Skip to comments.
Dixie tradition kept alive in Brazil enclave[Confederate immigrants]
The Washington Times ^
| 02 Oct 2007
| Anton Foek
Posted on 10/02/2007 1:10:01 PM PDT by BGHater
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 221-222 next last
To: Lee'sGhost
Perhaps it makes better sense if we consider it to mean they see us as mythological in nature like Hercules, Jason and the Argonauts, etc. No, mythological in nature - like it was all about tariffs, Lincoln started the war, there were tens of thousands of black confederate combat troops, slavery was on its way out, etc. That kind of mythology.
141
posted on
10/03/2007 12:14:15 PM PDT
by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: Constantine XIII
Biblically, IIRC, slaves were almost always POWs or the family/descendents thereof, and were all given their freedom each Jubilee year. I dont think we did it that way. :)
No, slavery here (and probably most other places) definitely was not in conformity with Halakhah. It may even be that only Jews are allowed to own slaves (only fully Theocratic Torah Israel is permitted to wage wars of concquest, eg).
There were two types of slaves: `avadim `Ivriyyim (Hebrew slaves) and avdey-Kena`an ("Canaanite" slaves, who weren't actually Canaanites). I believe the yovel (jubilee) year only applied to the former. In fact, Parashat Mishpatim (Exodus 21-24) explicitly defines "Canaanite" slaves as property to be handed down from on generation to the next (a Jew was still liable for murder of a "Canaanite" slave, but only up to a certain point; I believe if the slave died immediately the killer was liable but if the slave lingered before dying he wasn't because "he is his property"). But I'm not an expert on this.
And much as I admire that old Fundamentalist nut John Brown, the Torah prohibition of returning an escaped slave applied only to a Jewish slave who had escaped a non-Jewish master outside Israel and then escaped to Israel. So it didn't apply to the fugitive slaves here (not that they were Halakhically slaves to begin with).
142
posted on
10/03/2007 12:20:56 PM PDT
by
Zionist Conspirator
(Bere'shit bara' 'Eloqim 'et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz.)
To: Non-Sequitur
Why, hello there, non-sensical! Thanks for that insight. It was SO enlightening.
143
posted on
10/03/2007 12:22:26 PM PDT
by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
To: Lee'sGhost
Why, hello there, non-sensical! Thanks for that insight. It was SO enlightening. Always a pleasure to read your posts as well, LG. They're usually good for a laugh or two.
144
posted on
10/03/2007 12:25:07 PM PDT
by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: PeaRidge
The myth? Something like we might think it odd that a newly elected government official would use government men and equipment to kill citizens in order to hold together a republic of sovereign states, some of which dared to declare themselves free of domination. What a myth! What domination? They lost an election! And their split from the northern Democrats made it certain. The spirit of the sore loser is not a valid reason to try to destroy the greatest government the world has ever known.
To: Colonel Kangaroo
“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.”
Samuel Adams
Could he have had your yankee ancestors in mind?
To: Non-Sequitur
...in particuilar the LAST EIGHT WORDS.... "...this Constitution for the United States of America." OK, so?
To which an oath to the Constitution of the United States does not apply.
147
posted on
10/03/2007 1:26:30 PM PDT
by
archy
(uote>)
To: archy
To which an oath to the Constitution of the United States does not apply. You have got to be kidding me.
148
posted on
10/03/2007 1:27:48 PM PDT
by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: wordsofearnest
How have you been? What if there were no hypothetical questions?
149
posted on
10/03/2007 1:30:14 PM PDT
by
archy
(uote>)
To: Non-Sequitur
You have got to be kidding meJust when you think you've seen it all...
To: archy
Then there would not be any hypothetical answers
151
posted on
10/03/2007 1:46:35 PM PDT
by
wordsofearnest
(Thompson-Hunter not Hunter Thompson.)
To: wideawake
Re your #46. You are a rude and uncouth Yankee. Furthermore, having said that, I must conclude that you are also F.O.S.
152
posted on
10/03/2007 1:49:37 PM PDT
by
BnBlFlag
(Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
To: BnBlFlag
Re your #46. You are a rude and uncouth Yankee. Furthermore, having said that, I must conclude that you are also F.O.S. You are all class. Man, the truth really stings when it hits home, eh?
153
posted on
10/03/2007 1:53:13 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: Jedi Master Pikachu
“But that’s just the view of neither a Northerner nor a Southerner, but a western Californian”.
To Southerners, Californians are just as much Yankees as Ohians.
154
posted on
10/03/2007 2:03:16 PM PDT
by
BnBlFlag
(Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
To: Non-Sequitur
To which an oath to the Constitution of the United States does not apply. You have got to be kidding me.
Well, it is only one little changed word. Legally it's about as valid as a president taking an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of Brazil would be.
155
posted on
10/03/2007 2:07:18 PM PDT
by
archy
(uote>)
To: archy
Well, it is only one little changed word. Legally it's about as valid as a president taking an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of Brazil would be. Well, no it would not. The people of the United States did ordain and establish a Constitution for the United States. It was the Constitution for the United States because it had not been ratified when written. Once the 9th state ratitified it then it did become the Constitution of the United States.
Just when I thought I'd heard it all....
156
posted on
10/03/2007 2:12:56 PM PDT
by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: wideawake
“Man, the truth really stings when it hits home, eh?
Whose truth? Yours? LOL! You’re still rude, ill mannered, ignorant and F.O.S. Even worse, you’re a Low Down Damn Yankee Liar as Shane would say.
157
posted on
10/03/2007 2:16:24 PM PDT
by
BnBlFlag
(Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
To: BnBlFlag
Youre still rude, ill mannered, ignorant and F.O.S. Even worse, youre a Low Down Damn Yankee Liar as Shane would say.Again, you're all class.
Keep digging yourself deeper.
158
posted on
10/03/2007 2:17:34 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: archy
Let me see if I've got this straight:
The President swears an oath, the wording of which is dictated in the Constitution, but because that Constitutionally-mandated phrasing is different from the phrasing of a different part of the Constitution, the oath specified in the Constitution is, in fact, null and void. Is that your argument?
To: stainlessbanner
160
posted on
10/03/2007 2:49:04 PM PDT
by
BnBlFlag
(Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 221-222 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson