Myth of "Separation of Church and State"

southerngrl- All kidding aside, I would be very interested in what YOU think. What I mean is, without quoting the Bible, Jesus Christ, or some Christian or other website, or even mentioning them, what would you perceive as a perfect United States?

I want to know YOUR thoughts, YOUR ideas, and not something that you have read somewhere and quoted.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I'm a little queasy today, that's probably just from overeating after i took care of that little Nazarene bastard from down the street who used to make all that racket in the early morning.

Oh, oh, oh my gosh!! These are so funny, I just can't stop laughing. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

SG

I've asked several times for you to respond to my post -- and my questions.

Ok...its really hard to respond to each of them since I'm trying to have a life, too...when you are bombarded from all sides...you may miss something. It's very time consuming, too.

Quote:

Or do you concede that you don't have adequate response for our questions?

My responses are more than adequate...however, as I said before, they fall on deaf ears because you disagree.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

southerngrl- All kidding aside, I would be very interested in what YOU think. What I mean is, without quoting the Bible, Jesus Christ, or some Christian or other website, or even mentioning them, what would you perceive as a perfect United States?

I want to know YOUR thoughts, YOUR ideas, and not something that you have read somewhere and quoted.

You've already heard my thoughts, my ideas. Sorry that I wasn't born with all of the knowledge I need to become who I am. Sometimes you have to be educated and do some research. And sometimes, you even find sources that back up your beliefs. We call those references, I think...don't really know anyone who doesn't use them. I guess because I am me...it shouldn't apply. Everyones beliefs come from somewhere, the way they were raised, the things they've experienced, the education they've gotten, the media, the government, etc...

So using that against me isn't really fair. The more research I do the more I learn and that's the way I like it. Sorry if it doesn't fulfill your expectations of me. However, I thrive on learning...more than I can say for some on this site. I choose to continue this way and although it is hard to retain everything I research...I mark my favorites for that reason. Does anyone have anything in the favorites file? Or am I the only one? I also have hundreds of word documents where I have written my own information, which I save for my own benefit. I don't save junk...only issues that have been proven as fact. That irritates you, too, I guess. Since I wasn't here in the 1860's...it would make sense that I have to do some research to find the information I need to make a decision on that. I'm not involved in the U.N. either, so I have to do research to find the truth about them, as well. If you're going to try to degrade me and make me look like I have no brain of my own...use something that will make sense. Everyone gets their education, on whatever level, from resources.

0 Replies

southerngrl wrote:

My responses are more than adequate...however, as I said before, they fall on deaf ears because you disagree.

I thrive on learning...more than I can say for some on this site.

Dissent != deaf

disagree != unwilling to learn

0 Replies

Quote:

Sorry that I wasn't born with all of the knowledge I need to become who I am.

No apology needed. All I am asking is, in simple language, what would YOU perceive as the perfect U.S. In other words, if you had your "druthers" how would you like this country to work?

I am not asking for research, references, historical documentation, or learned citations. All that I am asking is that the words come out of YOUR own head, and is not based on the words, opinions or quotations from anyone else.

0 Replies

southerngrl wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
SG

I've asked several times for you to respond to my post -- and my questions.

Ok...its really hard to respond to each of them since I'm trying to have a life, too...when you are bombarded from all sides...you may miss something. It's very time consuming, too.

I understand, SG.

I've been the person in the hot seat occasionally -- so I truly empathize with your position.

But I do want a reply -- so to make things easier for you, I will repost the questions and comments to which I'd like a response -- a third time.

southerngrl wrote:

Quote:

I don't know that I've ever heard any historian or teacher ever assert that slavery was the "sole reason" or the "only reason" -- or the war -- or for why the South fought.

Really? You are one of the few then.

Okay. Name a few historians or teachers who assert that slavery was the "sole reason" or "only reason" for the South going to war.

I'm always willing to learn.

Quote:

Quote:
It certainly was a reason -- and history (the unrevised kind) indicates it was one of the important reasons.

Incorrect history. History written by Northern writers and advocates.

Sounds like a major case of denial going on here.

For the record -- what is the revisionist position on this? Did slavery play any part at all in the move to war -- according to you people?

Once again, I'm willing to learn.

Quote:

Quote:
Anyone who starts an essay with stupid, dishonest statements like this shouldn't be taken seriously.

You just admitted to a certain degree that it was true. I'm confused.

I agree -- you are confused.

I never admitted that it (the stupid, dishonest statement by the essayist) was true to any degree. In fact, I said it was a straw man.

For the record: "Slavery was a reason -- and an important reason" IS NOT THE SAME AS "slavery is the only reason" or "slavery is the sole reason."

0 Replies

For the record, that old, tired jsutification about tarrifs is completely untrue--note how vague it is, without reference a specific trade bill passed by Congress.

There are a host of false justifications trotted out by the Neo-Confederates for that attempt to destroy the nation in defense of slavery. Even in 1860, Southerners were rather vague about what they were fighting for--they were unwilling to make slavery the issue because so many of the working class, and small holders, had no stake in the issue. It was therefore imperative to "put spin" on it, to make it seem as though they were defending themselves from unwarranted and illegal interference by the government in Washington. They made no specific case then, and the Neo-Confederates can't either. But its an appeal to white supremecy and right-wing christian theology, no matter how it is tarted up.

0 Replies

Quote:

But I do want a reply -- so to make things easier for you, I will repost the questions and comments to which I'd like a response -- a third time.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Quote:

Okay. Name a few historians or teachers who assert that slavery was the "sole reason" or "only reason" for the South going to war.

I'm always willing to learn.

That one is easy...as a matter of fact, I heard it on ABC recently...Peter Jennings I think is the journalist there...anyhow, he was talking about Abraham Lincoln and he "reminded" us that because the Union won the war against slavery, we have equality for all. Another was the interview with President Bush (can't remember who interviewed him) but a picture of Abraham Lincoln was on the wall and Bush talked how it was an inspiration to him because HE (Abraham Lincoln) ended slavery and brought the country "together". And of course, my history classes growing up in the education system always referred to the war as being fought over slavery. I never heard a word about states rights or high taxes until I started my own research. And sue me, but I have no idea where to find those books. I just know I was taught it. I also see it in my support of our heritage in hearing day after day about how the flag stands for slavery, murder, hate, etc...matter of fact, right here in this forum. In asking my 15 year old son what his history classes are teaching him, he said that the Civil War was over slavery and that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for freeing them. "But, I know the truth, Mom." There are thousands upon thousands of references to that affect.

Quote:

Sounds like a major case of denial going on here.

For the record -- what is the revisionist position on this? Did slavery play any part at all in the move to war -- according to you people?

No, it did not. Not at all. The two greatest lies ever perpetrated by history are that the South instigated the war, and that it was fought by the North for the purpose of freeing the slaves. The blacks were merely used as the excuse for that War while the real reason for it is reflected every day of our lives in our government. We call them the "new bars of slavery". Other than the fact that there wasn't one slave ever brought into this country under the Confederate flag, they were brought into this country by Northern ships under the Stars and Stripes, here is documented proof (you can research yourself) that the war was not fought over slavery...at all.

Abraham Lincoln proposed a thirteenth amendment in March of 1861. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State." Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment said Congress shall not have the power to interfere with any institutions within any state including those held to labor or service by the laws of that State." In other words, if you (the South) will accept this proposed thirteenth amendment, you may forever keep slaves. Beauregard never fired on Fort Sumter until April 9, 1961. This was in March of 1861!!! If the War had been about slavery and if the South wanted just to keep slaves and that was it, why fire a gun? Why fire a shot? Just simply accept his proposed thirteenth amendment and it would all be over. This resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861. You may read it for yourself in the Congressional Record.

There are a lot of issues as to why the war was fought, but one of the issues was an economic issue. The South, before the War, was extremely wealthy, and funded 75 to 80% of all the taxes. But the North wanted a 40% tariff. The south said no. The most they would agree to was a 10% tariff. And what Lincoln and the radical republicans were doing was saying we would give you the thirteenth amendment, let you keep your slaves, just let us keep our tariffs. In other words, the North was willing to sell the blacks out for money, for higher taxes! They could care less.

Lincoln's second goal was that he was hoping that the blacks in the South would rise up in rebellion against their white masters and the white people. There was not one rebellion during that war of black folks. Do you realize a thousand torches in a thousand black hands would have emptied the Confederate armies, because the men would have gone home to protect their families? And Lincoln knew that. You see what Lincoln did was to try to free the slaves in the South where he had absolutely no authority (see Emancipation Proclamation) and he refused to release the slaves in the North where he did have authority. Did you know that in the Northern armies even when they were fighting the South there were over 300,000 slaveholders in the Northern armies? Did you know that General Robert E. Lee before the war ever began, when he inherited some slaves freed them? General Ulysses S. Grant, who was the main General of the North even after the war was over, kept his slaves. And he did so with this excuse: good help is hard to find.

And I love when I hear how wonderful Abraham Lincoln was and what he did for the black race and slaves. Here's one of his quotes...

"Why should people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is perhaps the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss. But this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You are free men here I suppose. Perhaps you have been long free, all of your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people, but even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with a white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race." Another good one..."I am not now nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or the political equality of a White and Black races. I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

There have been many warnings throughout history concerning our flag and concerning our heritage and our culture. One warning came from General Patrick Clever. In January of 1864 he was warning the South in regards to subjugation. General Clever said this: "If the South lost it means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers, will learn from Northern school books their version of the war, will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traders and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision." Which is definitely true. What a prophet!

[quote]You just admitted to a certain degree that it was true. I'm confused.[/quote]

Sorry, I have no idea what this was referring to.

[quote]For the record: "Slavery was a reason -- and an important reason" IS NOT THE SAME AS "slavery is the only reason" or "slavery is the sole reason."[/quote]

Not a reason at all. As you can see above. History lesson over...however, I love educating those who are willing to open their minds and hear the truth. However, please don't take my word for it...research it yourself...or remain uneducated on this subject. It is, after all, your choice.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

southerngrl wrote:

My responses are more than adequate...however, as I said before, they fall on deaf ears because you disagree.

I thrive on learning...more than I can say for some on this site.

Dissent != deaf

disagree != unwilling to learn

Oooh...the sarcasm...but let me ask you something. If someone came running up to you and said, "I just heard that your (child, mother, husband, wife, someone you love) was just in a bad car accident"!!!! Would you say, no they weren't, I don't believe you. Or would you rush to the hospital to find out for yourself? Same philosophy. If you disagree with "FACTS", curiosity, and the peace of mind in knowing the truth would push you to find out if it is true or not. "OPINIONS" are much different. I believe that God is real and that Jesus Christ was sent here to save my soul. That is MY opinion. I also believe that the South fought to avoid exactly what we are facing today, unlimited gov't and a new world order. That is a fact, because the documentation shows it. I also believe that homosexuality is a sin, that is my opinion. When disputing facts, someone needs to come up with the actual truth, when disputing opinions, we should respect each others and just agree to disagree.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am not asking for research, references, historical documentation, or learned citations. All that I am asking is that the words come out of YOUR own head, and is not based on the words, opinions or quotations from anyone else. [/color][/b]

Although I am perplexed at WHY you would ask me this...I guess I'll respond to it. I believe that this country was founded on Christianity, and that includes all Christian denominations. I also wish to respect those who do not agree with me. I do not care whether you believe in God, Allah or the stars. That is your right as a human being. I do not want to force you or anyone else to believe like me. I want those who come here to America (assuming they come because of what we are and what we've always been) to respect it and take on our values, our morals, our heroes, our culture, etc... It is not your right to come to our country and change it. Which is what we are seeing now. When immigrants came here in the past, they came because they loved what we stood for. They went to work everyday, raised their families, went to church (optional) but the majority did, and flew their flags. Now, we have people coming here who want to not only kill us, but make us a 3rd world country. I want my children to be able to pray wherever and whenever they want to, whether it is in school or in court or a ball game. I am very confused at the anti-religionist who want first of all, to deny we are a Christian nation, and that Jesus and God are offensive to them. Our Supreme Court (who has become a joke) prays before sessions, so does Congress. Our money, pledge, and courts have references to God. (doesn't matter when it started). Who is going to take down all of the crosses in Arlington Cemetery when they've removed the word completely? Crosses are a "Christian" symbol ya know? It is ridiculous and has no positive value to it.

I want to live in a country where crime is punished and victims are not. A country where I can express my feelings and beliefs without being called a racist, nationalist, homphobic, xenophobic, fantatical bigot. Since I am none of those. If, after 9/11, we are still letting in illegal immigrants in the droves, then we deserve whatever happens. We should have shut down the borders (temporarily), gotten a grip on who was here and why and taken appropriate action, either deport or make them a permanent citizen. We should teach our children the truth about our history (as dark as it has been at times) and not refer to our founding fathers as racist, genocidal maniacs. Our politicians would be honest and remember and practice the words of our Declaration of Independence as "we the people", along with staying out of states issues. No longer are "the people" involved in our own laws, they are ruled by beurocrats who have the sole purpose of lining their pockets. Special interest groups need to be stopped in their tracks, when the goals they are striving for, turn around to remove the freedoms of those they are fighting against. Affirmative action is a degrading and socialistic policy that has no place here. Equal means equal...not extra special treatment. How degrading for someone to know they got where they are because of their skin color!

I also believe that there should be some type of monitoring system as far as movies, music and TV shows. I find MTV and VH1, some video games, and the blast in pornography out there for children to see is a negative influence. No, I don't believe video games make you want to go out and kill someone...but, I do believe that some are very questionable. Parents are no longer allowed control over their children, they've got the ACLU fighting for the rights of NAMBLA (child pornographic site) and at the same time want to remove every trace of Southern heritage. I see it alot, probably more than most of you, because I live in Richmond, VA...the Capital of the Confederacy. We have Lee, Jackson, Hill and other Southern leaders monuments and symbols all over our city. The city is run by black racists who are "offended" by them. They have vowed to remove them all...even put a statue of Arthur Ashe in between two! Ok, fine...he was a good man and a good tennis player...that's not the point...it's WHERE they put it...meant as a slap in the face. Then they erected a statue of Lincoln hugging a small black child. What hypocrisy! He did not like black people, and thought the white race was superior! But, still they love him for "freeing" them.

Damn, ask me a question and I just ramble on! Bottom line, I am conservative, as most Americans have been over the years. I just don't want Liberals, with their backwards ideas to ruin the country I just happen to love with sin and perversion. That can be kept to yourself...as in homosexuality. I could care less who you sleep with. I don't need your sexual orientation shoved in my, or my childs, face with these idiotic "gay pride" parades. Heterosexuals don't go around with signs stating they like the opposite sex. There is absolutely no reason for it. Marriage should be between man and woman, however, you are free to do whatever you like in your personal life. I want our government to go back to "upholding" the Constitution and stop allowing judges to re-write it.

Now that I've given a brief synopsis of my views...I know you still hate them. But I did feel obliged to answer the question.

0 Replies

southerngrl wrote:

Abraham Lincoln proposed a thirteenth amendment in March of 1861. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State." Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment said Congress shall not have the power to interfere with any institutions within any state including those held to labor or service by the laws of that State."

This is demonstrably false. The proposed Thirteenth Amendment (aka the Corwin Amendment) was first suggested by Buchanan, not Lincoln. It was passed by the House on February 28, 1861 and passed by the Senate on March 2, 1861. Lincoln did not become president until March 4, 1861, so all of these events occurred during Buchanan's administration.

southerngrl wrote:

In other words, if you (the South) will accept this proposed thirteenth amendment, you may forever keep slaves. Beauregard never fired on Fort Sumter until April 9, 1961. This was in March of 1861!!!

As of March 2, 1861 (the date on which the Senate passed the Corwin Amendment), South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already seceded from the Union. Furthermore, the provisional Congress of the Confederacy had already met and Davis had, on February 18, been inaugurated as the president. In other words, by the time the Congress passed the Corwin Amendment the South had already rejected any compromise that involved remaining in the Union.

southerngrl wrote:

This resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861. You may read it for yourself in the Congressional Record.

Once again, you are quite clearly wrong. The votes were not unanimous: it was 133-65 in the House and 39-5 in the Senate. And, as I pointed out above, the resolution was passed by the House and Senate before March 4, not on July 23.

See, the problem here, southerngrl, is that you won't even acknowledge basic factual errors in your arguments. I pointed out several in your initial post, to which you never responded. You want us to agree with your arguments, but if you can't even get your facts straight how are we supposed to trust your opinions?

0 Replies

southerngrl wrote:

Quote:
Okay. Name a few historians or teachers who assert that slavery was the "sole reason" or "only reason" for the South going to war.

I'm always willing to learn.

That one is easy...as a matter of fact, I heard it on ABC recently...Peter Jennings I think is the journalist there...anyhow, he was talking about Abraham Lincoln and he "reminded" us that because the Union won the war against slavery, we have equality for all. Another was the interview with President Bush (can't remember who interviewed him) but a picture of Abraham Lincoln was on the wall and Bush talked how it was an inspiration to him because HE (Abraham Lincoln) ended slavery and brought the country "together". And of course, my history classes growing up in the education system always referred to the war as being fought over slavery. I never heard a word about states rights or high taxes until I started my own research. And sue me, but I have no idea where to find those books. I just know I was taught it. I also see it in my support of our heritage in hearing day after day about how the flag stands for slavery, murder, hate, etc...matter of fact, right here in this forum. In asking my 15 year old son what his history classes are teaching him, he said that the Civil War was over slavery and that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for freeing them. "But, I know the truth, Mom." There are thousands upon thousands of references to that affect.

SG, I had expected better from you.

You have not offered a single name of a historian or teacher who claims that the war between the States was solely or only because of slavery.

Not a one.

And the stuff you offered in pretence of dealing with my question is laughable.

You would have done much better to acknowledge that I am correct. The essayist used hyperbole -- and you were wrong to agree with him.

But as Joe pointed out -- you seem unwilling to even acknowledge factual errors when they are pointed out -- so expecting acknowledgement on something more subtle is probably just wishful thinking.

In any case, I think my point has been made -- and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to make it.

0 Replies

Quote:

This is demonstrably false. The proposed Thirteenth Amendment (aka the Corwin Amendment) was first suggested by Buchanan, not Lincoln.

I could care less who thought of it or who gets credit for it. I'm sure there was a lot of debate about this subject between Buchanan and Lincoln. Buchanan proposed the Corwin Amendment, Lincoln proposed the 13th amendment. Since Lincoln was a one-term Congressman and lawyer, I assume he had the authority to "propose" just about anything.

"The Corwin Amendment" is the replacement proposal which advocates of John J. Crittenden's constitutional changes adopted at the very last hour, and which had been sneaked past the Committee in the House. Orris Ferry of Connecticut complained saying he was on that committee and had never seen the text before Corwin offered it. Yes, it was passed on March 2nd, 1861, and signed by President Buchanan, two days before Lincoln took office. In plenty of time for the South to resume negotiations, if you really want to believe the war was over slavery.

But, no matter who proposed what...you admit the Congress adopted it on 3/2/61. The shot was NOT fired at Ft. Sumter until April, 1961. If we had been fighting for slavery, the war wouldn't have even started.

Quote:

As of March 2, 1861 (the date on which the Senate passed the Corwin Amendment), South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already seceded from the Union.

So? It has no bearing on whether or not the war was fought over slavery. The entire Southern / Northern issues took years to happen.

Quote:

In other words, by the time the Congress passed the Corwin Amendment the South had already rejected any compromise that involved remaining in the Union.

So? We rejected the amendment because slavery wasn't what we were fighting for. We did not want to remain in the Union because of high tariffs and states rights were beginning to be taken away. There were no amendments written, proposed or passed by Congress or anyone stating that our states rights and our taxes would remain reasonable. Your comments has no bearing on the South fighting to keep their slaves!

Quote:

Once again, you are quite clearly wrong. The votes were not unanimous: it was 133-65 in the House and 39-5 in the Senate.
Quote:

Again, which amendment are you speaking of...the proposed Corwin amendment or the actual 13th amendment. Who cares, it "passed". Stick to the important issue instead of numbers.

Quote:
And, as I pointed out above, the resolution was passed by the House and Senate before March 4, not on July 23.

The 13th amendment was passed on July 23, which states "The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union". Congress adopted the Corwin Amendment on March 2, 1861, offering the South the ability to keep their slaves. The first shot was in April. The fact still remains, if the South were fighting over slavery...we would have never fired a shot. Negotiations would have resumed. But, of course, that is NOT why...so the Corwin Amendment had no bearing on the war.

Quote:
See, the problem here, southerngrl, is that you won't even acknowledge basic factual errors in your arguments.

Because there aren't any. Plus, the 13th amendment didn't free all slaves anyway, only those in the slaves in the South where Lincoln had absolutely no authority and he refused to release the slaves in the North where he did have authority.

Quote:
I pointed out several in your initial post, to which you never responded. You want us to agree with your arguments, but if you can't even get your facts straight how are we supposed to trust your opinions?

They're pretty darn obvious to me.

0 Replies

southerngrl,

You have been shown to be posting factual inaccuracies. You deride everyone as not being willing to learn but when the factual errors you tout are called out you conveniently label them unimportant.

Willful disregard for facts is not very compatible with claiming everyone has a closed mind and that your opinions are bourne of 'research'.

See, 'research' is a fine and noble thing, but if your 'research' has led you to tout factual errors I think your 'research' is suspect.

'Research' means little if you can't get the facts right. Opinions mean little when they are based upon factual error.

But don't let that stop you from thinking yours is the only open mind. After all, that helps everyone else understand what kind of opinion you ahve in store.

The people who most vociferate about how everyone's mind is closed and how theirs is so open usually opened theirs to somthing incredulous and deride everyone else for not buying it.

There are extremes. Just as there is indeed the 'closed mind' there are also the 'gullible and noisy'.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

southerngrl,

You have been shown to be posting factual inaccuracies. You deride everyone as not being willing to learn but when the factual errors you tout are called out you conveniently label them unimportant.

Thats a very "general" statement, however, I would prefer that you explain the March / April thing for me, since it is the jist of this argument. Show me exactly where I erred in the fact that the South did not fight the war over slavery...show me where the South was not offered to keep their slaves, whether it be from Buchanan or Lincoln...show me where the Union wasn't proposing a 40 - 47% tariff on Southern goods, show me where they were FOR limited gov't.

Quote:

There are extremes. Just as there is indeed the 'closed mind' there are also the 'gullible and noisy'.

Or those in denial. Just posted another topic similar to this...since this one has gotten WAY off topic. It started out with stating our FF's were Christian, we are a Christian nation, and that "Separation of church and state" doesn't, or hasn't ever exited in our legal documents.

I can't convince you...as I have stated over and over. The South was offered the option of keeping their slaves if they would remain in the union...even though seven states had already seceeded...we would've come back if our principles has been taken seriously...BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT AT FT. SUMTER.

0 Replies

Wow! How did I miss this thread? Wild guess! Bet Southerngirl is from Richmond.

0 Replies

southerngrl wrote:

Thats a very "general" statement, however, I would prefer that you explain the March / April thing for me, since it is the jist of this argument.

No, it was a very specific statement about you not caring about facts with this here screed. I certainly won't try to correct you because others have pointed out your factual errors and that didn't make a difference.

Quote:

Quote:
There are extremes. Just as there is indeed the 'closed mind' there are also the 'gullible and noisy'.

Or those in denial.

Yes, denial exists. Ironically those most willing to accuse swaths of people of being in denial frequently exhibit this themselves.

It is notable that your every comment is about your ability or inability to convince others, being convinced is not even on the table. I hold that it is indicative of some of the qualities you alledge of others.

0 Replies

This confrontation is wildly funny -- someone's hoop skirt has blown her away in the wind and yet she's still harping.

0 Replies

Southerngrl, let's compare what you wrote with what you're now saying.

SG then: "...here is documented proof (you can research yourself) that the war was not fought over slavery...at all."
SG now: "So? It has no bearing on whether or not the war was fought over slavery."
Comment: You offered the Corwin Amendment as evidence that the war was not fought over slavery. Then, when you were shown that your facts were all wrong, you said it didn't matter. Look, southerngrl, either get your facts straight or stop offering them as proof of anything.

SG then: "Abraham Lincoln proposed a thirteenth amendment in March of 1861."
SG now: "I'm sure there was a lot of debate about this subject between Buchanan and Lincoln. Buchanan proposed the Corwin Amendment, Lincoln proposed the 13th amendment."
Comment: Here is the first instance where you deliberately confuse the Corwin Amendment with something else -- in this case the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery. Lincoln had nothing to do with the Corwin Amendment (the text of which you quoted as being the amendment proposed by Lincoln). You got the president wrong, you got the dates wrong, and now you got the amendment wrong.

SG then: "Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment said Congress shall not have the power to interfere with any institutions within any state including those held to labor or service by the laws of that State" (emphasis added).
SG now: ""The Corwin Amendment" is the replacement proposal which advocates of John J. Crittenden's constitutional changes adopted at the very last hour, and which had been sneaked past the Committee in the House."
Comment: Now you're confusing the Corwin Amendment with the Crittenden Compromise, which was proposed in December 1860, three months before Lincoln's inauguration. The text you cited (and which you attributed to Lincoln) was the text of the Corwin Amendment, not the Thirteenth Amendment and not the Crittenden Compromise.

SG then: "This resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861. You may read it for yourself in the Congressional Record" (emphasis added)
SG now: "The 13th amendment was passed on July 23, which states 'The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union'."
Comment: From the context, it is clear that, when you initially referred to "this amendment," you were referring to Corwin Amendment. But now you're confusing the Corwin Amendment with something else, this time a joint congressional resolution (not an amendment). The resolution (ironically, proposed by J.J. Crittenden) passed the House on July 22 and the Senate on July 25 -- so you even got this date wrong!

On the whole, southerngrl, you're better off just admitting that you made a few goofs rather than attempting to reconcile one factual inaccuracy with another. On the other hand, if you persist in adhering to these obfuscations and hypocritical rationalizations in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, then I think the only conclusion that a fair reader can draw is that your entire argument is similarly infected with falsehoods.

0 Replies

Myth of "Separation of Church and State"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know