars when your plantations were taking in slaves.
And thanks for glossing over the rest of my comments where I agree with you that there can be valid reasons to secede, and the south had some, but they also had a very bad invalid one.
Fact is the south would’ve given it up soon anyway, slave labor was unable to keep up with industrialization.
Chill dude, I’m not arguing with you.
No, those facts were not to prove Slavery was right (as I said, you might want to LOOk at my post).
And, I didn’t mean to “gloss over” where you agreed with me.
I was just sharing information, not starting a disagreement.
AND just for being that way, some of those plantations were OWNED by Yankees, and had Southern Overseers.
Get some coffee, and relax.
That's because the importation of slaves was made illegal in the United States in 1808, 20 years after the Constitution was ratified. The flag under which the majority of slaves were imported was, in fact, the British one. And one of the main conduits ran, oddly, through the state of Rhode Island, also the first state to make it illegal and the first to declare independence from the British as well.
That is not to ignore a rather vigorous activity in smuggling of slaves, two hotbeds of which were Charleston and New Orleans. But that was small potatoes compared to the original importation.
As to the overall issue of the continuance of the institution of slavery, however, the Stars and Bars absolutely does hold a responsibility - I cite the Texas declaration of secession as a specific instance.
As far as the first slave being owned by a black man, you are referring, I believe to Anthony Johnson, who is recorded as owning slaves in the mid 1600's. He was, however, brought over as a "servant" himself - the definitions were very murky at that time, and no one differentiated between indentured servants and slaves. He was among the first to own servants formally designated as "slave" but the real "credit" of being the first slaveowner in America is, I am afraid, lost to time. If I had to grant that title to somebody he would probably be Spanish. Which stretches the definition of "America" - this is a debate that will never really be resolved.
The very existence of this thing disproves the prevailing interpretation of history. It is not the smoking gun, it is the magic bullet itself. A whole version of history lies dead in the corner with Lincoln bent over it.
The same neo-confederate BS that I have grown so tired of hearing here. Lincoln did not vigorously endorse the Corwin Amendment. He only said that he did not care one way or another, but if could have convinced the states that had already declare secession to return to the union, he was not opposed. The amendment was only proposed to reassure the South that the Federal Government had no intention of abolishing slavery.
In fact, there was no possible way the Federal Government could have abolished it before secession.
Congress would have never given the necessary 2/3 majority of both houses, and with 15 out of 37 being slave states, there was no chance of gaining the necessary 3/4 of state ratification necessary to ratify such an admendment to the constitution.
Your drivel about Lincoln supporting Corwin is a standard Lost Cause tactic to confuse those who do not know history or are totally ignorant of the constitutional process.
Lincoln did not come into office promising to end slavery. His only pledge was to end the expansion of slavery to the territories.
That, and that alone is what the Confederates went to war over.
Read about the Corwin Amendment here.
Learn the facts and please stop spreading misinformation.
My information about Sherman's March comes from a famous Mississippian by the name of Shelby Foote.
Try reading him some time my friend. He will disabuse you of many of the myths you have be 'taught.'
Perhaps you could provide a reference for your #3?
How many civilians died on Patton's March through Germany?
According to Shelby Foote, while Sherman did massive damage to Confederate infrastructure such as railroads, forges and cotton mills, and his 60,000 men did live off the land, there were few civilians injured in his campaign and even military losses where very low compared to other campaigns during that war.
The end result is that Sherman ended the war far sooner than it would have otherwise. That saved tens of thousands of lives on both sides.
Care to show me where say’s it’s legal Reb? And don’t give me the 10th. Amendment. Look up this guy, Professor John Stouffer, Harvard Uni., heard him on C-Span recently. Do that Reb. You know something, seems to me you’ve done alright living in the good ol’USA . If you don’t like it then start your own secessionist movement. Do that instead of mouthing off here General Lee. Make the freakin’ news and show America the face of the new secessionist.
I’m an American. Funny, someone from Ohio calling me a Jayhawker. Tell me something chum, what the hell does all of this North/South bs have to do with today? Is fighting 1861 going to get Obama out of office?
Collapse without civil war? Reb check the history. It wasn’t exactly peaceful.
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.