Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flags and slavery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Flags and slavery

    There has been a lot of discussion about those who are displaying the "Dixie" flag. I have read some that are nothing but spewing hate for anyone who has this flag displayed.

    Here are some thoughts that came to me concerning this issue.

    I would like to start by saying I hate slavery. My forefathers fought against it. My house was part of the underground railroad that helped slaves get to Canada. When I went up in the attic to insulate it, there were very old candles and boards that the slaves used when they hid there. It was a sobering moment to look upon these things.

    I lived in Salem, Ohio and this house was one of the oldest homes in that town. It was built by a Quaker man by the name of Whinnery. The men chasing escaped slaves would ride on the road from Lisbon, Ohio with the sheriff. One day they came to the front of the house and demanded that the sheriff allow them to search the home. Whinnery's little girl was swinging on the iron front gate ( the holes where that gate stood are still there). The sheriff said, we will ask the little girl if any slaves are in her house. ( BTW the attic had escaped slaves in it at that time) The men chasing the slaves objected strenuously and insisted on searching the house. The sheriff said, No, Quakers are not allowed to lie for any reason, we will ask the little girl.

    When asked if any slaves were in her house, the little girl answered, " No sir" and the Sheriff and the men rode on. Her father had heard the whole conversation and came around the house after the men left. He asked, "Abigail, why did thee lie". She exclaimed, " Father I did not lie, they asked if any slaves were in our house and you have told me that all men are free". The father gave her a hug, and gave thanks to The Lord. The men and women in the attic later left and went on to Canada.

    The south is not the only part of the US that held slaves. The north also held slaves. Our whole nation is made up of sinners, just like all mankind. I am not ashamed to display the stars and strips just because our nation has made many mistakes.

    I do not feel the stars and strips stand for slavery and many in the south do not feel the stars and bars stand for slavery. I feel the stars and strips stand for the heritage of our forefathers that put our nation on a foundation of FREEDOM.

    When asked why they were fighting, the southern soldiers usually answered, "because you Yankees are down here destroying our homes". Many in the south feel that the stars and bars stand for their heritage.

    Slavery was not started by our nation. It has been going on all down through history. In fact African slavery was started by Africans, not Europeans. It went on long before the US became a nation. Africans had long been taking people that they conquered and holding them in slavery. They had also been selling these people as slaves.

    When the Europeans set up trading posts on the coast of Africa the Africans also brought slaves to sell. This slave trade became very large and slaves were brought to all parts of the America's and even England and other parts of Europe.

    The first slave in the colonies was held by another black man, not a white man. The man being held as a slave took his holder to court to get his freedom, but lost the case.

    The states of Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky stayed the the union but all held slaves. So there were slaves in the north as well as the south when the Civil War started.

    So there is a much reason to not display the stars and stripes as there is the stars and bars.

    I admire Lincoln as a man and many of his writings and speeches are a fine example to us all. But I am not convinced that the north had the right to force the south to stay in the union. Might does not make right. The states all voted to join or not join the union. One could argue that the south had the right to leave the union by the vote of the people.

    But there is a even more important principle here, and that is our freedoms. We have the freedom of speech. Now I do not feel anyone should have the right to display the NAZI flag because that group fought against freedom and murdered millions. But I do feel that anyone should be able to display the "Dixie" flag if they so desire.

    It seems to me that many are trying to take away our freedoms. They do not want people to have the right to say homosexuality is wrong, or that Islam is a religion from Satan, and not God.

    We have to stand up for our freedoms of we will all lose them.

    Slavery in the US is NOT a black vs white issue - it is a right vs wrong issue. After all Abe Lincoln who freed the slaves was white. Many of the men that fought for the north were fighting to free the slaves and most were white.

    2 Cor 3

    17
    Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

    What are your thoughts about this ?


    Lou Newton
    Last edited by Lou Newton; June 23, 2015, 02:23 PM.

  • #2
    Thanks for posting this, Lou.

    This is a gnarly topic. The scheming so-called elite have outdone themselves. It seems to me most people cannot see clearly on these issues. I don't claim to be in possession of all truth and wisdom, but I like simple. And I like how Holy Scripture simplifies it; although, again, most people seem to struggle even with this simplicity.

    There were servants who entered into service by mutual consent for a period.

    There were slaves who entered service by conquest.

    There were slaves who were stolen from their homes.

    Which of these are right and which are wrong?

    Mutual consent seems okay to most people, I think. Social contracts today are founded on mutual consent. The golden rule, "Do unto others as you want them to do unto you." The chant of the sexual revolution. Fight club. I found it interesting that God spoke to His people on servants, when and how to let them go, and the formality of staying on permanently. Who would choose to stay on permanently, but one who has a good life with a good master?

    Conquest may be messy for some because consent is absent. But consider that when a people are conquered (or freed from an oppressive regime) much of the commercial and social infrastructure is disrupted or destroyed. (Or if freed, the infrastructure to support life doesn't exist.) A conquered people can go on living fairly well if the host nation is hospitable. I know this ruffles feathers because serving is seen as the opposite of freedom. I propose that men are never free. Even those at the top got to serve somebody, as Bob Dylan sang, and Lou points out on occasion. So what we really have is a system where we serve A to be free from B, or serve B to be free from A. What can one really hope for, but that one may serve a good master who treats one fairly and provides the necessities of life? God teaches us there is freedom in serving, which is a grammatical contradiction, but not a spiritual contradiction.

    Persons who are stolen is clearly wrong. The apostle Paul called them manstealers, God will judge them harshly unless He grants them repentance. It may be safe to say that nearly 100% of African Americans' ancestors 200 years ago were stolen. How does one repair that when the victim is long gone? There are probably as many opinions on this as there are people.

    Henry Gruver, bless him, tells the story of a road trip during which the Lord steered him to a history museum where he discovered in the literature on display that his great (great...) grandfather was the top brass in the Trail of Tears relocation operation. It broke him, he fell right there and wept bitterly. To hear Henry tell it, I imagine many people would be moved by his conviction over his grandfather's sin. Some would not. But Henry did not simply feel bad. He set out to right a wrong, in the way God taught us: by confessing the sins of our fathers, and helping the descendants of survivors receive the bounty of God's goodness and be healed.

    By way of restitution the government could give land, monetary compensation, favor when applying for jobs and benefits, laws protecting "minorities". Have not these things already been done? The results have been inadequate to heal the children of the victims, and in too many cases the results have been abysmal. These moves of man cannot heal.

    Apparently, retailers are banning the sale of the Confederate flag and consumers are consternated who need a flag to burn or display. The scheming so-called elite demonstrate their mastery over the manipulable masses. But for what purpose? Obviously, crisis to occupy the public's attention. There are a lot of huge things going down, but this gets national coverage. Not so obviously, we have another minority with the power of the government behind it, tearing down what was until today a sturdy cultural staple. Political Correctness is coercion, its enchantment needs to be dispelled.

    I agree, Lou, this is a right versus wrong issue. But if we allow corrupt Tavistock-trained politicians and the mainstream media to define our conflicts, frankly we submit to the mind control and blunder along to our own destruction.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Baruch View Post
      Thanks for posting this, Lou.

      This is a gnarly topic. The scheming so-called elite have outdone themselves. It seems to me most people cannot see clearly on these issues. I don't claim to be in possession of all truth and wisdom, but I like simple. And I like how Holy Scripture simplifies it; although, again, most people seem to struggle even with this simplicity.

      There were servants who entered into service by mutual consent for a period.

      There were slaves who entered service by conquest.

      There were slaves who were stolen from their homes.

      Which of these are right and which are wrong?

      Mutual consent seems okay to most people, I think. Social contracts today are founded on mutual consent. The golden rule, "Do unto others as you want them to do unto you." The chant of the sexual revolution. Fight club. I found it interesting that God spoke to His people on servants, when and how to let them go, and the formality of staying on permanently. Who would choose to stay on permanently, but one who has a good life with a good master?

      Conquest may be messy for some because consent is absent. But consider that when a people are conquered (or freed from an oppressive regime) much of the commercial and social infrastructure is disrupted or destroyed. (Or if freed, the infrastructure to support life doesn't exist.) A conquered people can go on living fairly well if the host nation is hospitable. I know this ruffles feathers because serving is seen as the opposite of freedom. I propose that men are never free. Even those at the top got to serve somebody, as Bob Dylan sang, and Lou points out on occasion. So what we really have is a system where we serve A to be free from B, or serve B to be free from A. What can one really hope for, but that one may serve a good master who treats one fairly and provides the necessities of life? God teaches us there is freedom in serving, which is a grammatical contradiction, but not a spiritual contradiction.

      Persons who are stolen is clearly wrong. The apostle Paul called them manstealers, God will judge them harshly unless He grants them repentance. It may be safe to say that nearly 100% of African Americans' ancestors 200 years ago were stolen. How does one repair that when the victim is long gone? There are probably as many opinions on this as there are people.

      Henry Gruver, bless him, tells the story of a road trip during which the Lord steered him to a history museum where he discovered in the literature on display that his great (great...) grandfather was the top brass in the Trail of Tears relocation operation. It broke him, he fell right there and wept bitterly. To hear Henry tell it, I imagine many people would be moved by his conviction over his grandfather's sin. Some would not. But Henry did not simply feel bad. He set out to right a wrong, in the way God taught us: by confessing the sins of our fathers, and helping the descendants of survivors receive the bounty of God's goodness and be healed.

      By way of restitution the government could give land, monetary compensation, favor when applying for jobs and benefits, laws protecting "minorities". Have not these things already been done? The results have been inadequate to heal the children of the victims, and in too many cases the results have been abysmal. These moves of man cannot heal.

      Apparently, retailers are banning the sale of the Confederate flag and consumers are consternated who need a flag to burn or display. The scheming so-called elite demonstrate their mastery over the manipulable masses. But for what purpose? Obviously, crisis to occupy the public's attention. There are a lot of huge things going down, but this gets national coverage. Not so obviously, we have another minority with the power of the government behind it, tearing down what was until today a sturdy cultural staple. Political Correctness is coercion, its enchantment needs to be dispelled.

      I agree, Lou, this is a right versus wrong issue. But if we allow corrupt Tavistock-trained politicians and the mainstream media to define our conflicts, frankly we submit to the mind control and blunder along to our own destruction.
      Amen. The Republicans cry out against Obama and his policies, but then vote, after some time, in his favor.

      This fight against the CS battle flag ( it was not the flag of the CS, but only the battle flag) is only to shut down any form of protest against what the "beast" is in favor of. Some government buildings have taken it down and replaced it with the "homosexual rainbow flag". That is simply the flag of a group that is NAZI like and does not want to tolerate anyone who disagrees with them.

      About 5% of the people in the south held slaves. Most soldiers were NOT fighting to support slavery.

      The north took terrible casualties in the war, many more than the south. The north lost battle after battle until Lee made the horrible mistake of coming out of Petersburg and attacking the north at Gettysburg. He put himself in the same position that the north had been in the whole war up until that day. The attacking army was at a very large disadvantage. He lost a lot of his army and the men could not be replaced. This was after Stonewall Jackson was killed and it seems that Jackson may have been the brains behind Lee. Without Jackson, Lee was done in a short time.

      Anyway my point is that the north did not seem to have God's favor either. Both sides were guilty of slavery. But the north may have also been guilty of trying to force it's will upon the south.

      The result is that the federal government became much stronger after the war. The states had held the power before that. After 150 years we now have a "beast" for a federal government. The north was responsible for creating the conditions for this beast to be born.

      Now that beast is poised to try to put a stop to any religion from preaching that homosexuality is wrong and also that Islam is of Satan. This is where the beast is headed.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Lou Newton View Post
        Amen. The Republicans cry out against Obama and his policies, but then vote, after some time, in his favor.

        This fight against the CS battle flag ( it was not the flag of the CS, but only the battle flag) is only to shut down any form of protest against what the "beast" is in favor of. Some government buildings have taken it down and replaced it with the "homosexual rainbow flag". That is simply the flag of a group that is NAZI like and does not want to tolerate anyone who disagrees with them.

        About 5% of the people in the south held slaves. Most soldiers were NOT fighting to support slavery.

        The north took terrible casualties in the war, many more than the south. The north lost battle after battle until Lee made the horrible mistake of coming out of Petersburg and attacking the north at Gettysburg. He put himself in the same position that the north had been in the whole war up until that day. The attacking army was at a very large disadvantage. He lost a lot of his army and the men could not be replaced. This was after Stonewall Jackson was killed and it seems that Jackson may have been the brains behind Lee. Without Jackson, Lee was done in a short time.

        Anyway my point is that the north did not seem to have God's favor either. Both sides were guilty of slavery. But the north may have also been guilty of trying to force it's will upon the south.

        The result is that the federal government became much stronger after the war. The states had held the power before that. After 150 years we now have a "beast" for a federal government. The north was responsible for creating the conditions for this beast to be born.

        Now that beast is poised to try to put a stop to any religion from preaching that homosexuality is wrong and also that Islam is of Satan. This is where the beast is headed.
        Indeed. In my recollection, the way public school teaches that war is grossly misrepresented. In a way I'm glad I had no interest in history class, because I probably avoided having my head stuffed with a metric tonne of propaganda.

        I heard it said--I forget the source--that the Civil War was the period in which the federal government took on massive debt from the European bank in order to stay bankruptcy and continue funding the north's fight against the south. In the process, Lincoln put the United States of America under corporate law to obtain the loan. This sold America's future. At this point the United States of America was incorporated as a legal person, as all nations and municipalities nowadays are incorporated. It was a yoke of bondage upon the nation that we're still under, which is of course what the European bank had been trying to do for 100 years through its central banking schemes.

        So if this is an accurate image of what happened, then in one sense Lincoln placed our nation under the influence of a foreign power to force the Confederacy to stay in the union. That might be a harsh verdict. I'm not a student of the war, I'm just conveying someone else's interpretation as well as I can remember it.

        Emancipation of the slaves was an incidental development during the war. I can't recall what was the reason that the speaker mentioned, but it wasn't Lincoln's altruism as we were taught. It was a power play of some kind, and slavery was a lever against the south.

        But back to attacking this flag thing, and the ideal it supposedly represents. The schools and media tell the masses what to think, and the masses own it building up this false worldview: the flag represents slavery, the south did it to your grandparents, white supremacists, they fought to keep you in chains, go get 'em you protected, oppressed minority. And the masses believe the lie and obediently go for it. Meanwhile the system that lied to them is the one keeping them in poverty, dependent on handouts, in crime-infested neighborhoods, and atrophied by schools and medications and entertainment. And the worldview convinces them the oppressor is their neighbor who has as little control over the "beast" government as they do. Now that the lying government has taunted and unleashed the underdog on the group they demonized, hopefully many more people can begin to recognize the same formula being used in Ferguson, New York, the LGBT movement, pro-abortion lobby, and elsewhere.

        As with so many things that people get emotionally invested in, at some point there is no room for reason. This cultural slavery wound is such a thing. It has become an idol. Many blacks do not worship it, which impresses me more than I can express.

        The Chinese word for "crisis" is a compound word: danger and opportunity. This is a tension that the "beast" has learned to wield with great skill. I will pray to the Lord for many new hearts and minds to come through this, and be blessed with the truth: that men are not our arch enemy, that God is our Father and greatest ally in the real fight, and He is Jesus Christ.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Baruch View Post
          Indeed. In my recollection, the way public school teaches that war is grossly misrepresented. In a way I'm glad I had no interest in history class, because I probably avoided having my head stuffed with a metric tonne of propaganda.

          I heard it said--I forget the source--that the Civil War was the period in which the federal government took on massive debt from the European bank in order to stay bankruptcy and continue funding the north's fight against the south. In the process, Lincoln put the United States of America under corporate law to obtain the loan. This sold America's future. At this point the United States of America was incorporated as a legal person, as all nations and municipalities nowadays are incorporated. It was a yoke of bondage upon the nation that we're still under, which is of course what the European bank had been trying to do for 100 years through its central banking schemes.

          So if this is an accurate image of what happened, then in one sense Lincoln placed our nation under the influence of a foreign power to force the Confederacy to stay in the union. That might be a harsh verdict. I'm not a student of the war, I'm just conveying someone else's interpretation as well as I can remember it.

          Emancipation of the slaves was an incidental development during the war. I can't recall what was the reason that the speaker mentioned, but it wasn't Lincoln's altruism as we were taught. It was a power play of some kind, and slavery was a lever against the south.

          But back to attacking this flag thing, and the ideal it supposedly represents. The schools and media tell the masses what to think, and the masses own it building up this false worldview: the flag represents slavery, the south did it to your grandparents, white supremacists, they fought to keep you in chains, go get 'em you protected, oppressed minority. And the masses believe the lie and obediently go for it. Meanwhile the system that lied to them is the one keeping them in poverty, dependent on handouts, in crime-infested neighborhoods, and atrophied by schools and medications and entertainment. And the worldview convinces them the oppressor is their neighbor who has as little control over the "beast" government as they do. Now that the lying government has taunted and unleashed the underdog on the group they demonized, hopefully many more people can begin to recognize the same formula being used in Ferguson, New York, the LGBT movement, pro-abortion lobby, and elsewhere.

          As with so many things that people get emotionally invested in, at some point there is no room for reason. This cultural slavery wound is such a thing. It has become an idol. Many blacks do not worship it, which impresses me more than I can express.

          The Chinese word for "crisis" is a compound word: danger and opportunity. This is a tension that the "beast" has learned to wield with great skill. I will pray to the Lord for many new hearts and minds to come through this, and be blessed with the truth: that men are not our arch enemy, that God is our Father and greatest ally in the real fight, and He is Jesus Christ.
          Good thought provoking comments Barry.

          The bankers tried to take the US off of the silver standard and Lincoln fought to keep us on it. He was smart enough to see that silver was more common and would be much harder to control. Lincoln also kept the bankers from establishing a so called, Federal Reserve Bank, which he seen would put them in total control of our money. Of course Wilson later gave these foreign bankers total control of our money by letting them establish the Federal Reserve Bank.

          But Lincoln did put out nation in dept during the civil war and also he established the federal government as the power of the nation instead of the states. As far as freeing the slaves, Lincoln said that he would free the slaves IF that kept the union intact, OR he would not free the slaves if that kept the union intact. His main goal was to keep the Union intact.

          BUT Lincoln hated slavery. Frederick Douglas went to the White House and had a long conversation with Lincoln. Douglas was a freed slave and fought very hard against slavery. When Douglas left after talking with Lincoln he said that we had a great man sitting in the White House.

          The more I study WW2 the more I see that The Lord certainly saved our nation and gave us victory with miracle after miracle.

          BUT when I study the Civil War I see a bloody mess of a war and it seems that The Lord did not help either side.

          Right before they hung John Brown, he handed his captors this note:

          I, John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.

          It seems that John Brown was certainly correct. For the Civil war is still the bloodiest war this nation has ever been part of. Considering men fought with muzzle loading, single shot rifles instead of machine guns and the population of the US was only about 31 million ( both north and south), the Civil War was bloody beyond our ability to comprehend today.

          The Civil War was America's bloodiest conflict. The unprecedented violence of battles such as Shiloh, Antietam, Stones River, and Gettysburg shocked citizens and international observers alike. Nearly as many men died in captivity during the Civil War as were killed in the whole of the Vietnam War. Hundreds of thousands died of disease. Roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. Taken as a percentage of today's population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls.

          51,000 men fell at Gettysburg alone. Lee ordered 10,000 men to their death at Pickets charge in Gettysburg. Some of the Generals said a chicken could not have crossed that field alive, let alone 10,000 men. They had to cross 3/4 of a mile of open field under cannon and rifle fire. About 200 men made it to the wall of the Union lines still alive, the rest of the 10,000 fell trying to cross that field. I have stood at that wall and ever since that day, I have had far less respect for Lee. Picket said after the battle, that old man murdered my men. Longstreet could not pass down the order verbally when Picket came to ask if it was time to attack, but simply waved him on.

          When Lee asked Longstreet about their chance of success this was Longstreet's answer to Lee:

          ‘General,’ said Longstreet, ‘I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments, divisions, and armies, and should know as well as anyone what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no 15,000 men ever arrayed for battle can take that position.’ Unconvinced, Lee told him to summon Pickett.

          As the time drew near for the planned artillery bombardment, Longstreet sent a hurried message to Colonel E.P. Alexander, the artillery chief: ‘If the artillery fire does not have the effect to drive off the enemy or greatly demoralize him so as to make our efforts pretty certain, I would prefer that you should not advise General Pickett to make the charge. I shall rely a great deal on your judgment to determine the matter, and shall expect you to let General Pickett know when the moment offers.’ When Alexander replied that he would not be able to tell what the effect was because of the smoke from his fire, Longstreet finally ordered them to open fire.

          As Longstreet and Pickett watched the cannonade from the south end of Seminary Ridge, a messenger galloped up from Alexander. ‘If you are coming at all you must come immediately or I cannot give you proper support,’ Alexander had written. Slowly and carefully, Longstreet read the message. ‘General, shall I advance?’ Pickett asked.
          Longstreet gave no reply; he simply nodded his head and looked away.

          When I stood at that wall, when I took Isaac to see Gettysburg, that made the north's line, I was amazed at the bravery of those southern soldiers to try to cross that field under fire. The northern soldiers were also amazed at their bravery. They had no chance of staying alive and they all knew it. They simply marched to their death.

          I have considered their bravery and wondered about why they were so brave. While about 5% of the south held slaves, these men had seen slavery first hand. Maybe they did not desire their children to be made slaves to a powerful federal government of the north. Maybe they truly believed in keeping the power of government in the hands of their local state. They wanted men they knew and voted for to make their laws, not politicians who were strangers. It seems to me that most of the soldiers of the south were fighting for states rights. They were fighting to hold onto the power of making their own laws instead of allowing strangers to tell them what to do. I do not believe any man would fight so brave so another man could keep slaves.

          The Stars and Bars does not stand for slavery to most in the south, but to them it stands for the right of the state over the federal government. I say, let that flag still fly. Both black and white should support states right if they love freedom.

          During the following retreat, Lee told the men trudging past him "It is my fault," but in his three official reports on the battle and in the postwar years, he never repeated those words and generally implied the failure was due to others. Many in the South placed the blame on Longstreet, although he had strenuously argued against the plan.

          Years after the war, Pickett was asked why the assault had failed. He responded laconically, "I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

          The more I study the Civil War, the more I think it was God's judgement on our nation for buying and holding slaves against their will.

          BUT, concerning the African slaves themselves we have these things to consider:

          Slavery is a terrible evil, and I can not imagine the torment of seeing my children sold to another plantation.

          When David chose the judgement from God after he numbered his men:

          2 Sam 24

          13 So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me."
          14 David said to Gad, "I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men."

          The African slaves had fallen into the hands of mere men, and they are cruel and many have no mercy.

          But many slaves themselves spoke of their blessing by being taken to America. For many met The Lord Jesus Christ when their holders taught them about Christ.

          For the man that does not have Christ, has NOTHING. The man who possesses Christ possesses everything there is to possess and lacks nothing.

          So some lost their freedom as mere men, but gained true freedom from sin and gained Christ. So while they had nothing in this material world, they gained everything there is to possess that is real and eternal.


          Lou Newton
          Last edited by Lou Newton; June 25, 2015, 11:07 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Lou Newton View Post
            Good thought provoking comments Barry.

            The bankers tried to take the US off of the silver standard and Lincoln fought to keep us on it. He was smart enough to see that silver was more common and would be much harder to control. Lincoln also kept the bankers from establishing a so called, Federal Reserve Bank, which he seen would put them in total control of our money. Of course Wilson later gave these foreign bankers total control of our money by letting them establish the Federal Reserve Bank.

            But Lincoln did put out nation in dept during the civil war and also he established the federal government as the power of the nation instead of the states. As far as freeing the slaves, Lincoln said that he would free the slaves IF that kept the union intact, OR he would not free the slaves if that kept the union intact. His main goal was to keep the Union intact.

            BUT Lincoln hated slavery. Frederick Douglas went to the White House and had a long conversation with Lincoln. Douglas was a freed slave and fought very hard against slavery. When Douglas left after talking with Lincoln he said that we had a great man sitting in the White House.

            The more I study WW2 the more I see that The Lord certainly saved our nation and gave us victory with miracle after miracle.

            BUT when I study the Civil War I see a bloody mess of a war and it seems that The Lord did not help either side.

            Right before they hung John Brown, he handed his captors this note:

            I, John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.

            It seems that John Brown was certainly correct. For the Civil war is still the bloodiest war this nation has ever been part of. Considering men fought with muzzle loading, single shot rifles instead of machine guns and the population of the US was only about 31 million ( both north and south), the Civil War was bloody beyond our ability to comprehend today.

            The Civil War was America's bloodiest conflict. The unprecedented violence of battles such as Shiloh, Antietam, Stones River, and Gettysburg shocked citizens and international observers alike. Nearly as many men died in captivity during the Civil War as were killed in the whole of the Vietnam War. Hundreds of thousands died of disease. Roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. Taken as a percentage of today's population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls.

            51,000 men fell at Gettysburg alone. Lee ordered 10,000 men to their death at Pickets charge in Gettysburg. Some of the Generals said a chicken could not have crossed that field alive, let alone 10,000 men. They had to cross 3/4 of a mile of open field under cannon and rifle fire. About 200 men made it to the wall of the Union lines still alive, the rest of the 10,000 fell trying to cross that field. I have stood at that wall and ever since that day, I have had far less respect for Lee. Picket said after the battle, that old man murdered my men. Longstreet could not pass down the order verbally when Picket came to ask if it was time to attack, but simply waved him on.

            When Lee asked Longstreet about their chance of success this was Longstreet's answer to Lee:

            ‘General,’ said Longstreet, ‘I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments, divisions, and armies, and should know as well as anyone what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no 15,000 men ever arrayed for battle can take that position.’ Unconvinced, Lee told him to summon Pickett.

            As the time drew near for the planned artillery bombardment, Longstreet sent a hurried message to Colonel E.P. Alexander, the artillery chief: ‘If the artillery fire does not have the effect to drive off the enemy or greatly demoralize him so as to make our efforts pretty certain, I would prefer that you should not advise General Pickett to make the charge. I shall rely a great deal on your judgment to determine the matter, and shall expect you to let General Pickett know when the moment offers.’ When Alexander replied that he would not be able to tell what the effect was because of the smoke from his fire, Longstreet finally ordered them to open fire.

            As Longstreet and Pickett watched the cannonade from the south end of Seminary Ridge, a messenger galloped up from Alexander. ‘If you are coming at all you must come immediately or I cannot give you proper support,’ Alexander had written. Slowly and carefully, Longstreet read the message. ‘General, shall I advance?’ Pickett asked.
            Longstreet gave no reply; he simply nodded his head and looked away.

            When I stood at that wall, when I took Isaac to see Gettysburg, that made the north's line, I was amazed at the bravery of those southern soldiers to try to cross that field under fire. The northern soldiers were also amazed at their bravery. They had no chance of staying alive and they all knew it. They simply marched to their death.

            I have considered their bravery and wondered about why they were so brave. While about 5% of the south held slaves, these men had seen slavery first hand. Maybe they did not desire their children to be made slaves to a powerful federal government of the north. Maybe they truly believed in keeping the power of government in the hands of their local state. They wanted men they knew and voted for to make their laws, not politicians who were strangers. It seems to me that most of the soldiers of the south were fighting for states rights. They were fighting to hold onto the power of making their own laws instead of allowing strangers to tell them what to do. I do not believe any man would fight so brave so another man could keep slaves.

            The Stars and Bars does not stand for slavery to most in the south, but to them it stands for the right of the state over the federal government. I say, let that flag still fly. Both black and white should support states right if they love freedom.

            During the following retreat, Lee told the men trudging past him "It is my fault," but in his three official reports on the battle and in the postwar years, he never repeated those words and generally implied the failure was due to others. Many in the South placed the blame on Longstreet, although he had strenuously argued against the plan.

            Years after the war, Pickett was asked why the assault had failed. He responded laconically, "I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

            The more I study the Civil War, the more I think it was God's judgement on our nation for buying and holding slaves against their will.

            BUT, concerning the African slaves themselves we have these things to consider:

            Slavery is a terrible evil, and I can not imagine the torment of seeing my children sold to another plantation.

            When David chose the judgement from God after he numbered his men:

            2 Sam 24

            13 So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me."
            14 David said to Gad, "I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men."

            The African slaves had fallen into the hands of mere men, and they are cruel and many have no mercy.

            But many slaves themselves spoke of their blessing by being taken to America. For many met The Lord Jesus Christ when their holders taught them about Christ.

            For the man that does not have Christ, has NOTHING. The man who possesses Christ possesses everything there is to possess and lacks nothing.

            So some lost their freedom as mere men, but gained true freedom from sin and gained Christ. So while they had nothing in this material world, they gained everything there is to possess that is real and eternal.


            Lou Newton
            I want to add that we need to remember that the war of 1812 had taken place only 49 years before Lincoln was involved in the Civil War. Since Britain had been the aggressor in that war, Lincoln seen Britain and the rest of Europe as the threat to our security. Also the Federal Government was weak at that time and he did not see the real threat of a powerful federal government.

            Down through the history of mankind, it is the people's own governments that kill more people that criminals, or other nations.

            Governments kill people by the millions while criminals kill by the ones. tens, or even hundreds.

            The Nazis killed many tens of millions. The communists also killed many tens of millions. The Islamic governments also killed many tens of millions.

            Now our nation is facing NAZI tactics by the homosexuals and many other liberals. We have politicians who are simply Communists trying to take over our government. And we have a president who is trying to make our nation into a Muslim nation.


            Excerpts from President Obama’s books. Funny how the mainstream media doesn’t report this.

            --From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

            --From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

            --From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white.
            .

            --From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

            --From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

            --Finally, and most scary:
            From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

            Obama is not the real threat here. The real threat is a people who are so apathetic, and too lazy to seek out the truth about the people who they vote for. If Hillary Clinton is elected, she will be far worse than Obama.

            Certainly there is no hope for this nation unless we truly turn to The Lord Jesus Christ and ask Him to save us, while at the same time doing everything we can to stand for His Truth.

            Lou Newton
            Last edited by Lou Newton; June 25, 2015, 05:11 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Good post Dad. Also a lot of good responses by Baruch.

              I guess I'll throw my ten cents in as well. I think it's good for people not to support flags that represent evil. However, if we ban all flags that represent countries or organizations that have done some evil, then we would have to ban all flags. So how evil does a country have to be before it is wrong to wave their flag? Where do we draw that line? Well, I would be fine with the government not drawing that line for me. Since when did it become a self-evident and inalienable right to never be offended? I don't remember which Amendment to the Constitution that was included in. Being tolerant isn't forcing everyone else to behave like you want them too because you think they might offend someone. That's the exact opposite of being tolerant.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Isaac View Post
                Good post Dad. Also a lot of good responses by Baruch.

                I guess I'll throw my ten cents in as well. I think it's good for people not to support flags that represent evil. However, if we ban all flags that represent countries or organizations that have done some evil, then we would have to ban all flags. So how evil does a country have to be before it is wrong to wave their flag? Where do we draw that line? Well, I would be fine with the government not drawing that line for me. Since when did it become a self-evident and inalienable right to never be offended? I don't remember which Amendment to the Constitution that was included in. Being tolerant isn't forcing everyone else to behave like you want them too because you think they might offend someone. That's the exact opposite of being tolerant.
                Amen and amen. Very good comment Isaac. It really needed to be said.

                They are not only intolerant, they are also hypocrites.

                Homosexuals do not want anyone to be able to offend them by saying homosexuality is sinful.

                Yet many shove their homosexuality in our face by displaying it everywhere and trying to force everyone to accept their behavior even though it offends us. They cry out when anyone offends them for any reason. Yet they care not who they offend.

                The same way many nationalities cry out when anyone or anything offends them. Yet they care not when their race robs and murders people of another race.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Good to see your comment, Isaac, and a good one. I cannot add to it, but wanted to show my agreement.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Baruch View Post
                    Apparently, retailers are banning the sale of the Confederate flag and consumers are consternated who need a flag to burn or display. The scheming so-called elite demonstrate their mastery over the manipulable masses. But for what purpose? Obviously, crisis to occupy the public's attention. There are a lot of huge things going down, but this gets national coverage. Not so obviously, we have another minority with the power of the government behind it, tearing down what was until today a sturdy cultural staple. Political Correctness is coercion, its enchantment needs to be dispelled.
                    While the mind control engine had the nation focused on this, the Republican senate approved fast-track authority for the President to enact new trade agreements via TPP, TTiP, and TiSA which also hide the authority to commit our nation to the UN Agenda 21 and civilian disarmament.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Baruch View Post
                      While the mind control engine had the nation focused on this, the Republican senate approved fast-track authority for the President to enact new trade agreements via TPP, TTiP, and TiSA which also hide the authority to commit our nation to the UN Agenda 21 and civilian disarmament.
                      The whole nation was focused on a flag while our leaders voted to give our sovereignty away to the UN. The Republicans are even more despicable, to me, than the liberals. The liberals voted for what they claim to support, but the Republicans voted for what they claim to be against.

                      The following is a copy of an article about Rand Paul who demanded that the treaty be released so everyone could read it. Kerry said, Obama would release the text of the treaty at least 60 days before Obama signed it. Of course that would be too late for the congress to change their vote. Kerry is either an idiot, or thinks we are all idiots. Both may be true.

                      Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Saturday it “boggles the mind” that the White House has not yet released the text of trade deal it’s pushing, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
                      “It kind of boggles the mind,” Paul said in an interview with Breitbart News. “Who’s in charge of the administration that decides to keep a trade treaty secret? To keep it classified makes no sense at all.”
                      Paul said the administration should immediately release the text of the trade deal so members of the Senate can decide how to vote later on.

                      The Senate recently voted to fast-track the trade deal, which would allow an up-or-down vote on it. House GOP leaders could hold the fast-track vote as early as next week despite opposition from groups in both parties.“To me, it’s kind of you put the cart before the horse to give the permission to do something you haven’t seen,” Paul said. “They claim you’ll get to see it, again but you’ll only get an up-or-down vote with no amendments. Also, they get rid of some of the rules on — I guess it’s not, you can’t filibuster it either. It passes with a simple majority.”
                      Paul explained he has proposed legislation that would require the Senate to wait one day before a vote is held for every 20 pages of legislation.
                      “So 800-page legislation [like Obamatrade] would wait 40 days. You’d wait 40 days so we’d have adequate time to read it. Yeah, I’m a believer that we should read legislation before we vote on it.”
                      Last month, Secretary of State John Kerry said the final text of the trade deal would be made public at a minimum of 60 days before President Obama would sign it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lou Newton View Post
                        The whole nation was focused on a flag while our leaders voted to give our sovereignty away to the UN. The Republicans are even more despicable, to me, than the liberals. The liberals voted for what they claim to support, but the Republicans voted for what they claim to be against.

                        The following is a copy of an article about Rand Paul who demanded that the treaty be released so everyone could read it. Kerry said, Obama would release the text of the treaty at least 60 days before Obama signed it. Of course that would be too late for the congress to change their vote. Kerry is either an idiot, or thinks we are all idiots. Both may be true.

                        Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Saturday it “boggles the mind” that the White House has not yet released the text of trade deal it’s pushing, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
                        “It kind of boggles the mind,” Paul said in an interview with Breitbart News. “Who’s in charge of the administration that decides to keep a trade treaty secret? To keep it classified makes no sense at all.”
                        Paul said the administration should immediately release the text of the trade deal so members of the Senate can decide how to vote later on.

                        The Senate recently voted to fast-track the trade deal, which would allow an up-or-down vote on it. House GOP leaders could hold the fast-track vote as early as next week despite opposition from groups in both parties.“To me, it’s kind of you put the cart before the horse to give the permission to do something you haven’t seen,” Paul said. “They claim you’ll get to see it, again but you’ll only get an up-or-down vote with no amendments. Also, they get rid of some of the rules on — I guess it’s not, you can’t filibuster it either. It passes with a simple majority.”
                        Paul explained he has proposed legislation that would require the Senate to wait one day before a vote is held for every 20 pages of legislation.
                        “So 800-page legislation [like Obamatrade] would wait 40 days. You’d wait 40 days so we’d have adequate time to read it. Yeah, I’m a believer that we should read legislation before we vote on it.”
                        Last month, Secretary of State John Kerry said the final text of the trade deal would be made public at a minimum of 60 days before President Obama would sign it.
                        Amen, Lou. These men, except for (hopefully) a few who've retained their souls, are no longer invested in America as we knew it. Sold out, coerced, or ignorant--it is hard to imagine the latter.

                        It's also said that the treaty is a living document. The US Constitution is a dead document: it was written to be timeless, not have it's meaning redefined and its contents radically altered. This treaty gives every signing nation's sovereignty over to a global, secret, unelected law-making body. Global corporations, like GlaxoSmithKline, Monsanto, DuPont, Microsoft/Gates Foundation, Pepsi Co., sell-out Nike and a thousand others, will be making our laws (edit: yes, it's already the case; but national and civil obstacles will be removed).

                        I can imagine few things worse. Now we see how Mystery Babylon begins to traffic its sorcery to the world. Prior to this many nations have resisted its incursion.

                        Check out the wording in this letter from Sen. Jeff Sessions. If this letter is legit, they certainly knew enough to wisely vote this down.
                        Republicans TPP Vote Just Fast-Tracked Global Warming & Gun Control
                        Last edited by Baruch; June 26, 2015, 11:08 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Baruch View Post
                          Amen, Lou. These men, except for (hopefully) a few who've retained their souls, are no longer invested in America as we knew it. Sold out, coerced, or ignorant--it is hard to imagine the latter.

                          It's also said that the treaty is a living document. The US Constitution is a dead document: it was written to be timeless, not have it's meaning redefined and its contents radically altered. This treaty gives every signing nation's sovereignty over to a global, secret, unelected law-making body. Global corporations, like GlaxoSmithKline, Monsanto, DuPont, Microsoft/Gates Foundation, Pepsi Co., sell-out Nike and a thousand others, will be making our laws (edit: yes, it's already the case; but national and civil obstacles will be removed).

                          I can imagine few things worse. Now we see how Mystery Babylon begins to traffic its sorcery to the world. Prior to this many nations have resisted its incursion.

                          Check out the wording in this letter from Sen. Jeff Sessions. If this letter is legit, they certainly knew enough to wisely vote this down.
                          Republicans TPP Vote Just Fast-Tracked Global Warming & Gun Control
                          The more I find out about this deal, the more disgusting it is.

                          We have a POTUS that ,first of all, may not be qualified to hold the office.

                          He appoints two US Supreme Court Justices that think nothing of breaking the supreme law of the land to further their Godless agenda.

                          The US Congress has just voted to make themselves totally meaningless. They have given all their power to the POTUS and foreigners.

                          If this is not time for a revolution, when is it time ?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X