That's an interesting perspective. It does seem to be the case that the Republicans early on were the party of big centralized governments-- the idea that states should not be allowed to secede from the union. Teddy Roosevelt expanded the role of the federal government to intervene in a situation with a strike that could have left the nation without as much coal, creating national parks and the FDA. Later, the nation passed the 16th amendment, allowing personal income tax, which set the stage for the federal government to have much greater power than the states. Democrats were a big government party under another Roosevelt.
WHAT ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN
- Thread starter arthurfleminger
- 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.
That's an interesting perspective. It does seem to be the case that the Republicans early on were the party of big centralized governments-- the idea that states should not be allowed to secede from the union. Teddy Roosevelt expanded the role of the federal government to intervene in a situation with a strike that could have left the nation without as much coal, creating national parks and the FDA. Later, the nation passed the 16th amendment, allowing personal income tax, which set the stage for the federal government to have much greater power than the states. Democrats were a big government party under another Roosevelt.
Incrementalism has always been used to gain power and to steal labor from the masses. Often it was with good intentions.
Not Yours to Give Davy Crockett
The republican party in the time of Lincoln were virtue signaling to manipulate the Northern states just like the Democrat party does today. They used the issue of slavery as an issue and a way to manipulate the masses. They claimed to take the moral high ground and demonize the Southern states as being pro slavery. Most people did not own one slave . Many were poor laborers. The same thing the Democrat party used George Floyd as a martyr and idol to carry out atrocities.
If you go back far enough, a good source of information is the collection of Antifederalist Papers. They are letters written by famous leaders and statesmen, some of whom took part influencing the Bill of Rights.
Sounds very..Divided States instead of United States of America.
I dont think bipartisan politics has been very good for the Democratic Republic of America.
But they kicked out the British monarchy so its too late, they can never have a king even though some of their daughters tried to marry into the Royal family.
From an outsiders perspective it has always been about the divide between rich and poor in the US. Those who have and those who have not. (Usually its fighting over land)
It has often been like that in many other countries as well..these issues arent unique to the US.
I dont think bipartisan politics has been very good for the Democratic Republic of America.
But they kicked out the British monarchy so its too late, they can never have a king even though some of their daughters tried to marry into the Royal family.
From an outsiders perspective it has always been about the divide between rich and poor in the US. Those who have and those who have not. (Usually its fighting over land)
It has often been like that in many other countries as well..these issues arent unique to the US.
in other countries there is no public school, so nobody gets any education or they have to pay to go to school. People are mostly poor so only a priveliged few get an education.
But even if you are rich, you may only have a homeschool education with a governess or if female, no chance of one. You get told to stay at home and cook and clean and have babies, Great if thats all you want to do in life and have a good life doing so, but its not a given for every female.
But even if you are rich, you may only have a homeschool education with a governess or if female, no chance of one. You get told to stay at home and cook and clean and have babies, Great if thats all you want to do in life and have a good life doing so, but its not a given for every female.
Jesus felt very strongly that Mary ought to have an education and she was open to learning from Him.
There are many Christians in public schools. Please dont worry too much about what athiest are teaching. They cant really teach anything except how much they hate God. But Christians already know their saviour and the truth so its not like they gonna believe a lie.
There are many Christians in public schools. Please dont worry too much about what athiest are teaching. They cant really teach anything except how much they hate God. But Christians already know their saviour and the truth so its not like they gonna believe a lie.
It needs divided more.
Power needs to be extremely weak so it can do no harm. The weaker the better. The War of Northern Aggression is a sorded history. Too many lives were lost. Bankers funded both sides and scoundrels that made the fortunes off the snake oil that was the birth of modern medi-sin came out of it. There was tyranny like the colonies hadn't seen since they kicked the British butts out of north America. It's never been the same.
The British empire was no better under their wicked kings and queens.
the presidents of the USA live like louche Kings and also treat their wives badly. Like British kings did.
I am 16 and went to a public school they teach alot of evolution. I got in alot of trouble in the public school for voicing my disagreement with evolution I got alot of bad grades for putting the Christian truth down as my answer instead of the answer they wanted. I also got in trouble for bringing Bibles to the public school and for discussing my faith with other kids in the school but it never stopped me for Jesus it was worth it.
If you think we should take our kids out of school and homeschool your clearly not a parent!!
Those are some ugly words.
The Scriptures tell us to train up our kids .... It does not tell us to send them to some one else to train them.
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
Matthew 5
What did your teacher or principal say about the Bibles?
Guess I'm clearly not a parent since I took mine out of public school to homeschool.
I had several reactions to your remark, but then I read your profile and it answered many of my questions.
'Nuff said
I know the Union states didn't have pure reasons - it was totally economic, but God did use the Civil War to end slavery. You make it sound like the slaves states (they were pro-slavery*) were good and should have kept their slaves.
*The slave states wanted slavery. Once slaves were purchased, the labor was free. Plus any children born by slaves into the estate was FREE (no purchase required) and becomes free labor when of age. So how is this a good thing? So what if a lot of people in those states didn't own slaves? It shouldn't be legal at all.
I think we are in the same page. Just a misunderstanding. I'm in a hurry and might get a chance to explain later. Here's an example. BLM today uses the skin color of a career felon, porn pimp, woman beater, drug pusher to push black racism against strangers regardless of their skin color. They burn neighborhoods and businesses in the predominate white and black neighborhoods in the name of social justice. This is not only hypocritical but a major lie. Most blacks probably know this, but the media propaganda pushed it as well as the politicians. It's called virtue signaling today. The war of Northern Aggression or Civil War was very similar. It did not start over slavery, nor were all southerners pro slavery. Most did not own slaves. Many with European grandparents were poor and lived like slaves themselves. The Slavic people is where the term slave came from. That made one of my black friends angry because he wanted to own that term for his own identity and wear a chip on his shoulder. Did you know that.thete.were northern states that also legalized slavery? Sounds hypocritical doesn't it? That's because of the same type of propaganda that was pushed on the people to convince them to die for a so called moral cause. It was never about morality of ending slavery with the ones who funded the war. They just wanted to make money from the war and gain economic advantages from it's outcome. For the love of money is the root of all evil. Maybe we will have time to discuss this further later.
Have a good day.
Here is a GIF animation that better illustrates how sides went down through the 1800s right up to the Civil War in 1861:
As you can see some northern states did hold slavery for a while, but changed as the century progressed to the Civil War.
So not cool to not give full info on that and putting in your own spin. You as a teacher should be more accurate about such things.
If anyone is interested, read up on the American Civil War. I wouldn't have full faith in the wiki page I've linked, but it's to start out. More importantly, read the sources listed and also do further research in your public or digital online libraries.
PS - It is only a "Northern Aggression" to the losers. And God didn't think so either if the North won. The important result is that slavery ended.
I would disagree it was "totally " economic, from the Joe citizen side there were abolitionist. Government side mostly economic sure.... Some folks were/are decent people.
I do not want to send millinery funds of any sort to the Ukraine. As a citizen of the USA i am not the criminal who blew up the pipe line . How will that ugliness be told in history?
in nz state schools (public school) teachers are striking on Thursday. So if you have children that attend you better make lesson plans for them or give them the day off. Or make little protest signs for them if they want to march in the picket lines supporting their teachers for pay parity. Teachers get paid, but homeschool parents who teach dont get paid anything!
[QUOTE="2ndTimeIsTheCharm, ]Here is a GIF animation that better illustrates how sides went down through the 1800s right up to the Civil War in 1861:
As you can see some northern states did hold slavery for a while, but changed as the century progressed to the Civil War.
So not cool to not give full info on that and putting in your own spin. You as a teacher should be more accurate about such things.
First of all, I never claimed to be a history teacher, however I have read and studied basic history on that time. I forgot how many books, but each and every one has "their own spin" as you certainly do too.
Show me a kid that's gone through the northern government school system with no bias and I will show you someone who just doesn't care.
If anyone is interested, read up on the American Civil War. I wouldn't have full faith in the wiki page I've linked, but it's to start out. More importantly, read the sources listed and also do further research in your public or digital online libraries.
PS - It is only a "Northern Aggression" to the losers. And God didn't think so either if the North won. The important result is that slavery ended.
Generally speaking I used 2 terms that are common for the war, depending upon the perspective of winners or the conquered. Lincoln's army conquered the Southern states, so guess who wrote the government text books? If you don't like me using the term "Northern Aggression, then take it up with the southern ancestors of those who lost family in that horrible war. I didn't invent it.
According to a dozen of historians, there were northern states that had legalized slavery and Lincoln had no problem with that being the defining cause of sending all of those men to be slaughtered for him and the bankers.
As you can see some northern states did hold slavery for a while, but changed as the century progressed to the Civil War.
So not cool to not give full info on that and putting in your own spin. You as a teacher should be more accurate about such things.
First of all, I never claimed to be a history teacher, however I have read and studied basic history on that time. I forgot how many books, but each and every one has "their own spin" as you certainly do too.
Show me a kid that's gone through the northern government school system with no bias and I will show you someone who just doesn't care.
If anyone is interested, read up on the American Civil War. I wouldn't have full faith in the wiki page I've linked, but it's to start out. More importantly, read the sources listed and also do further research in your public or digital online libraries.
PS - It is only a "Northern Aggression" to the losers. And God didn't think so either if the North won. The important result is that slavery ended.
Generally speaking I used 2 terms that are common for the war, depending upon the perspective of winners or the conquered. Lincoln's army conquered the Southern states, so guess who wrote the government text books? If you don't like me using the term "Northern Aggression, then take it up with the southern ancestors of those who lost family in that horrible war. I didn't invent it.
According to a dozen of historians, there were northern states that had legalized slavery and Lincoln had no problem with that being the defining cause of sending all of those men to be slaughtered for him and the bankers.