Moderator: Community Team
Lee did not free those slaves promptly. His father-in-law's will stated that they had to be freed within five years. Lee petitioned state courts to extend that time, but it was rejected, so he was forced to free them, but he took as long as he could. His treatment of the slaves was described as being so combative and harsh that it led to slave revolts.armati wrote:jimboston
Did you know Robert E Lee owned slaves?
They belonged to his wifes father, when he died their ownership passed to R.E. Lee, Mr Lee promtly freed them.
Bullshit.armati wrote:That was before the war, 1857. Robert E Lee was not fighting for slavery.
He fought for the right of the state of Virginia to determine its own future.
State rights, as per the constitution at the time.
... not a single Virginia delegate criticized slavery. Indeed, many of the western delegates were slaveholders and those that did not spoke in support of the institution. No delegate wanted to be branded an abolitionist. Delegates outdid one another to voice their commitment to slavery. Slavery and its protection was clearly in the forefront of their motivations. (https://railroads.unl.edu/blog/?p=40)
armati wrote:If you have looked into the time period you found Mr Lee to be highly respected both by the north and the south.
He was influencial and he was not the only southerner that felt slavery should end.
The recording I posted, "states rights" tells the general thinking, were all the people that did not own slaves, the vast majority, fighting to own slaves?
Of course not.
I imagine that not every Nazi wanted to exterminate the Jews, but when you join up to fight, you are by definition supporting the cause that they fight for. I don't much blame the low ranking soldiers - it would take extraordinary wisdom and courage to see that your side was wrong and to abandon your friends and family over it. But Lee was not some simple farmer. He was asked to command of the Union army, but he chose instead to join the Confederates. If as you say, he was opposed to slavery, then that makes it even worse. He was fighting against his country for a cause that he knew was wrong. However respected he might have been as a general, and whatever his personal motivations were, he was a traitor to the United States and was fighting in support of evil, and that is nothing to celebrate.The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned enslaved people. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent of families in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent of families in Arkansas).
... white families who couldn’t afford enslaved people aspired to, as a symbol of wealth and prosperity.
(https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery)
So who told you these lies over and over again until you believed them?armati wrote:In any case, kiunda accademic now.
I just find it interesting how saying something over and over again causes people to believe it.
degaston wrote:So who told you these lies over and over again until you believed them?armati wrote:
I just find it interesting how saying something over and over again causes people to believe it.
armati wrote:jimboston
Did you know Robert E Lee owned slaves?
They belonged to his wifes father, when he died their ownership passed to R.E. Lee, Mr Lee promtly freed them.
That was before the war, 1857. Robert E Lee was not fighting for slavery.
He fought for the right of the state of Virginia to determine its own future.
State rights, as per the constitution at the time.
If you have looked into the time period you found Mr Lee to be highly respected both by the north and the south.
He was influencial and he was not the only southerner that felt slavery should end.
The recording I posted, "states rights" tells the general thinking, were all the people that did not own slaves, the vast majority, fighting to own slaves?
Of course not.
In any case, kiunda accademic now.
I just find it interesting how saying something over and over again causes people to believe it.
The ram wrote:jimboston wrote:People suck.
... And people have segregated themselves and/or forced “others” to segregate since the dawn on time.
Maybe, just maybe people prefer to be amongst their own. Is that a bad thing? Should people be forced to live amongst people that they'd rather not live with? This phenomenon is not only in the US, but all over western Europe. So, if white people in general don't want black neighbour's, who is encouraging black immigration?
I know that presently in the town of Gateshead that a Jewish only housing development is under way, any and all complaints were disregarded as anti semitic.
GaryDenton wrote:The Confederates lost. They were traitors. They are still losers.
That seems to be missing from these rants.
Dukasaur wrote:saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
ConfederateSS wrote:-------The Biden Administration now is Totally Erasing Indian/Native American History...With New Federal Regulations...As The LEFT is out to Destroy America, All American History......
-------The American Museum of Natural History in NYC...., along with other Museums across the country(The MET in NYC for one), Chicago, Cleveland , etc...Are removing all Indian/Native American exhibits...Thanks to a new regulation by Biden... ... Without consulting any Tribes, Tribes are trying to have The Washington Redskins put back, no one talked to them...The Cleveland Indians didn't talk to any Tribes either...It is a all out effort to Erase Indian/Native American History...Biden has lost Black/African Americans, Hispanics/Latin Americans, Arabic Americans...Now losing Indians/Native Americans...Trump landslide...In November...Bank it...Bet it...
------- On better news in The War on American History...
------- 172 Confederate statues have gone back up, since 2021 A.D...Thanks to the Sons and Daughters of The C.S.A., other groups, and laws...
------- In Susquehanna,P.A....Last Week...The High School... Has brought back their Indian/Native American Mascot, of the High School... ..."F""U"....In your regulation face Biden...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... ... Another thing Trump said, and mocked for...When He said, Washington, Jefferson , will be next... Another thing , Trump said , that has been proven...Removed Washington in The West Coast States(Including Washington)...Thomas Jefferson from a NYC Court House...Teddy Roosevelt from The NYC Museum... I'm Surprised the Lions are still at The NYC Library...
GaryDenton wrote:Martin Luther King Jr. was neither an advocate nor an enemy of gay rights, but both sides of the debate use his words in their arguments. His widow cited them in her campaign for gay rights, while his daughter used them in her rejection of same-sex marriage.
The Right absolutely hated MLK but now frequently use him in their rhetoric to make some silly ahistorical point.
The actual History of Christianity is overwhelmingly opposed to homosexuality.
Orthodox Judaism views homosexual acts as sinful. In recent years, there have been approaches claiming that only the sexual anal act is forbidden and considered an abomination by the Torah, while sexual orientation and even other sexual activities are not considered a sin. Conservative Judaism has engaged in an in-depth study of homosexuality since the 1990s, with various rabbis presenting a wide array of responsa (papers with legal arguments) for communal consideration. The official position of the movement is to welcome homosexual Jews into their synagogues, and also campaign against any discrimination in civil law and public society, but also to uphold a ban on anal sex as a religious requirement.
Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism in North America and Liberal Judaism in the United Kingdom view homosexuality to be acceptable on the same basis as heterosexuality. Progressive Jewish authorities believe either that traditional laws against homosexuality are no longer binding or that they are subject to changes that reflect a new understanding of human sexuality. Some of these authorities rely on modern biblical scholarship suggesting that the prohibition in the Torah was intended to ban coercive or ritualized male-male sex, such as those practices ascribed to Egyptian and Canaanite fertility cults and temple prostitution.
Liberal Christians are generally supportive of homosexuals. Some Christian denominations do not view monogamous same-sex relationships as bad or evil. These include the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the churches of the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Church of Sweden, the Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church of Germany, the Church of Denmark, the Icelandic Church, the Church of Norway and the Protestant Church of the Netherlands. In particular, the Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination of 40,000 members, was founded specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community and is devoted to being open and affirming to LGBT people. The United Church of Christ and the Alliance of Baptists also condone gay marriage, and some parts of the Anglican and Lutheran churches allow for the blessing of gay unions. Within the Anglican communion, there are openly gay clergy; for example, Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool are openly homosexual bishops in the US Episcopal Church, and Eva Brunne in the Lutheran Church of Sweden. The Episcopal Church's recent actions vis-a-vis homosexuality have brought about increased ethical debate and tension within the Church of England and worldwide Anglican churches. In the United States and many other nations, religious people are becoming more affirming of same-sex relationships. Even those in denominations with official stances are liberalizing, though not as quickly as those in more affirming religious groups.
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) challenged his Republican colleagues to introduce a bill that removes the Statue of Liberty because of their stances on immigration at the southern border.
Frost, a first-term legislator, read part of the poem “The New Colossus,” which was cast and mounted on to the lower level of the Statue of Liberty as a message to immigrants arriving at Ellis Island in the 1800s.
While at a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing Wednesday, Frost called out his GOP colleagues — and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) specifically — for their treatment of immigrants and their sweeping bill H.R. 2 that would dramatically restrict the asylum process and create stricter policies and surveillance on regional migration and undocumented immigrants.
Frost said immigrants deserve better than what they are being offered.
“Don’t welcome them if you plan to reject them. If you keep pushing your bigoted H.R. 2 bill, then also pass this bill. I’ve taken the liberty of drafting it for you,” Frost said, holding up a piece of paper. “It removes the Statue of Liberty, our largest symbol that tells people to come here.”
“This is who you are, removing the fabric of America. So, I want to know which Republican, who supports and voted for H.R.2, will introduce this bill,” he continued. “If you’re gonna support H.R.2 and these bigoted measures, the least you can do is not be a damn liar.”
Frost accused GOP lawmakers of being more interested in “peddling hate” than finding solutions that will fix the immigration system.
Republicans say that the immigration bill, which passed the House last year with no support from Democrats, is necessary to stop the thousands of migrants who are arriving at the southern border.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users