Nope, no hurt here. You don't know what I taught sooooo how can you say I taught a lie???
Wait a minute....were you one of my students???
How could I be one of your students? I read the books.
Stranger
Lessons for historical Mary
- Thread starter Stranger
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How could I be one of your students? I read the books.
Stranger
@Marymog
You see Mary? You don't know history. You don't read history. Yet you were a history teacher. You offer to me a book to read and quote from, and so I do. You for some reason think the book supports you. But it doesn't. And I read the book. So, I offer you a book, and now you claim that is just an opinion.
You never taught history Mary. You taught your perverted opinion. And you can't undo what you have done with so many minds.
Stranger
You see Mary? You don't know history. You don't read history. Yet you were a history teacher. You offer to me a book to read and quote from, and so I do. You for some reason think the book supports you. But it doesn't. And I read the book. So, I offer you a book, and now you claim that is just an opinion.
You never taught history Mary. You taught your perverted opinion. And you can't undo what you have done with so many minds.
Stranger
@Marymog
Do you deny that John Brown roamed free in the North and was able to meet with many politicians and wealthy influential people to raise support and money for his murdering cause during a time when he was under indictment for the Pottawatomie murders?
Why would he be allowed to do that if his murdering cause was not accepted by the North?
Do you deny that Brown obtained wealthy supporters known as the 'Secret Six'?
Do you deny the impact that Transcendentalism, liberal Christianity, had on the Secret Six and the North?
These are things I showed you from the book, (John Brown Abolitionist, by David S. Reynolds). You want to say that is just one mans opinion. It is not just his opinion. He has supported his statements and has the end notes to prove it. Do I have to give you the end notes also?
Do a little research. If you disagree, show me why and support it also.
You see Mary, you can't change history. You can change what is taught as history. But you can't change history.
Stranger
Do you deny that John Brown roamed free in the North and was able to meet with many politicians and wealthy influential people to raise support and money for his murdering cause during a time when he was under indictment for the Pottawatomie murders?
Why would he be allowed to do that if his murdering cause was not accepted by the North?
Do you deny that Brown obtained wealthy supporters known as the 'Secret Six'?
Do you deny the impact that Transcendentalism, liberal Christianity, had on the Secret Six and the North?
These are things I showed you from the book, (John Brown Abolitionist, by David S. Reynolds). You want to say that is just one mans opinion. It is not just his opinion. He has supported his statements and has the end notes to prove it. Do I have to give you the end notes also?
Do a little research. If you disagree, show me why and support it also.
You see Mary, you can't change history. You can change what is taught as history. But you can't change history.
Stranger
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,395
- 1,671
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
LOL.....well, I recognize what the book said. After all, it says what it says sooooo I am not sure what you mean by that.
I am still not sure what you want me to "disprove" or what you want me to comment on. I feel I have made that VERY clear.
I am not upset about anything soooooo not sure what you are talking about.
Once again, ANOTHER LIE (that I didn't read the book).
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,395
- 1,671
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Thank you Stranger. I think it is time we part ways on this matter. I SINCERLY don't understand why you continue to call me a liar and make degrading comments to me and about me. I have been patient and kind to you. I sincerely feel bad for you that you are always so angry. I can't help you with your anger but I don't have to take your verbal abuse either.
I ain't mad at ya'....I'm just done with ya'.....Chow...Mary
Last edited:
That's fine Mary. Just understand the real reason you want to part ways is because history is against you. It is not because I have made degrading comments. Had you a leg to stand on you would defeat those comments. But you don't.
You recommended a book to me you really hadn't ever read. Else you would have never recommended it. I bought the book and used it's quotes to disprove what you are saying. What does that tell you? It tells you that you as a teacher have been teaching a lie for a vast amount of years. And that is something you cannot correct. Not that you want to.
The book you recommended to me was a credible book. The book I recommended to you is a credible book. Yet now you say ok that is what the book says. Just as you said before, it is just someones opinion. But it is not opinion, it is supported by source material.
Your supposed 'patience and kindness' doesn't hide your inability to answer in face of the facts. You are quite patient and kind when you see you can't win the argument. But when you feel you have the upper hand, you are quite forceful and rude. You are not teachable Mary. You have no desire to learn.
I'm just like Quantrill Mary. Scalp for scalp.
Quantrill (alias Stranger)
@Enoch111
Concerning your comments in post #(54) in 'Reparations for Slavery' thread:
First of all, I did not make a false statement about the South not starting the war. We didn't. That the South fired first at Sumter does not mean we started the War between the States. See, this is where quick link history is empty.
It is like asking who started our war with Spain in 1898? Well, most will say Spain did because she blew up the Maine. Yet years later it has been proven that the explosion was internal and not from an outside source.
So, instead of just saying the South started the war because she fired the first shot at Sumter, tell me what immediately led up to this firing of the first shot. Give me your assessment. In other words, why? This is the question you need with you at all times in the study of any history.
Stranger
Concerning your comments in post #(54) in 'Reparations for Slavery' thread:
First of all, I did not make a false statement about the South not starting the war. We didn't. That the South fired first at Sumter does not mean we started the War between the States. See, this is where quick link history is empty.
It is like asking who started our war with Spain in 1898? Well, most will say Spain did because she blew up the Maine. Yet years later it has been proven that the explosion was internal and not from an outside source.
So, instead of just saying the South started the war because she fired the first shot at Sumter, tell me what immediately led up to this firing of the first shot. Give me your assessment. In other words, why? This is the question you need with you at all times in the study of any history.
Stranger
Last edited:
@Enoch111
Here is a good starting point from which to work from. Some books from which I work from are:
1.) The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Jeff Davis. Da Capo Press, 1990.
2.) And the War Came. Kenneth M. Stampp. LSU Press. 1990
3.) Days of Defiance. Maury Klein. Knopf. 1997.
It's important to understand at the first, who owned the Forts in the harbors of the coastal states. Jeff Davis, in the book already mentioned, says on p. 179, "Forts, arsenals, navy yards, and other public property of the Federal govt. were ceded by the state, within whose limits they were subject to the condition...that they should be used solely and exclusively for the purposes for which they were granted."
He goes on to say, "The ultimate ownership of the soil, or eminent domain, remains with the people of the state in which it lies, by virtue of their sovereignty."
The point here is that once the Fort was not being used by the Federal govt. for it's original purpose, it automatically went back to the State. Thus the Federal govt's. attempt to reinforce Sumter to defend it from S. Carolina, was an act of war.
Plus...The Federal govt. had abandoned Ft. Sumter years before. The original legislative act that ceded the forts in Charlston Harbor, gave the condition that they must be repaired and made ready in at least 3 years from this act. That was 1805. Sumter was in in disrepair in 1861 with no one in it. The only reason troops were now in it, was because they were illegally, and deceptively moved from Fort Moultrie, because Sumter was more easily to defend. Another act of war. See Jeff Davis p. (179-180).
Stranger
Here is a good starting point from which to work from. Some books from which I work from are:
1.) The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Jeff Davis. Da Capo Press, 1990.
2.) And the War Came. Kenneth M. Stampp. LSU Press. 1990
3.) Days of Defiance. Maury Klein. Knopf. 1997.
It's important to understand at the first, who owned the Forts in the harbors of the coastal states. Jeff Davis, in the book already mentioned, says on p. 179, "Forts, arsenals, navy yards, and other public property of the Federal govt. were ceded by the state, within whose limits they were subject to the condition...that they should be used solely and exclusively for the purposes for which they were granted."
He goes on to say, "The ultimate ownership of the soil, or eminent domain, remains with the people of the state in which it lies, by virtue of their sovereignty."
The point here is that once the Fort was not being used by the Federal govt. for it's original purpose, it automatically went back to the State. Thus the Federal govt's. attempt to reinforce Sumter to defend it from S. Carolina, was an act of war.
Plus...The Federal govt. had abandoned Ft. Sumter years before. The original legislative act that ceded the forts in Charlston Harbor, gave the condition that they must be repaired and made ready in at least 3 years from this act. That was 1805. Sumter was in in disrepair in 1861 with no one in it. The only reason troops were now in it, was because they were illegally, and deceptively moved from Fort Moultrie, because Sumter was more easily to defend. Another act of war. See Jeff Davis p. (179-180).
Stranger
Last edited: