That version is too spiteful and petty for my tastes. Battle Hymn of the Republic is probably the best Union song.
Confederate history month
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Putting Lincoln in the same ballpark as Oliver fucking Cromwell is absolutely absurd. The English Civil War and what came after is an entirely different circumstance to America's. Also it was semi-justified, as Charles I was probably the worst English monarch since bad king John himself.
Also, weren't the ones who did own slaves around for Antebellum slavery?
It definitely is the best song of the ACW in my book.
It slaps harder then Dixie in my eyes
It can’t be better than Dixie, it is Dixie lol. It’s all the same instruments, same tune, it’s just different lyrics set to the same song. It’s literally just called Union Dixie. You just like the pro-Union version of Dixie, which comes about purely because of how damn good a song Dixie was.
Can you possibly react like a fucking adult to controversial opinions? This pearl clutching shit is tiresome.
No one cares how scandalized you are that Fried espouses an opinion about slavery 70% of Latin American immigrants espouse.
Just breathe into a paper bag and then debate him like an adult
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Uh...Battle Hymn is not dixie....
Also, fun fact. From what I gather Dixie is made by someone from Ohio
My opinion on the morality of slavery is based biblically, and I’m not going to condemn slave owners just for owning slaves, or societies that had legally slavery, because otherwise I’d have to condemn basically all western civilization and nearly all human civilization up until the last few hundred years. Specifically, this is what I believe.
Ephesians 6:5-9
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect(A) and fear, and with sincerity of heart,(B) just as you would obey Christ.(C)6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ,(D)doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people,(E) 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do,(F) whether they are slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours(G)is in heaven, and there is no favoritism(H) with him.
Slavery itself I don’t see as immoral, I see violations of this conduct set forth for both master and slave as immoral. My view there is simply because I don’t believe in reshaping the Bible for modern sensibilities.
Last edited:
Ah, I thought you were talking about Union-Dixie not battle hymn of the republic there.
Ohhh.
Yeah my bad. That was miscommunication.
I was talking about battle hymn. Not union dixie
Battle Hymn of the Republic is a very grand song and it’s quite good, but I just like the humility and simplicity of Dixie.
I like the granduer personally more then Dixie
I seem to recall bringing up how slavery was justified in the Bible, and how this was used by Southerners to justify slavery and later segregation in the LGB rights thread, and having a bunch of people jump on me and claim that wasn't true. It's nice getting proven right. 
King Arts
Well-known member
Ironically I don't think of the other stuff you said as worthy of losing respect. But if some random person is a monarchist I would lose respect for them. It's the political version of cuckoldry. You are basically worshipping and exalting one man or family (in actuality modern European monarchists idolize a family) over your own family, or other famillies of the people of your nation. It's a form of slavery giving all this power to one human without any accountability or proof that the person who will become king is worthy by virtue or skill. Now if you yourself want to institute a monarchy so YOU can get power the above does not apply to you and you are either already a smoot political player who is greedy for power, or an idiot who thinks he'd be anything more than a peasant.
Always good to engage with people and hear different voices in the market place of ideas.I seem to recall bringing up how slavery was justified in the Bible, and how this was used by Southerners to justify slavery and later segregation in the LGB rights thread, and having a bunch of people jump on me and claim that wasn't true. It's nice getting proven right.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Slavery in the bible was vastly different from chattel slavery. Slaves had an abundance of rights, were set free every seven years, could not be abused freely, and were typically regarded as "part of the family," so much so that the bible includes a specific ritual required if a slave refuses to be set free.I seem to recall bringing up how slavery was justified in the Bible, and how this was used by Southerners to justify slavery and later segregation in the LGB rights thread, and having a bunch of people jump on me and claim that wasn't true. It's nice getting proven right.
That said you're not wrong that it was used to justify much viler slavery, vastly different as it was. Unfortunately a great many people don't read their bibles so much as cherry pick a single specific verse that supports their position if taken out of context, both then and now.
That’s not what a monarchy is. Feudal kings had more decentralized power than the modern liberal state of Europe. I’d also say from the perspective of a person who acknowledges inherent and unremovable social hierarchy no matter what you will always have someone ruling over you under any political system unless you make it to the top. But all of this is significantly off topic.
TyrantTriumphant
Well-known member
I don't understand why anyone who claims to believe in conservative ideals could support a nation who was run by a decedent elite who had total control of the economy and actively suppressed the middle class.
If I wanted that I would move to California.
Hell, the Southern slave owners banned people from preaching the Gospel to their slaves. They forbid them from getting married. They treated the female slaves as their personal harems. The institution of slavery directly lead to behaviors that God has explicitly forbidden.
If the South had somehow won it wouldn't surprise me if the they had started to move away from Christianity over time. Their values system was simply incompatible with Christian behavior.
If I wanted that I would move to California.
Hell, the Southern slave owners banned people from preaching the Gospel to their slaves. They forbid them from getting married. They treated the female slaves as their personal harems. The institution of slavery directly lead to behaviors that God has explicitly forbidden.
If the South had somehow won it wouldn't surprise me if the they had started to move away from Christianity over time. Their values system was simply incompatible with Christian behavior.
That’s slavery under the laws of the Hebrews. The verses I quoted come from Ephesians, so a letter written to the church of Ephesus under the laws of the Romans in western Anatolia. Ephesians when it talks about slaves, is talking about slavery under the Romans and is written to the owners and the slaves themselves. It doesn’t say that you must free your slaves, that you cannot be a slave owner, but that both master and slave have responsibilities to each other and that a master of slaves must remember that both he and his slave are not seen as above one another by God but that God is the master of them both. American slavery was different from Roman slavery but I would say that if you did hold to that and you did have that in mind then it isn’t inherently sinful. Granted, it’s likely most large plantation owners went beyond that, but even post the ending of slavery there are some accounts of African Americans who preferred being slaves, and so I don’t think you can say every single American slave owner was evil and blatantly and flagrantly violated what is set forth in the Bible.