Tennessee Secession Sesquicentennial (there's a mouthful)

[StandingWide]

Geoff already thinks he's a doctor!!

http://theblessingoflifedotblogspot.com ... mmary.html

(second picture down)

Someone please get the Photoshop away from that woman.

[gingernut]

Are they going to be resurrecting the dead? Because I'm pretty sure all of the witnesses to the Civil War are dead. I know they mean historical documents of first hand accounts, but it reads like their going to be actually speaking with Confederate soldiers.

I'm also surprised they didn't refer to it as the war of northern aggression. War of the states sounds to me like each state fighting individually. Why can't they call it the Civil War? I don't understand what is wrong with that title? Can someone explain to this Yankee girl why that gets these southern men's panties in a bunch?

How would I begin??? They do think that the war was all about the evil northern abolitionist unitarian federalists that were forcing the southern states to abolish their "way of life" (read slave owners making a rich living off of the backs of others). In other words, the northerners invaded....which is funny since the first shots fired against Fort Sumter were BY sotherners AGAINST the Union...which means they started the war. A person in the fundie, and especially homeschool fundie movement (and I am not anti-homeschooling per se, for the record) has their own version of what happened in the civil war and about civil rights. Go visit the website of the Confederate Colonel.....just to name one...there are tons of others...one can hardly stomach the lies and revised "truth".

[Nothing2CHere]

Are they going to be resurrecting the dead? Because I'm pretty sure all of the witnesses to the Civil War are dead. I know they mean historical documents of first hand accounts, but it reads like their going to be actually speaking with Confederate soldiers.

Seance!!!!!!!

[Deleted12]

Geoff already thinks he's a doctor!!

http://theblessingoflifedotblogspot.com ... mmary.html

(second picture down)

There be LOLDOUGS here.

[Marian the Librarian]

There be LOLDOUGS here.

I know -- but I couldn't figure out how to get a pic into my post last night. All advice in this department gladly welcomed.

;)

[liltwinstar]

WRT to the question about Calvinism and Old Testament Law...I don't remember exactly how they talked their way out of some of the more strict OT laws. If I recall correctly, they/we believed that Jesus had fulfilled the ceremonial laws (like the Day of Atonement, the fire lighting, sacrifice, tassels, family purity, etc), but that the civil laws should still hold (like stoning rebellious kids and gay folks, stoning adulterers, things like that - basically, a whole lot of stoning, and not the fun kind). At one point, the pastor that we had gave this whole talk about how the structure of the US Government mirrored the structure of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, or something like that.

Honestly, I don't remember much more than that. We were in hardcore Reconstructionist church from the time I was 9 until I was 14...and honestly, the hour + sermons, plus Bible studies, plus informal chats got really old and I kind of zoned out sometimes. Plus that was 15-20 years ago, so my memory isn't that good.

Most of our beliefs about civil law and whatnot was based on Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law. If I had unlimited time, I'd give it a read and report back..but it's almost 900 pages long, and I don't have time for that sort of committment right now. (scarily enough, my folks just might still have our copy laying around somewhere...with Gary North's Political Polytheism, no doubt)

[thoughtful]

There be LOLDOUGS here.

:::Cracking knuckles:::

OK, I gave it a try:

And, from the same page:

[thoughtful]

The title of this thread has been rattling around my head for days.

It would be my new "say this 10 times, fast" challenge for lovers of tongue-twisters, if celebrating secession wasn't such an unsavory idea that I don't even want to bring it up.

Oh, and the idea that these folks are slavery apologists doesn't shock me at all -- seems right in character, sadly.

[debrand]

I was watching a show about East Tennessee the other night. One of the men interviewed said that many people in that region of the state were not confederates during the war.I've heard the same thing said about western NC

I found this on wikipedia

People in East Tennessee, the only area of the state that did not practice slavery on a wide scale, continued to be firmly against Tennessee's move to leave the Union, as were many in other parts of the state, particularly in historically Whig portions of West Tennessee.[17] Tennesseans representing twenty-six East Tennessee counties met twice in Greeneville and Knoxville and agreed to secede from Tennessee. They petitioned the state legislature in Nashville, which denied their request to secede and sent Confederate troops under Felix Zollicoffer to occupy East Tennessee and prevent secession. East Tennessee supplied significant numbers of troops to the Federal army, while the rest of Tennessee was a prime recruiting area for the Confederate army

They talk about the war being about state's rights. But East Tenn. wasn't given the right to even decide if it could become its own state. That seem hyprocritical

[thoughtful]

They talk about the war being about state's rights. But East Tenn. wasn't given the right to even decide if it could become its own state. That seem hyprocritical

Good point.

Is there significant literature from the time discussing the desire for states' rights over any other issue than slavery?

[O Latin]

Are they going to be resurrecting the dead? Because I'm pretty sure all of the witnesses to the Civil War are dead. I know they mean historical documents of first hand accounts, but it reads like their going to be actually speaking with Confederate soldiers.

I'm also surprised they didn't refer to it as the war of northern aggression. War of the states sounds to me like each state fighting individually. Why can't they call it the Civil War? I don't understand what is wrong with that title? Can someone explain to this Yankee girl why that gets these southern men's panties in a bunch?

If they're trying to de-emphasize slavery as an issue, then they probably don't want to call it the Civil War because for most people that conjures up the ridiculously oversimplified "It's all about slavery" version that we learned in high school (I'm not trying to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery, I just have issues with the way history, particularly American history, is taught in schools). Maybe they hope that giving it a different name will help them to put their own spin on it.