On This Day

On this Glorious day, in 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered to General U.S. Grant and in 1945, the Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hanged by the Third Reich, without any witnesses, for being a faithful Christian.

God is good all the time, and all the time God is good.

God bless everyone on this day, April, 9th!

RodtRDH

Formerly known as Rod of Alexandria, Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website

About RodtRDH

Formerly known as Rod of Alexandria, Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.
This entry was posted in racism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to On This Day

  1. mike says:

    dude robert e. lee is one of my heroes. did you know he didn’t have slaves and actually opposed the notion of slavery quite adamantly? that’s in any biography you on lee. of course i don’t really believe the civil war was fought over slavery, although i thank God that the emancipation proclamation and, eventually, the full abolition of slavery came out of that horrendous war. anywho, there’s my caffeinated thought for the day.

  2. mike says:

    and i should that he’s one of my “heroes” as far as military strategy and history goes. he whupped grants tail even into the 11th hour. grant won because of sheer numbers alone, and because of a certain stubbornness.

  3. Joel says:

    Uh, the Emancipation Proclamation did what?

    • mike says:

      dude i used the word “eventually” c’mon give a dude a break

      • Joel says:

        Okay, but eventually did what? The EmP was nothing but political hype to keep Britain and France out of the war. Have you read it?

        • mike says:

          i’ve probably only read watered-down kiddie versions for school books. fair enough. but if it was really a smokescreen, then i might suggest you’re supporting my original comment that the war of brothers was not really over slavery. also fair enough?

  4. Joel says:

    First, to the EmP. It did absolutely nothing to stop slavery, ending slavery only where Union Forces didn’t control the territory, which excluded several parishes in Louisiana which included African slave owners.

    The War was not between Brothers, but between those who believed that the States reigned supreme and not the Federal government. That was the objective issue, but a subjective issue involved slavery. Of course, it is well remembered that it was only Northern ships that ferried Southern goods and indeed, was the first to finance the slave trade and kept slavery in the Constitution. It is often forgotten that the MidWest supported the South, that Delaware failed joining the Confederacy by one vote but sent regiments to the north and the south and the only reason that Maryland didn’t was because Lincoln sent in Federal troops to stop the Legislature.

    I am also remind what the MidWest did to stop escaped slaves. That several of the South’s greatest generals hated slavery, that many African Presbyterian Churches in Va and WVa today owe their founding to Stonewall Jackson, and that Lincoln’s family owned slaves.

    Also, I am reminded what Alexander Stephens said during his inaugural address and how while the South knew that She was lost, and but a few Generals in Gray lobbied for Emancipation for Black Troops who would fight the Yankees, loss of the war was preferable to freeing the slaves so that the political leaders of the South choosing rather to keep a man in chains and live there themselves than to count the black man as an equal.

    Slavery is bound up in that terrible war and it must not be forgotten. Further, I suspect that often times now, States who choose to recognize the Confederacy are doing so in a climate in which a black man is President. There is a resurgence of Southern Pride and I am fearful of the reasons why.

  5. mike says:

    joel,

    i think you’re preaching at the choir (which is alright, they need it too). i know slavery was an issue in the civil war. when i said that the civil war was not about slavery, i suppose i thought it was obvious that i meant slavery was not the main issue. i think general lee’s rejection of slavery is something to think about in its own right. but now you’ve written a dissertation that sounds like you’re explaining to me that slavery was real and that it mattered/matters. not cool. not cool at all.

    and let me add (again) that i didn’t say the emancipation proclamation stopped slavery. i said slavery was eventually abolished. you act like you wish it was never even signed! go blow off steam somewhere else and quit propping me up as a strawman to whom you can preach about the evils of slavery and lincoln and everything else. pathetic much?

    • mike says:

      and “war of brothers” is a common title for the civil war. even today’s low-standard high school history books explain that state power vs. federal power was an issue in the civil war, so why do you think you have some ground-breaking news? i’ve also seen the pbs documentary on the civil war. after nitpicking me on saying that slavery wasn’t the main issue, you come back and explain that there was in fact a different main issue. unwind your underwear, calm down, let the red leave your face, and move on.

  6. Joel says:

    Mike, what is pathetic is not knowing history. Thanking God for the EmP is telling in that the person who does so fully states that he doesn’t know history. The EmP is worthless and indeed, shows that Lincoln was fully on board with slavery.

    And if I wrote too much for you too read, well….

    • mike says:

      argh you’re relentless. all you’re doing is supporting my original statement that the civil war was not about slavery. and this after you lectured me on how it was in fact about slavery. do you even know what you’re for and what you’re against in this matter anymore? cuz i honestly can’t tell.

  7. mike says:

    joel it’s not the QUANTITY of what you’re writing . . .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>