What makes a raciest?
- Thread starter memyselfi
- Start date
-
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.
Not 'if' that is true. It is true.
Because we lost the war. Because we lost, we were the rebels instead of patriots. Because we lost, the victors wrote the history and determined who were the good people and bad people. Because we lost, the myth of Lincoln replaced the father of our nation, George Washington.
Quantrill
Because we lost the war. Because we lost, we were the rebels instead of patriots. Because we lost, the victors wrote the history and determined who were the good people and bad people. Because we lost, the myth of Lincoln replaced the father of our nation, George Washington.
Quantrill
The north could afford slaves, but it wasn't profitable. Slavery was no longer practical. Once slaves could no longer be imported in 1808, I believe, the shipping industry was affected. It was the North's shipping industry that got rich off of slavery. The north was focusing on industrialization and slaves from Africa were not needed. Some may have freed their slaves. Most sold them to the South.
Strange isn't it. They sold them to the South, then years later, got on their high horse, and want the South to free all the slaves without any compensation. And so we become the evil people of the world.
Quantrill
Strange isn't it. They sold them to the South, then years later, got on their high horse, and want the South to free all the slaves without any compensation. And so we become the evil people of the world.
Quantrill
My apologies for missing it.... sometimes all the debates make me cranky.
We always need more humor around here.
Please joke away.
...
We always need more humor around here.
Please joke away.
...
Guy 1, Did you hear about the 2 priests who walk into a bar?
Guy 2, No
Guy 1, Actually it was a Barmitzvah, they were so drunk they walked
right past the bar and into a Jewish temple.
Guy 1, Did you hear about the Lawyer who took the bar?
Guy 2, No, why did he take the bar?
Guy 3, He had too, the bartender couldn't afford the rent and his legal advice.
Guy, Knock Knock
Woman, Whose there?
Guy, Woo
Woman: Woo Who?
Guy, Do you say that to all the boys or are you just really happy to see me?
I had no idea about the history with regards to Quantrill's raiders. Boy do I have much to learn about history. It is embarrassing to admit my lack of knowledge, but hopeful because I am learning. You all know so much, keeps me inspired to dig in. I will say this about peacemakers...
Blessed are they, for they are called the sons of God.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Matthew 5:9 NASB
I think it is possible to disagree peacefully amongst each other. Possible in theory, but honestly we humans, myself of course included, shows daily just how we are limited in this capacity and potential. Where we are called to be of one accord is in Him and in Him alone. Thanks be to Him, we have hope. In the meantime, I pray our deliveries show hearts and minds that contain both truth and mercy. We are called to both. No offense intended but in my humble opinion, where our limited understandings are concerned, eliminating mercy shows His truth was lost in translation.
Blessed are they, for they are called the sons of God.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Matthew 5:9 NASB
I think it is possible to disagree peacefully amongst each other. Possible in theory, but honestly we humans, myself of course included, shows daily just how we are limited in this capacity and potential. Where we are called to be of one accord is in Him and in Him alone. Thanks be to Him, we have hope. In the meantime, I pray our deliveries show hearts and minds that contain both truth and mercy. We are called to both. No offense intended but in my humble opinion, where our limited understandings are concerned, eliminating mercy shows His truth was lost in translation.
-
2
- Show all
From the book (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court Publishing, 1996, p. 116) comes this statement of Lincoln during the Lincoln/Douglas debates. The authors source is noted on p. 372 in endnote #15, which is The Lincoln Douglas Debates: The First Complete, Unexpurgated Text (New York: Harper-Collins, 1993), p. 189.
Douglas first says: "But for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and I positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever."
Lincoln responds: "I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political eqalilty of the white and black races--that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people.
"I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose,will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality[;] and as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man."
From the same book: (p. 210) "Southerners of course did not throw down their arms, and the President issued the final Emancipation Proclamation at the beginning of 1863. But it technically freed no slaves. As a war measure similar to that of the British during the American Revolution, the proclamation only applied to the areas still in rebellion. It did not emancipate any of the slaves in the four border states. Nor did it emancipate any slaves in those sections of the Confederacy that Union armies had already reconquered, including all of Tennessee and large portions of Virginia and Louisiana.
"The only slaves covered were the ones beyond the reach of Union authority. This anomaly inspired a cynical retort from Seward. 'We show our sympathy with slavery,' he stated the day after the proclamation was issued, 'by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.'
"The London Spectator dismissed the proclamatin because it liberated 'the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them...The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
The authors quote from the London Spectator he identifies in endnote #(14) p.378. It comes from (The Life of William H. Seward, Harper and Brothers, 1900, v. 2 p. 339.)
Quantrill
Douglas first says: "But for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and I positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever."
Lincoln responds: "I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political eqalilty of the white and black races--that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people.
"I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose,will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality[;] and as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man."
From the same book: (p. 210) "Southerners of course did not throw down their arms, and the President issued the final Emancipation Proclamation at the beginning of 1863. But it technically freed no slaves. As a war measure similar to that of the British during the American Revolution, the proclamation only applied to the areas still in rebellion. It did not emancipate any of the slaves in the four border states. Nor did it emancipate any slaves in those sections of the Confederacy that Union armies had already reconquered, including all of Tennessee and large portions of Virginia and Louisiana.
"The only slaves covered were the ones beyond the reach of Union authority. This anomaly inspired a cynical retort from Seward. 'We show our sympathy with slavery,' he stated the day after the proclamation was issued, 'by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.'
"The London Spectator dismissed the proclamatin because it liberated 'the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them...The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
The authors quote from the London Spectator he identifies in endnote #(14) p.378. It comes from (The Life of William H. Seward, Harper and Brothers, 1900, v. 2 p. 339.)
Quantrill