Top Figures in Conservative Movement Spreading Crazy Lie That Faith in God Ended Slavery

[deleted-05292014 331]

In another 50 years when the Left has banned Meat, we will then hear all about how eating meat was a Christian practice spread far and wide.

Q: How would you know personally what Blacks were singing about?

*Notice how my friends on the Left always want to speak for and help out Black folks....... my my my, black folks sure would be lost without you.

Because unlike you, I have actually studied American history - among other areas of history as a minor.

I encourage you to do the same then maybe you too would know what slaves were singing about or even better, you can go online and read plenty of slave narratives and read their stories directly from the source. But the truth is you don't give a ####### in the first place.

[deleted-05292014 331]

“How do you think we can fight when our own brothers have turned against us? The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one. He has a put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart.”

For your reading pleasure Danno. It's not a very long book, you can read it in one sitting.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Civil war was mainly about slavery. Slavery was the economic lifeblood of the South, so much so it was for many worth dying to preserve.

To me there is no debate. Not sure where all this new revisionist history is coming from. I encourage folks to read news paper articles from that time and research what the climate in the nation was before the war started.

I'm not sure what the end game here is as to why folks on the right want to spread the lie that Christianity ended slavery or that faith in God had something to do with it. As a Christian myself, I think that is ludicrous. Christians have a bad history throughout the history of the world until colonization ended - not saying that they did not do some good things but their methods were hardly "Christian". They in fact used faith to not only enslave indigenous people around the world but also justify it with scripture.

It the issue was indeed about slavery, why did some slave states remain in the Union, and why did Lincoln's proclamation not include those states? Lincoln was not an abolitionist, as Fredrick Douglas stated, and in spite of that, Douglas argued for the abolitionist movement to support the Republicans, in the election of 1860, albeit reluctantly.

No relationship has ever impacted the future of race relations in the United States more than that of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. As a self-taught fugitive slave, Douglass devoted his life's work to the abolition of slavery in America. Speaking at numerous events in both the United States and England and publishing his antislavery newspapers, Douglass was passionate about his cause and would stop at nothing until he lived to see the day that the slavery was abolished. Abraham Lincoln's election as President sparked a chain of events that would ultimately lead to the Civil War, emancipation, and the Thirteenth Amendment. Douglass would spend the four years of the war challenging the policies of Lincoln in hopes of pushing him towards a definitive immediate emancipation policy. Although Douglass and Lincoln did not personally meet until after the Emancipation Proclamation, their relationship up to that point was defined by their correspondence through public addresses, letters, and newspapers. During the war years, Douglass and Lincoln had a tenuous relationship that fluctuated according to Lincoln's changing policies. From the antebellum period through the announcement of Emancipation Proclamation, Douglass' sentiments towards Lincoln went from cautious support in 1860, to complete outrage in 1861, and finally respectful admiration in 1863. However, evidence suggests that their relationship grew to become more profound because the realities of the war and the end of American slavery led these two men to hold a deep respect for the other.

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=4071

[TBoneTX 45,266]

Several posts containing insulting language have been removed, along with posts quoting that material. Administrative action has been taken. Please post constructively on the topic of this thread, or don't post.

TBoneTX

VJ Moderation

[Journeyer 17]

Several posts containing insulting language have been removed, along with posts quoting that material. Administrative action has been taken. Please post constructively on the topic of this thread, or don't post.

TBoneTX

VJ Moderation

Good idea. The original poster, however, was obviously trying to start a team red / team blue partisan politics, screaming match.

No good can come of that.

This site should be for helping each other with immigration issues, regardless of our political ideologies, we are all here for the same reason.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No good can come of that.

Mr. Fancypants has shared some topics that have taken on a life of their own over the years, and provided welcome diversion for those waiting to be reunited with their loved ones. And despite living on the left edge of lunacy, he really is a nice person.

Edited April 24, 2014 by The Postmaster

[Journeyer 17]

Mr. Fancypants has shared some topics that have taken on a life of their own over the years, and provided welcome diversion for those waiting to be reunited with their loved ones. And despite living on the left edge of lunacy, he really is a nice person.

I wasn't trying to judge him personally, as I don't know him.

It's just that, as someone who is involved in a lot of political debate, I know how ugly it can get. Especially when someone sets out to divide from the onset (you know, my team is better than yours!), instead of having an objective and non-biased debate.

A lot of those who I disagree with politically are nice people, and some of them are my friends, so I have no problem believing you on that.

The sad truth about immigration law, is that outside of a very small majority in congress, both teams will stuff any bill, full of pork, cronyism, and a plethora of non-transparent and unrelated non-sense. IOW, they will make immigration worse, before they make it better. They can't be trusted.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I wasn't trying to judge him personally, as I don't know him.

It's just that, as someone who is involved in a lot of political debate, I know how ugly it can get. Especially when someone sets out to divide from the onset (you know, my team is better than yours!), instead of having an objective and non-biased debate.

A lot of those who I disagree with politically are nice people, and some of them are my friends, so I have no problem believing you on that.

The sad truth about immigration law, is that outside of a very small majority in congress, both teams will stuff any bill, full of pork, cronyism, and a plethora of non-transparent and unrelated non-sense. IOW, they will make immigration worse, before they make it better. They can't be trusted.

Anytime you talk about race, religion or politics it's going to be ugly. What I find so interesting here is the main topic of discussions(black people, Muslims, or gays) the ones who have the most to say are the ones who can't be objective because they hate them so much.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anytime you talk about race, religion or politics it's going to be ugly. What I find so interesting here is the main topic of discussions(black people, Muslims, or gays) the ones who have the most to say are the ones who can't be objective because they hate them so much.

...and know near nothing about them.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

...and know near nothing about them.

Pretty much. And it's crazy because they talk about them non stop.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I honestly think nobody fought in the South to preserve slavery, and even fewer fought for the North to abolish it, at least at first. The Emancipation Proclamation only "Freed" slaves in the seceding states, not in those states that remained in the Union. After almost two years, the war was going badly for the North, who was forced to conscript heavily in an unpopular war, often among newly arriving immigrants who didn't have a clue what was happening to them until they were marched into battle.

As a result of the Civil War, however, you are correct, that because of promises made to the Negros in the latter part of the war, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified and on December 6, 1865, slavery officially ended in the Union.

Very few people understand the war was not about Slavery. Congrats on being informed

[decocker 7,198]

Very few people understand the war was not about Slavery. Congrats on being informed

[deleted-05292014 331]

Very few people understand the war was not about Slavery. Congrats on being informed

that's because the very few people you are talking about, I am assuming you include yourself as well, don't have a strong grasp with reality or firm understanding of American history

We can take the words right out of the confederacy virtual mouth with their own documents as to why they were seceding.

Mississippi:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Texas:

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

Do I need to continue Nature Boy? You are very much entitled to your own opinion, no matter how ignorant of the facts it is, but you are not entitled to re-write history to fit your own agenda.

[GandD 5,966]

Very few people understand the war was not about Slavery. Congrats on being informed

It was about state's rights. Mostly for states to have the right to be a slave state. So yeah, it was about slavery.

Edited April 25, 2014 by GandD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

that's because the very few people you are talking about, I am assuming you include yourself as well, don't have a strong grasp with reality or firm understanding of American history

We can take the words right out of the confederacy virtual mouth with their own documents as to why they were seceding.

Mississippi:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Texas:

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

Do I need to continue Nature Boy? You are very much entitled to your own opinion, no matter how ignorant of the facts it is, but you are not entitled to re-write history to fit your own agenda.

Not too long ago, I read commentary by an historian who said that basically, the South never fully accepted the conditions of surrender and that in a collective conscience kind of way, refuse to this day, to acknowledge that they lost. That's why there is this almost obsessive focus on state sovereignty and an animosity towards the federal government. The great irony is that the South was initially upset that the feds were disregarding their right of ownership of slaves who had escaped to the north. They wanted the federal government to enforce upon the north, their deed of property over their slaves who ran away. It was the North that basically told them to go phuk themselves, that they had different laws (state sovereignty). Kind of funny how it got twisted the other way around.

It's really amazing that so many posters don't know or fully understand what the Civil War was really about, and seem content in their ignorance of history. I attended public school in Arizona - not exactly a bastion of liberally-minded educators, and from the very first time we were taught about the Civil War, we were told that it was over slavery, not state's rights.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Porterhouse