Posted on 03/30/2019 10:39:44 PM PDT by packrat01
I must apologize.
I do not have the time to make individual apologies to each one of you who I have offended, hence the general post.
I have learned a lot in the last several years. Some of the things I've learned:
I USED TO vote the lesser of two evils. No longer.
God is Sovereign in illumination, as He is in salvation. He doen't give the same light to everyone at the same time. If you're in the dark; blame God, or get wisdom.
Lincoln was NOT a good president. One of the most evil, actually.
The CSA were correct in their actions.
The State of Israel as established by the U.N. is NOT the Israel of God.
09/11/2001 was NOT due to nineteen hijackers. (I posted to one FReeper in particular shortly after 911, for which I received a "timeout".)
... and some things are just as true today as they were when I offended. I'm truly sorry you are offended.
Follow the money still answers more questions than one might realize ...
Some Christians are catholic, but not all catholics are Christian.
Say, that reminds me of something. The Koran calls Allah “the best of deceivers” in Sura 3:54, 7:99 and 8:30. Thanks for admitting what religion you follow.
If you’re in the dark, blame God …
I think you are right about that.
So let's see. On December 17, 1862, General Grant ordered the expulsion of all Jews from areas in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky under his command. Less than three weeks later Lincoln revoked the order.
But you think he didn't know anything about a military campaign that took a month and a half? Really? I've never thought to look, but my guess is that there were news reports about it within a week of when Sherman began his devastation. (Oh, look! Sherman's campaign was being reported in Philadelphia less than two weeks after it started. Maybe "Honest Abe" didn't bother to read the newspapers?)
And he was on the scene when Grant destroyed Richmond. Did he not know about that also? Or maybe he just showed up to watch?
ML/NJ
Just waiting on the Moving Guru (aka: Darksheare) to get the moving van set up and ready for the move. ;o]
Only a fool would say that the State of Israel isn’t the Israel of God.
Replacement Theology goes against Genesis 12:3.
Fools....
They obviously don’t understand that Israel regathers mostly without spirit - at first.
Hence, the “valley of the dry bones” and the bones were very dry.
Nor do they comprehend the Remnant that shall be Saved.
I know. I’ve been around a lot of these people and had the misfortune to work around some of them.
Ah, haven’t seen a good zot in awhile.
Car and dental issues my direction, afraid I’m not going to be able to do much for awhile.
Head’s not in the game.
So we should have let the south secede?
So we should have let the south secede?
That’s a question that will probably be debated as long as the U.S. exists as a nation. An older co-worker once told me years ago that an elderly relative had two brothers who fought in the war, one for the South and the other for the North. Supposedly, they eventually got around to arguing the causes of the war at each family gathering. Both had good points and had effective arguments. It doesn’t appear that the laws of the U.S. supported the North’s view to keep the South in the union at the time so they decided to settle it by war. But even though slavery was the war cry, it couldn’t have been the real reason for it, judging by the way both slaves and freedmen were treated by the North. Also, 95% of Confederate soldiers were too financially broken to own slaves and didn’t have any belief that they ever could in the future. Many of them would’t own anyone else even if they could. What is clear is that several years later, Germany raised it’s head in WWI and again in WWII. They might have succeeded without a completely united group of states.
Years ago, I read a pretty basic and logical supposition that pondered proceeding historical event outcomes had the civil war not happened or turned out differently. Certainly WWI and WWII (if it happened at all) would have been different. But it went further in that America would have been more than just two nations as there was still a lot of the "west" that would have been disputed. In fact, as I recall, a "war" either then or later might have been inevitable as two or three nations (Consider Texas) claimed territory in the plains, west and possibly even south (Mexico). It also considered potential foreign influence and alliances a early America had a wealth of resources that would make America a valued trade partner.
It's not often in history, we can contemplate stark differences had things gone differently. But the Civil War is one that, at a high cost, seems to have been an investment that solidified a fledgling nation's eventual rise to the world's greatest nation and sole superpower, if only for a century (yet undetermined). It might be another 100 years before we can close the book on it.
Outstanding post of Norman’s works.
No doubt that if the out come was different, the world would look totally different today. Contrary to many of today’s beliefs, it came very close to turning out the other way. The way the end of it was eventually decided can only be chalked up as The Lord’s will.
Tried to go out in a blaze of glory and instead you went out in a cloud of crap.
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
— Confederate constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4
While I strongly support state’s rights, I don’t believe the state is always right.
It was learning things like this that weaned me off of early, formative years, sympathy for the Southern cause.
Those who do support it go right into Alinsky mode when confronted with that particular clause, among other things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.