Posted on 10/02/2007 1:10:01 PM PDT by BGHater
AMERICANA, Brazil
Now well past 90, Judith MacKnight Jones is suffering from Alzheimer's disease, the illness that robbed her of all of her memory, her most precious asset.
She has been lying here for the past 11 years, covered by a patchwork blanket, made from pieces her great-grandmother brought from the United States between 1865 and 1885, after the Confederacy lost the Civil War.
Unable to speak or remember now, her book "Soldado Descanso" ("Rest Soldier") is written in Portuguese, but soon will be translated into English, as the publisher thinks Americans should know about the proud history of Confederate immigrants settling in Brazil, finding a new home here but maintaining many of the traditions they brought from Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, the Carolinas and Georgia.
Her daughter-in-law, Heloisa Jones, said patchwork is only one of the values the Americans have brought.
This blanket is not just any patchwork, she said, "these pieces are very old and reflect a valuable tradition," she said.
"Over a century old and symbolizing our heritage, the flight from our homelands, it is extremely important to keep it that way. I teach my children and grandchildren the American values our ancestors have brought with them. And I expect them to teach their children and grandchildren the same," she said.
Every spring, hundreds of the descendants of the soldiers who lost the war against the North go to the cemetery they call O Campo. They party and meet dressed in traditional costumes, staging shows, singing Southern songs like "When the Saints Come Marching In" or "Oh Susannah," playing banjos and blowing trumpets, the men eventually getting drunk on home-brewed beer.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
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.
I don’t 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).
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.
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.
"...this Constitution for the United States of America." OK, so?
To which an oath to the Constitution of the United States does not apply.
You have got to be kidding me.
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Just when you think you've seen it all...
Then there would not be any hypothetical answers
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?
“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.
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.
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....
“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.
Again, you're all class.
Keep digging yourself deeper.
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?
Ping!
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.