-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
When I was a kid in the 90's, I never thought the day would come that I would experience a hint of totalitarianism and that is precisely what is going on here.
The history of the Democratic Party notwithstanding, the Left is offended by something, so they have banned it. I knew their goals extended beyond the flag (eventual repeal of the 2nd Amendment as we know it), but had no idea they would successfully be able to ban other elements of Southern culture.
The Left does not want free thinkers with an authentic heritage. No, they want a bunch of infantile drones. Drones they can program into being offended when they are told to be offended. Drones that are willing to accept new realities that fly in the face of eternal truths. In exchange, the drones are told they have new sexual liberties and access to state-subsidized opiates.
And so they are content and the people who actually want interesting and fulfilling lives suffer.
The history of the Democratic Party notwithstanding, the Left is offended by something, so they have banned it. I knew their goals extended beyond the flag (eventual repeal of the 2nd Amendment as we know it), but had no idea they would successfully be able to ban other elements of Southern culture.
The Left does not want free thinkers with an authentic heritage. No, they want a bunch of infantile drones. Drones they can program into being offended when they are told to be offended. Drones that are willing to accept new realities that fly in the face of eternal truths. In exchange, the drones are told they have new sexual liberties and access to state-subsidized opiates.
And so they are content and the people who actually want interesting and fulfilling lives suffer.
J
you are correct. they are just robbing freedoms from people in the group and eventually there will be no on left in the group with any freedom.
Martin Niemöller - 1892–1984
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
what they are doing has been done many times before in the past, its nothing new.
Martin Niemöller - 1892–1984
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
what they are doing has been done many times before in the past, its nothing new.
Given the tactic of using anything related to the South or Confederacy as Campaign ammunition, and racism as a get out the vote tool, I don't see how it would serve their purpose to completely remove the Historical facts of the Civil War from our History. Then again, they are doing a pretty good job of removing God, so anything is possible I suppose.
V
Compared to Gen. William T. Sherman, who is given great but poorly rationalized tribute by today's Unionist descendents, Forrest as a saint. Forrest was a brilliant strategist, consistently snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, escaping traps and seemingly hopeless situations, becoming a thorn in the side of the North. He allowed his men, however, upon capturing a garrison of black Union soldiers and accepting their surrender at the horrific battle of Chickamauga, to slaughter the men. Unconscionable, but at least they actually were enemy soldiers who had fought tenaciously against Forrest's men.
Sherman, on the other hand, has benefited from northern historians' defense of his brutality, inhumanity, and terrorist tactics for over 150 years. Going beyond apologizing for his crimes, they've redressed them as heroism. Though Sherman constantly claimed he never ordered the rape and murder of Southern civilians and the total destruction of their food, livestock, and field crops, he didn't do anything to stop it either. It is unlikely his men took their inspiration from anyone other than Sherman himself.
His 1,000-mile march through the South left tens of thousands of men, women, and children homeless, separated from families, and starving. Many who weren't outright murdered by his army died of hunger and disease later. When his army got to South Carolina, the first state to secede, he did nothing to stop his men from raping, pillaging, burning indiscriminately homes, farms, businesses, government buildings. They even burned a convent to the ground.
He wrote in his diary, found years later, prior to the march into the state, "I must tremble for South Carolina's fate. but I feel like it deserves everything that it's going to get." Sherman feigned regret at the criminal behavior of his army, but years later wrote in his memoirs, "Though I never ordered it, and never wished it, I have never shed many tears over the event, because I believe it hastened what we all fought for: the end of the war."
If you thought generals and politicians should have been tried, convicted, and punished to the maximum extent of the law over My Lai, then you have to believe Sherman should have been tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes. My Lai was war. Sherman was a terrorist.
Sherman, on the other hand, has benefited from northern historians' defense of his brutality, inhumanity, and terrorist tactics for over 150 years. Going beyond apologizing for his crimes, they've redressed them as heroism. Though Sherman constantly claimed he never ordered the rape and murder of Southern civilians and the total destruction of their food, livestock, and field crops, he didn't do anything to stop it either. It is unlikely his men took their inspiration from anyone other than Sherman himself.
His 1,000-mile march through the South left tens of thousands of men, women, and children homeless, separated from families, and starving. Many who weren't outright murdered by his army died of hunger and disease later. When his army got to South Carolina, the first state to secede, he did nothing to stop his men from raping, pillaging, burning indiscriminately homes, farms, businesses, government buildings. They even burned a convent to the ground.
He wrote in his diary, found years later, prior to the march into the state, "I must tremble for South Carolina's fate. but I feel like it deserves everything that it's going to get." Sherman feigned regret at the criminal behavior of his army, but years later wrote in his memoirs, "Though I never ordered it, and never wished it, I have never shed many tears over the event, because I believe it hastened what we all fought for: the end of the war."
If you thought generals and politicians should have been tried, convicted, and punished to the maximum extent of the law over My Lai, then you have to believe Sherman should have been tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes. My Lai was war. Sherman was a terrorist.
Last edited:
Why? History tells us he was a Klan leader, but did you know after they became violent and militant he tried to end the KKK? He even went to blacks and made peace with them. He saw his error. Besides, there aren't monuments of him because he was a Klan member. It's because he was regarded as a military genius. Forrest even had slaves fighting with him.
If Forrest memorialss need to go the so does Ulysses Grant memorials like the one on DC He may have fought for the union but during that time he owned slaves too. And didn't free them til the ending of the war in 1865. As a matter of fact I think any memorial of any president that owned slaves not only needs to go we need to write them out of history. Which would mean the first 18 presidents wouldn't exist.
If Forrest memorialss need to go the so does Ulysses Grant memorials like the one on DC He may have fought for the union but during that time he owned slaves too. And didn't free them til the ending of the war in 1865. As a matter of fact I think any memorial of any president that owned slaves not only needs to go we need to write them out of history. Which would mean the first 18 presidents wouldn't exist.
TODAY'S CHOICE...
Apparently the choice has been made for us. The Confederate Flag is out, and I see the gay pride flag flying in a bunch of places. Given that the Confederate Flag had to go because it offended so many people........well..........ok.........how about the people offended by the gay pride flag?
Apparently the choice has been made for us. The Confederate Flag is out, and I see the gay pride flag flying in a bunch of places. Given that the Confederate Flag had to go because it offended so many people........well..........ok.........how about the people offended by the gay pride flag?
The Southern states position on the civil war was 100% about slavery. If someone wants to slip in the states' rights point, I'll add the war was about the states' right to own slaves. Read the Confederate constitution and the individual state's official succession documents. These documents blatantly and openly that their grievance was primarily the right to own slaves. The northern perspective was more about keeping the union together. No doubt the entire country benefited from the production of cotton. Before the war, once picked, the cotton went north to be made into cloth. Once the war started, the south did their best to sell and get it to England. 
Last edited:
A
Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States: The Irrefutable Argument
<hehe stirs pot>
The Southern states position on the civil war was 100% about slavery. If someone wants to slip in the states' rights point, I'll add the war was about the states' right to own slaves. Read the Confederate constitution and the individual state's official succession documents. These documents blatantly and openly that their grievance was primarily the right to own slaves. The northern perspective was more about keeping the union together. No doubt the entire country benefited from the production of cotton. Before the war, once picked, the cotton went north to be made into cloth. Once the war started, the south did their best to sell and get it to England.
V
You believe this because it is what you've been taught. Your teachers unknowingly, and your text book deliberately lied to you. I would urge you to read this post on the "Attack on the Confederate Flag?" thread that I posted last week. It is thoroughly referenced, proving that the South was not defending slavery, but States' rights, limited government, and free economic development. It was the North that made the war about slavery.
Perhaps you can link a website that has those documents posted? But before you do, I can post for you -- and would be happy to do so -- the Secession Declarations of the first four states to pass them in their legislatures. Only one even mentions slavery, and does so in accusing the North of beating the drum against slavery when they know the primary issue were the excruciating taxes the North was imposing on Southern goods shipped across the Mason-Dixon line. You will see that documented in that thread I linked.
Perhaps you can link a website that has those documents posted? But before you do, I can post for you -- and would be happy to do so -- the Secession Declarations of the first four states to pass them in their legislatures. Only one even mentions slavery, and does so in accusing the North of beating the drum against slavery when they know the primary issue were the excruciating taxes the North was imposing on Southern goods shipped across the Mason-Dixon line. You will see that documented in that thread I linked.