American Revolution

[ASLANSPAL]

I throw this out just for discussion.

If England had won the war during our struggle for freedom, would we now be looking at the American Revolutionists as bad rebels who tried to break up the crown? Would it be similar to the way we feel about the CONFEDERACY and the fact that the country managed to hang together rather than split?

What would our history read like today?


UHHHH DUH! CONFEDERACY ..I guess that does not
get the ball rolling ehhh phillip who are you
trying to fool.

YEAH MOVE THIS TO HISTORY ANY OTHER DISCERNING
MODERATOR WOULD HAVE.

BTW you did not answer the question who would
you fight for the confederacy or union.

surely you are not ashamed to take a stand.


I do think you are an apologist who spins
the slavery question and trys to dilute how
evil it really was...THE FOLLOWING IS WORDS
OF A BIG TIME APOLOGISTS FOR STATES RIGHTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm Southern Baptist and I must agree with Bro. James Reed. The SBC has NO authority over churches or people. Its specific duty is to pool money and provide missionary services.

Not only until recently did the SBC recant their stand on slavery and appologize for their opinion of it.

In all fairness, the SBC did believe in treating slaves properly. Good food, plenty of rest, decent living quarters and the slaves usually went to church with their owners, if they wished (although they did sit in the balcony, in most cases.) But, you have to remember, this was an entirely different world and if memory serves me correct, good ole Abe Lincoln actually had a few slaves for a period of time. (HAH! PURE BALONEY!)

I still stand on the fact that slavery was not the number one issue that started the war between the states. It was a secondary issue made stronger by later day history revisionists.(HAH!
MORE HOOEY!) UHH PHIL DID YOU EVER READ THE
PROCLAMATIONS OF THE STATES SECEDEING..DUH!!!
IT WAS BECAUSE OF SLAVERY.

It still does not make slavery right. But, as Brother Reed says, to condemn those who did have slaves is a little late and not really appropriate.
(WOW! IS THIS A COP OUT! NO REPENTANCE WHAT SO
EVER SPIN..AND SPIN SOME MORE)

sincerely
Aslanspal

p.s. all my afro american friends want to come
debate this phillip will you be around..I'm
sure you will.

 

[rsr]

Phillip said:

I think the stories of the SBCstarting out aas aa convention who thought that baptist missionoaries ought to have the right to keep slaves is all blown out of proportion. I suggest you cover your history on the SBC a lot better. Though there were church members who believed in keeping slaves, this was not the major issue.

I respectfully disagree, Phillip. While there were other issues (disagreements over allocations of missions funds and whether the society or convention method should prevail), slavery was the proximate cause of the schism and the most contentious issue.

Slavery was the main issue that led to the 1845 schism; that is a blunt historical fact. Other issues raised barriers and, in time, might have led to division, if not North-South, possibly East-West. However, slavery did lead to division.

— Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, P. 382

As a side note, the Northerners did not "split"; they inherited the apparatus of the Triennial Convention (later to become to the American Baptist Missionary Union.) It was the southerners who split and formed a new organization.

 

[dianetavegia]

I moved this thread out of politics because it's a history discussion and not a political discussion.

BEWARE.... Dr. Bob will not allow the name calling, baiting and attacks to continue! Please read the rules of this forum before posting.

Diane

 

[Phillip]

ASLANSPAL,
In response to your "might I say, interesting" post above, I think I should respond so that others do not take me wrong.

I do not know where you came up with the idea to make my remarks "racial" in nature. First, your remark to bring your afro American friends to debate me is ridiculous because I have NOTHING against African Americans; nor do I believe that slavery was right.

Just because I responded historically about what might have happened does not imply any belief on my part.

Let me explain once again WHY I said confederacy and see if you can understand "this time".

My question was, what if ENGLAND had won the revolutionary war? How would people feel about those who fought against England. Would they look down on them as "rebels" rather than heroes who started a free nation? The confederates were brought up because today most people look down on the confederates as having been rebels trying to break up the union. (Would you please READ my post next time.)

NOTHING was intended to be a racial slur and your acusations are completely out-of-line.

Finally, I told you that if you CONTINUED to make slurs such as this you COULD be banned. AGAIN, READ WHAT I SAID....I said that I would rather NOT have to ban you, so I asked you to simply play by the rules. Instead of doing that, you continue to make up lies about what you think I believe and I'm trying to get across here.

I simply want to know if the ENGLISH won the revolutionary war, would the rebels be looked down upon like the confederates are today?

We will all stick to that line of discussion and get off of whether or not the SBC is for or against slavery. I never mentioned slavery in my opening statement and it is NOT what I posted this thread to discuss. If YOU want to talk about slavery, I suggest YOU open a thread and do so. I am not here to debate the rights and wrongs of slavery. Personally, I think it is wrong. There's my stand and we do NOT need to discuss THAT issue any more.