Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[Socrtease]

I think the fact that he took no final religious service at his death speaks volumes about what he as a person believed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Based on the fact that he would get up and leave rather than stay during communion, the fact that he spoke ill of the faith in private correspondence, and the fact that his closest friends all claim he was a deist, I see his speech as speaking on behalf of the nation rather than on behalf of himself.

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

He's not talking on behalf of the nation here, he is stating that he thinks it's impossible to GOVERN a nation without God and the Bible. This is his personal belief, and he is not attributing the belief to any one else.

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Again, when you read through the sentences, it seems very clear what the man believes. He basically says you are an idiot if you think morality can be maintained without religion, and it's plum crazy to expect morality to prevail in the absence of religious principle.

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained”

Seems Washington believes there is some "eternal rule of order" and it is ordained by Heaven. This is a far cry from what we normally hear from people who don't believe in a God, just take a look on this board... you see any Atheists proclaiming we have eternal rules of order and right ordained by Heaven?

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.”

Here he is directly addressing people who don't believe in God, and telling us what a fool he thinks they are. He doesn't structure his sentences in a way that makes me think he was uncertain or unsure of what he believed.

 

[WinterBorn]

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

He's not talking on behalf of the nation here, he is stating that he thinks it's impossible to GOVERN a nation without God and the Bible. This is his personal belief, and he is not attributing the belief to any one else.

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Again, when you read through the sentences, it seems very clear what the man believes. He basically says you are an idiot if you think morality can be maintained without religion, and it's plum crazy to expect morality to prevail in the absence of religious principle.

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained”

Seems Washington believes there is some "eternal rule of order" and it is ordained by Heaven. This is a far cry from what we normally hear from people who don't believe in a God, just take a look on this board... you see any Atheists proclaiming we have eternal rules of order and right ordained by Heaven?

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.”

Here he is directly addressing people who don't believe in God, and telling us what a fool he thinks they are. He doesn't structure his sentences in a way that makes me think he was uncertain or unsure of what he believed.

And yet he refused any religious rites or service at his death.

He also spoke rather ill of christianity in private correspondence, when his most personal thoughts would be expressed. The quotes you used were all public expressions to a people who were mostly christian.

He was also involved in the framing of the US Constitution. A document from which God & Christianity are conspicuously absent.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think the fact that he took no final religious service at his death speaks volumes about what he as a person believed.

I don't agree. Washington was our first president, a resoundingly popular war hero and the "Father of our Country." If Washington had proclaimed a belief in Buddhism, the following day, most of the nation would have converted. That was how much of an influence the man had. I view the lack of religious service at his death, as a testament to his vision and wisdom, and the understanding of how much that might influence others. It was because he didn't want to start a controversy, he didn't want to 'favor' one religious belief over another, or give the impression that was the case. He represented our nation, and he understood that. In his unique role, it was important to not convey a 'favoritism' toward any particular religious belief. None of this had a thing to do with what he believed personally.

 

[Socrtease]

I don't agree. Washington was our first president, a resoundingly popular war hero and the "Father of our Country." If Washington had proclaimed a belief in Buddhism, the following day, most of the nation would have converted. That was how much of an influence the man had. I view the lack of religious service at his death, as a testament to his vision and wisdom, and the understanding of how much that might influence others. It was because he didn't want to start a controversy, he didn't want to 'favor' one religious belief over another, or give the impression that was the case. He represented our nation, and he understood that. In his unique role, it was important to not convey a 'favoritism' toward any particular religious belief. None of this had a thing to do with what he believed personally.

So, what you are selling here is that Washington, a Devoutly religious man, who at the last hours of his life, before going to meet his maker, had in his mind that calling a minister to his bedside at the hour of his death might pursuade people that he was favoring one relgious belief over another, or one christian denomination over another, so he chose to have NO religious leader at his side. That is really how religious people work? I mean there was no CNN to cover it so it would have taken weeks for people to have heard about it and lots of people still would have never known.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And yet he refused any religious rites or service at his death.

He also spoke rather ill of christianity in private correspondence, when his most personal thoughts would be expressed. The quotes you used were all public expressions to a people who were mostly christian.

He was also involved in the framing of the US Constitution. A document from which God & Christianity are conspicuously absent.

I hate to break it to ya, but some people do have a religious belief in God that doesn't include belief in Christianity. You seem to think, since he wasn't hot on Christianity, it translates to him not believing in God.

The Constitution is the rules of law which govern the nation. Since we established religious freedom as one of our most sacred rights, it would be hypocritical to set laws up based on ONE religion. Unless we were intending to form a Theocracy, there would be no fundamental reason for the Constitution to mention God or Christianity.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, what you are selling here is that Washington, a Devoutly religious man, who at the last hours of his life, before going to meet his maker, had in his mind that calling a minister to his bedside at the hour of his death might pursuade people that he was favoring one relgious belief over another, or one christian denomination over another, so he chose to have NO religious leader at his side. That is really how religious people work? I mean there was no CNN to cover it so it would have taken weeks for people to have heard about it and lots of people still would have never known.

I don't know how religious people work, or what someone might do today. I merely pointed out, the reason may have been completely benign, and had nothing to do with what his personal religious beliefs were. Believe me, when Washington died, the newspapers reported every minute detail of it, because that was what people were interested in. Washington was wildly popular, and loved. I don't think it is the least bit 'far fetched' that he would have considered his options and chose to publicly display no personal religious preference, because of the inherent connotations of endorsement which would have certainly followed. As I said, he represented the nation, he was a national icon... a nation which welcomes ALL religious beliefs. Why would he dare risk the chance of snubbing OR endorsing a particular religious belief?

 

[DamnYankee]

So as a catholic you do not believe the pope to be infallible?

No.

 

[DamnYankee]

I think the fact that he took no final religious service at his death speaks volumes about what he as a person believed.

His wife Martha was alongside him for his last 24 hours; she had a Bible with her, and commented one month later in a letter to Johnathan Trumbull: "When the mind is deeply afflicted by those irreparable losses which are incident to humanity, the good Christian will submit without repining to the dispensations of divine Providence, and look for consolation to that Being who alone can pour balm into the bleeding heart, and who has promised to be the widow's God."

link

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

His wife Martha was alongside him for his last 24 hours; she had a Bible with her, and commented one month later in a letter to Johnathan Trumbull: "When the mind is deeply afflicted by those irreparable losses which are incident to humanity, the good Christian will submit without repining to the dispensations of divine Providence, and look for consolation to that Being who alone can pour balm into the bleeding heart, and who has promised to be the widow's God."

link

Good Christians call people "queers" and make obscene comments about dead parents too, don't they?

 

[DamnYankee]

Did I hurt your feelings?

 

[WinterBorn]

I hate to break it to ya, but some people do have a religious belief in God that doesn't include belief in Christianity. You seem to think, since he wasn't hot on Christianity, it translates to him not believing in God.

Belief in God but not christianity? What would you call that?

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

Did I hurt your feelings?

No. I forgave you already. How does Jesus feel about your insults? Does He want you to act that way, knowing that you claim to be His?

 

[DamnYankee]

No. I forgave you already. How does Jesus feel about your insults? Does He want you to act that way, knowing that you claim to be His?

The Southern Man never forgives.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Belief in God but not christianity? What would you call that?

Well you could call it any number of things, not all belief in God revolves around Christianity. Jewish people believe in God, they aren't Christian, they are Jewish! Maybe Washington was a Jew?

But you say Washington was a Deist, and it is important to note what a Deist believes...

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.

Wow.... I never realized I was a Deist! That's almost exactly what I believe!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Still playing the dunce, Southie? Or are you so fucking dumb that I have to explain everything to you?

The hard truth for some people to handle is that the pro-slavery Dixie-crats don't run the Dem party anymore and the anti-slavery Radical Republicans don't run the GOP party anymore. Lincoln only "saw the light" when he realized he needed the freed slaves on his side of the war, and that he needed the moral swaying anti-slavery for the Union to succeed.
Bottom line: You can't logically or factually disprove what I say, so you just squawk any offensive rhetoric you can muster....that you still try to categorize black folk as sheep speaks volumes of the racist bile that permeates your mind.

Again you bring up racism; a clear indication that you're losing an argument. No stupid, as the chronology of the posts show, I AM NOT THE ONE DEFENDING THE CONFEDERACY OR TRYING TO PRETEND THAT SLAVERY WAS A MERE FORMALITY TO BE EVENTUALLY RECKONED WITH. YOU CAN THANK YOUR BUDDIES FOR THAT BS. If the Dem Party bosses were black and they catered to whites the reaction would be the same. More BS sci-fi from a confederate apologist. It's simply human nature to support the Party that promises to give you stuff that you didn't earn, even when it harms you in the long run. Who the fuck are you to discern about what people "earned"? Are you under the delusion that your dopey ass hasn't benefitted from the social services this country offers since your birth? What the hell do you think corporate welfare is, dummy? YOU don't have the resources to hide cash on the Cayman islands, do you now? But hey, let's excuse the people who screw you over on a daily basis (Enron, S&L, Wall St.) and regurgitate the whine of the frustrated silent majority that those uppity blacks are "welfare queens" that the Dem party uses to gain power. No wonder Karl Rove loves willfully ignorant folk like you.

The Democrat Party has destroyed the black family, yet you eagerly support them.

You can blow that bullhorn all night long, but you cannot logically or factually disprove or refute what I previously posted....and that just burns your ass to no end.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Still playing the dunce, Southie? Or are you so fucking dumb that I have to explain everything to you?

The hard truth for some people to handle is that the pro-slavery Dixie-crats don't run the Dem party anymore and the anti-slavery Radical Republicans don't run the GOP party anymore. Lincoln only "saw the light" when he realized he needed the freed slaves on his side of the war, and that he needed the moral swaying anti-slavery for the Union to succeed.
Bottom line: You can't logically or factually disprove what I say, so you just squawk any offensive rhetoric you can muster....that you still try to categorize black folk as sheep speaks volumes of the racist bile that permeates your mind.

No one has to "disprove" what you say....its a stupid premise on its face and its YOU that CAN'T PROVE what you say, its nothing more than your opinion...so why bother even discussing it....

Translation: this intellectually impotent clown cannot logically or factually disprove what I wrote....yet he whines and stamps his widdle feet against what I write as being not true and unsubstantiated opinion....then the dope claims it's not worth discussing...yet he just has to throw in his two cents, thus contradicting himself. "Bravo" indeed.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
I'm sorry, but slavery wasn't the backbone of the economy, cotton was. Slaves were used to pick the cotton, pursuant to the laws as established by the US government and Supreme Court of the US.

Typical racist dodge.....it's all legal, so it's okay...and let's pretend the cotton just magically picked itself, processed itself, wrapped itself up and transported itself while the black slaves just stood around. Let's pretend black slaves DID NO OTHER WORK for 2 centuries before the civil war. Dixie is SO FULL OF RACIST REVISIONIST BULLSHIT IT ALMOSTREALITY.

I never said it was okay, I said it was legal. You state a moot point that's common knowledge. Why? It doesn't justify slavery, and since you insinuate that you didn't agree with it, why state the obvious. I never pretended the cotton picked itself, in fact, I stated very clearly that slaves picked the cotton! No shit sherlock....and previous to that you state that they were not the backbone of the financial situation....a pretty dumb statement given that without the slaves, the cotton would NOT have been harvested at the rate it was for two centuries. It's YOU that try to separate the two...and you failed. It's right there in black and white in the post you are responding to, idiot! Can't you fucking read, you illiterate hick? See above responses, folks. What I won't "pretend" is that slavery was not legal, No one said it wasn't, you braying jackass....and the South was doing something illegal by using slave labor to pick cotton. No one said they were at the time, you braying jackass I can't "pretend" that the South invented slavery, or that it was merely something they did against the will of the government or society in general, because that is a fucking bald-face lie. No one said they did, you braying jackass....the discussion is about the romantic fantasy of the Confederacy fight against "northern aggression" and how slavery was really an inconsequential issue...as if there was never an anti-slavery movement in the country prior to the Civil War. I've not dodged a damn thing, I haven't said what you claimed I said, and there is nothing "revisionist" about anything I've stated. A lie....as I've just demonstrated here. You can call me racist every time you post, I don't give a flying fuck, it doesn't bother me in the least, because I know I am not a racist and never have been.

And yet your writings belie your protests. You're just another bigoted, revisionist hack with delusions of intellectualism. My previous statements stand...and you can't BS your way around it. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here are some hard to live with truths about this issue:

1) The radical republicans of old Don't exist anymore
2) The Dixie-crats DO NOT run the Democratic Party anymore
3) Slavery WAS a secondary issue until Lincoln realized he needed black folk to help win the war...then he became more than just a philosophizing "emancipator".
4) Without a century and a half of slavery, the "confederacy" wouldn't have the economic means to wage the war to the extent it did.
5) THAT CENTURIES OF SLAVERY IS CONSIDERED A SIDE ISSUE IN THE ROMANTICIZING OF THE CONFEDERACY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MINDSET......THAT ENSLAVEMENT AND DETRIMENTAL TREATMENT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT WOULD "EVENTUALLY" BE RESOVLED BY THE FOLK WHO BENEFITTED MOST FROM THIS EVIL. PUH-LEEZE!

 

[DamnYankee]

[1]No stupid, as the chronology of the posts show, I AM NOT THE ONE DEFENDING THE CONFEDERACY OR TRYING TO PRETEND THAT SLAVERY WAS A MERE FORMALITY TO BE EVENTUALLY RECKONED WITH. YOU CAN THANK YOUR BUDDIES FOR THAT BS.

[2]More BS sci-fi from a confederate apologist.

[3]Who the fuck are you to discern about what people "earned"? Are you under the delusion that your dopey ass hasn't benefitted from the social services this country offers since your birth? What the hell do you think corporate welfare is, dummy? YOU don't have the resources to hide cash on the Cayman islands, do you now? But hey, let's excuse the people who screw you over on a daily basis (Enron, S&L, Wall St.) and regurgitate the whine of the frustrated silent majority that those uppity blacks are "welfare queens" that the Dem party uses to gain power. No wonder Karl Rove loves willfully ignorant folk like you.You can blow that bullhorn all night long, but you cannot logically or factually disprove or refute what I previously posted....and that just burns your ass to no end.

1. Your hatred must have blinded you. I'm not defending the confederacy here, I'm saying that many in the South were Republicans and fought against the racist Democrats.
2. The Southern Man said: "If the Dem Party bosses were black and they catered to whites the [blind devotion to the Dem Party] would be the same [as if the Party bosses were white and they catered to blacks]." If you think otherwise then you must be racist.
3. Welfare and public housing isn't earned Libbie. Neither is subsidized pay, subsidized college grants or food stamps. I've never gotten any of that.

 

[signalmankenneth]