And if you Marxists profs who share the most responsibility will not repent. The. You will instigate more rioting than you already have. And if if you keep insisting on teaching gas lighting the public with these agendas against the constitution of the United States and our way of life. Then because we are from apes we will show you what the jungle looks like son. For this is high treason and we will just have to battle it out and see who has the best and stronger spines.
May the only the strongest survive, correct?

I will shed my very own blood with gladness and enthusiasm against this demonic plan.

For it won't be you know merely the thing in the Declaration of Independence grievances. I have already started making a list of complaints myself to submit.

You are not the government, Mr. Reverend Karl Marx of Germany. You work for the public as I did as a teacher for 10 years. We will drive you out of your office if God is on our side anymore.

To whom much is given…much is required." Jesus Christ of low economic Nazareth. Joshua Wallace from middle school education.

Those history of philosophy classes and history classes at the university level did pay off well. At both DBU and blinder garden small class size advantage and debate.

What I mean is this may mean another Glorious Revolution arising in the near future.

I mean…you history professors are doing a really fine job in teaching the school aged public on how to hate these United States of America.

Estoy cansado de tu mierda

I'm not even a Marxist. I find dialectical materialism too reductive.

In reply to Sapper Redux [We do not care if this is your thread. We do not allow rude posting on this board and if you do it again we will lock this thread and ban you. That is your warning. -Staff]

"You are either with me or you are against me." Jesus Christ

In other words, there is no such thing as neutrality epistemologically.

I'll give you time to convene to find the evidence of primary sources that prove that my OP is invalid.

In the meantime;

And while I wait….For the same logical conclusion of your secular demented position on our history vies to only see the belly of humankind. It only leads to more government dependency, corruption, and hatred of history. That's all can see amongst the Marxist proponents of empty promises that no one truly believes. Let History speak for itself, please.

Become a philosophic realist.

I pray A&M, and the powers that be over them, will remove almost the entire history department and reassign them to sociology and anthropology and other humanities . That fit their agenda. And I have many suggestions for sociological research to benefit humankind.
What we have right now is socialism…ahem…I mean sociology in an attempt to provide a pseudo-Utopian manifesto. These history professors would fit better in with them.

In reply to TheGreatEscape
Am I? You don't even know who I am or what I've written.

I'm not going to post a wall of random primary sources. There's zero point. You've shown you don't understand the process of historical analysis and you're begging the question here, making any argument of mine pointless. Have a good night.

[Do not quote rude or disrespectful posts on this board. -Staff]

In reply to TheGreatEscape Hasta manana. Deos esta moy excellente.

What are you going to do later Sapper?

Are you going to build an argument for secularism by the means of utilizing the opinions of secondary sources?

In reply to TheGreatEscape You're not going to find a single reputable historical monograph that does not engage with secondary sources. Period. Pretending you alone can wade through the primary source material and you alone can correctly interpret it is ignorant.

Back up your claim with facts. Not merely declaring this or that is the way and thus Josh is wrong.

Also, I have not been committing the begging the question fallacy. I have provided a plethora of evidence that goes ignored as to its importance concerning the Presbyterian War.
For it is your very own claims from authority that are absolutely begging the question fallacy in disjunction.

"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it."

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/begging-the-question.html#:~:text=The%20fallacy%20of%20begging%20the,called%20arguing%20in%20a%20circle.

Stop projecting your humiliation onto me. You continually do this whenever you have crossed examined me. When i cross examine you then you just write subjective opinions.
I have gigantic body of evidence. Eventually, I will win (America will win) because stupid just does not work.

You may save yourself from losing your job and just stop.

And I am certain that you would be a good read on WW1, terrible on the Bolshevik Revolution continuing into Stalin's regime, good on WW2, maybe the Korean War, probably not a good source on the the Vietnam War, and probably very good on civil rights and some other aspects of modern history and the flow of following the money.

However… on the topic of the American Revolution, you are embarrassing right now for Texas A&M.

And I would love to rebuttal any work on the American Revolution. Likely typical and generic…. Probably added into the mix; was the financial drive to succeed from Britain and have more say on the national level in regards to legislation and foreign policy as well.

In reply to TheGreatEscape I'm a historian of colonial America and the Atlantic world. I'm not engaging fully because this forum is supposed to be a break from my work and not an exhausting and fruitless attempt to defend the historiography from someone with no grasp of it and a narrative to push. You want something to read? Go pick up The Transformation of Virginia. It's about Baptists (not Presbyterians) causing significant social problems in Virginia that contributed to the Revolution. Or read Our Savage Neighbors about how Ulster Scots in Pennsylvania defied the Quaker leadership in the colony by viciously attacking any natives, friendly or not, to promote their interests, and the role the conflicts in the 1750s and 1760s had in the development of American identity and the concept of race. Oh, and they partially justified it through their religion. Yay, Presbyterians. If you're desperate to know the intellectual history behind the Revolution, check out Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood. Be warned there's little about religion in there because it wasn't that important to the political experiment the colonists undertook. You can also check out Woody Holton's Forced Founders for a history of the Revolution from below. But again, Presbyterians aren't the driving force, nor is religion in general. 5 books. All loaded with primary sources. Go have a ball.

In reply to Sapper Redux

[That will never be allowed on this forum without a ban and this poster will not be able to reply for several days. -Staff]

In reply to Sapper Redux

Sapper Redux said:

---

I'm a historian of colonial America and the Atlantic world. I'm not engaging fully because this forum is supposed to be a break from my work and not an exhausting and fruitless attempt to defend the historiography from someone with no grasp of it and a narrative to push. You want something to read? Go pick up The Transformation of Virginia. It's about Baptists (not Presbyterians) causing significant social problems in Virginia that contributed to the Revolution. Or read Our Savage Neighbors about how Ulster Scots in Pennsylvania defied the Quaker leadership in the colony by viciously attacking any natives, friendly or not, to promote their interests, and the role the conflicts in the 1750s and 1760s had in the development of American identity and the concept of race. Oh, and they partially justified it through their religion. Yay, Presbyterians. If you're desperate to know the intellectual history behind the Revolution, check out Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood. Be warned there's little about religion in there because it wasn't that important to the political experiment the colonists undertook. You can also check out Woody Holton's Forced Founders for a history of the Revolution from below. But again, Presbyterians aren't the driving force, nor is religion in general. 5 books. All loaded with primary sources. Go have a ball.

---

Thanks for the tips.
Going to bed now but will give that stuff a look tomorrow.

Went to sleep for a few hours and then began to post again for a little while.
Sapper, you and others spreading the word will be able to go against prejudice and change history for the better in order to return to what it actually is. The Presbyterian led Christian revolt was apart of the important variables contributing to motive or will to go to war.
You see already respected. Why not become great by putting these things of the OP here and the OP of the Cromwell thread to include in the discovery of the overall origins of these United States by going ad hoc again like the Renaissance adjusted and the Reformation did the same exact thing?

For I am certain that you are aware of the law of secondary causes, correct?

In conclusion, if you can see what we see?

Then I suggest we present before the classroom that the development of the Judeo-Christian worldview was among the three or (maybe four) primary causes of the American Revolution as the Judeo-Christian worldview became applied to the construction of government and politics.

In reply to TheGreatEscape

Quote:

---

And I am not ashamed of taking down some Natives. That is a give and take unhealthy marriage and apart of expansion. You just stated with objectivity that the Ulster Scott's expanded because of reasons of race? More hogwash partisanship by you. Please give me a full paragraph or something concerning a primary source where assertions were made by Ulster Scott's that Natives as a race were inferior, save only because many Natives of that time were unconverted to the foundation of ethics found in the Bible.

---

The Paxton Boys.

Read away.

This is a quote from an eyewitness at their massacre of the peaceful Conestoga Indians who had moved to Lancaster for protection:

Quote:

---

I saw a number of people running down the street towards the gaol, which enticed me and other lads to follow them. At about sixty or eighty yards from the gaol, we met from twenty-five to thirty men, well mounted on horses, and with rifles, tomahawks, and scalping knives, equipped for murder. I ran into the prison yard, and there, O what a horrid sight presented itself to my view!- Near the back door of the prison, lay an old Indian and his women, particularly well known and esteemed by the people of the town, on account of his placid and friendly conduct. His name was Will Sock; across him and his Native women lay two children, of about the age of three years, whose heads were split with the tomahawk, and their scalps all taken off. Towards the middle of the gaol yard, along the west side of the wall, lay a stout Indian, whom I particularly noticed to have been shot in the breast, his legs were chopped with the tomahawk, his hands cut off, and finally a rifle ball discharged in his mouth; so that his head was blown to atoms, and the brains were splashed against, and yet hanging to the wall, for three or four feet around. This man's hands and feet had also been chopped off with a tomahawk. In this manner lay the whole of them, men, women and children, spread about the prison yard: shot-scalped-hacked-and cut to pieces.

---

This was Ben Franklin's opinion of the Ulster Scots and their behavior towards friendly natives:

Quote:

---

If an Indian injures me, does it follow that I may revenge that Injury on all Indians? It is well known that Indians are of different Tribes, Nations and Languages, as well as the White People. In Europe, if the French, who are White-People, should injure the Dutch, are they to revenge it on the English, because they too are White People? The only Crime of these poor Wretches seems to have been, that they had a reddish brown Skin, and black Hair; and some People of that Sort, it seems, had murdered some of our Relations. If it be right to kill Men for such a Reason, then, should any Man, with a freckled Face and red Hair, kill a Wife or Child of mine, it would be right for me to revenge it, by killing all the freckled red-haired Men, Women and Children, I could afterwards any where meet with.

But it seems these People think they have a better Justification; nothing less than the Word of God. With the Scriptures in their Hands and Mouths, they can set at nought that express Command, Thou shalt do no Murder; and justify their Wickedness, by the Command given Joshua to destroy the Heathen. Horrid Perversion of Scripture and of Religion! to father the worst of Crimes on the God of Peace and Love!…

Unhappy People! to have lived in such Times, and by such Neighbours! We have seen, that they would have been safer among the ancient Heathens, with whom the Rites of Hospitality were sacred. They would have been considered as Guests of the Publick, and the Religion of the Country would have operated in their Favour. But our Frontier People call themselves Christians! They would have been safer, if they had submitted to the Turks; for ever since Mahomet's Reproof to Khaled, even the cruel Turks, never kill Prisoners in cold Blood. These were not even Prisoners: But what is the Example of Turks to Scripture Christians? They would have been safer, though they had been taken in actual War against the Saracens, if they had once drank Water with them. These were not taken in War against us, and have drank with us, and we with them, for Fourscore Years. But shall we compare Saracens to Christians? They would have been safer among the Moors in Spain, though they had been Murderers of Sons; if Faith had once been pledged to them, and a Promise of Protection given. But these have had the Faith of the English given to them many Times by the Government, and, in Reliance on that Faith, they lived among us, and gave us the Opportunity of murdering them. However, what was honourable in Moors, may not be a Rule to us; for we are Christians! They would have been safer it seems among Popish Spaniards, even if Enemies, and delivered into their Hands by a Tempest. These were not Enemies; they were born among us, and yet we have killed them all. But shall we imitate idolatrous Papists, we that are enlightened Protestants? They would even have been safer among the Negroes of Africa, where at least one manly Soul would have been found, with Sense, Spirit and Humanity enough, to stand in their Defence: But shall Whitemen and Christians act like a Pagan Negroe? In short it appears, that they would have been safe in any Part of the known World, except in the Neighbourhood of the Christians white Savages of Peckstang and Donegall!

---

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-11-02-0012

In reply to TheGreatEscape This aspect was something I had not considered until a 23 and Me genetic test result indicated 90.9 % British Isles ancestry, mostly in northern England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those Scots-Irish settled in the Appalachians and migrated southwest and west and culturally had the least regard for the Crown's authority.

In reply to UTExan To be honest, I find the idea of a set Scot-Irish culture that transcends place to be problematic. There's just not much evidence of something unique that you don't also find in English, German, and Irish migrants who settled along the frontiers. It's part of the problem with Albion's Seed, there's such a desire to create distinct groups that it flattens them and the complexities of the British Empire at that time.

A set Scot-Irish culture certainly is unlikely depending on how one defines Scot-Irish. It is possible to isolate particular groups at particular times over the course of Scottish Borders - Northern Irish - and American Frontier history. But everyone, including themselves, agrees they were an aggressive bunch.

In reply to Sapper Redux Could very well be. I tracked my own family history through some family histories and genealogy resources and found that one side (definitely Scots-Irish) settled in Pennsylvania and migrated southwest along mountain valleys until they reached the present day area of Charlottesville, VA. Not sure what social cohesion occurred but they were likely Presbyterians described and not friendly with the official church.
This was helpful as well since it described General migration of the group:
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/63620d26-3075-45d9-9828-e9d661f42ba0/content

https://liberalamerica.org/2014/10/27/88-founding-father-quotes-that-will-enrage-the-religious-right/

Dios esta moy exellente!

As St. Peter communicated that there were some things about him of which he did not like.

I agree with Rongagin and Sapper that
It is not about race, ethnicity or Scottish-Irish. The American Revolution was a Christian War.

One cannot be an historian an merely use the Hegelian method. That, is thesis (or hypotheses), antithesis, and synthesis. This is erroneous and precisely what these Marxist inclined are doing.
You start with primary source to which capture the history of thought, cause and effect, cultural context occurring at the time of the event. No wonder we have so many conspiracy theorists.
I have done more than so concerning the Presbyterian War of Independence. And one does not have to be Presbyterian to see this as a matter of fact.


Howdy,

Hope you have a long attention span.


Ecclesiastes 3:3 & 8

3. a time to kill, and a time to heal;

8. a time to love, and a time to hate;a time for war, and a time for peace.


MY SPEECH IN RESPONSE

I made use of the Trivium here. The Trivium is the historic foundation of all learning.

Warning label: be advised this is not for the children like the current common consensus of American historians. This is a very long response.

A PROLOGOMENA
(First things)

First of all, I do want to give gratitude to the good professor. For I see what you did there….You may be playing the devil's advocate. For you have attacked me on my very core, namely the hinge upon which the whole turns. Thank you for that, my dear sir. May light shine into darkness, nihilism and relativity granting unto us its wisdom. Lessons to be learned for all of us to continually reform by means of the study of all of human history. We ought to never stop learning. Applies also to me and imparts into everyone. I do love this following double entendra quote. Stating:

"The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history." George Hegel
For in sense history repeats itself.

This is part of the process of developing definitive history.
You speak of this complicated subjective "process" which likely was inspired from the idea of a perfect system by George Hegel, ironically. Additionally, primary sources are the priority. Cause and effect, cultural context, and of course only ahistorical secularists have the human wisdom to interpret! And exactly how have I violated the professor's authority gained in this pseudo-process? All I have done is POINTED out its current inconsistencies.
Well, okay…I am all in and I push forward Pa's whole entire small farm and my own American bled marooned heart upon the foundation of great Christian people. If I must stand alone, I do so boldly in liberty of conscience by faith alone and the following is my presented fruit.

1. On the grammar aspect on this topic, I am renewing ad hoc from the Renaissance. A rebirth, so to speak.

Separation of Church and State was supported by most everyone involved in the American Revolution. Yea, all of the 50 of the 55 men were orthodox Trinitarian Christians of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. They thus willed it so. They blocked any possible future State-Church of England to ever pollute each established institution, namely church and state. For everyone back then held to the depravity of humanity in mostly the same way. Never again will we be reduced to believe in humanism. Amen and Amen. That is all that it means . Period. Original meaning. Original historical context. Grammar. Hermeneutics.

Jefferson was on the uninvited list. He was just an another random hypocritical moralist. This may be difficult for all of us to grasp. Jefferson was a great man. We all error no matter how great or small. And he was heretical unto his own deistic doctrinal convictions because he held that nature's god intervenes in creation. Thomas Jefferson was inconsistently consistent on this matter. I do render unto him that. Our sophisticated sophists present Jefferson as the chief interpreter of the 1st Amendment.

Separation OF Church and State
The preposition OF is in the genitive case.
OF signifies possession or ownership.

We can translate it correctly by stating that
Separation belongs to the existence of both the Church and the existence of the State.

Our forefathers made a covenant with each other and unto our posterity, if we can keep it.

This constitution is being perverted by the secularists with their very own ridiculous fallacy of eisegesus (reading into the text).

They say: Separation is FROM religion.
The word CHURCH means the assembly of believers or the gathering of believers into a building or home or structure or location corporately. That is why tax free exemptions can only receive merit upon the grounds of the meeting in the assembly regularly, according to the letter of the Law.

What these secularist are essentially trying to do is they are stating that there is a Separation FROM Church and State. Or a Separation FROM religion…As if it were a right to apply in order to impose onto everyone that we must cover our very own eyes in the matter of American politics, government, history, and in the public square.
The preposition FROM is that of a genitive of separation. This does not compute with our founding documents at all. To suggest such is academically incorrect.

In both the Latin and seven case Greek system, we would call this preposition FROM an ablative case. Regardless, it would mean the exact same advocacy of the genitive OF separation. Therein lies a significant language and makes more historically contextual sense that the proponents against it do hate America.

This ridiculous suggestion, made by these secularists, thus forcing everyone to only interpret history behind their made up secular tinted presupposing lenses. Such nonsense would advocate for Separation AWAY FROM the Church and away FROM the State. How do primary sources infer secularists of whom are camouflaging their statements from the argument of authority, right?


Moreover, the word public originally used in authorized legislation such as but not limited to Public Government Schools does not imply to suppress neither the secular humanist view of freewill. For humanists today suggest that we are merely of docile apes. Mostly peaceful. We are forbidden by law to diminish the establishment of the Church working in conjunction with the State as both designed and ratified by the states as well.

For the word public is derived from the Latin word PUBLICAS to which means the people. Power to the people, no? Popular Sovereignty cannot even amend or make illegal this connecting conjunction namely the word AND. For it is in fact a sure foundation of who we are and what we are here for in our very Bill of Rights; thus promoting individual liberty and unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, as a supporting document states of the times, and to ensure both the general welfare and the rights of our citizenry in the first ten amendments as well.

2. On the logic of another Reductio Ad Absurdum attempt of which is another logical fallacy provided and further supporting evidence that our American Revolutionary War was really led by the Presbyterians on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

On the Native Americans and a group of Ulster Scottish Presbyterians from the warrior class;
I could have just left you with a rope to save yourself from further degradation in your most esteemed by others, even though your mystical meditations on the history of the USA are inconsistently subjective and unfounded by means of evidence. Always trying to reinvent the wheel over building upon a preexisting wheel appears to be the vain attempt.

And there you go again, as President Ronald Reagan famously stated in response to another unfounded Reductio ad Absurdum. You are tryin to do the same thing by mentioning Presbyterians being key to fighting also British allied Native Americans. That is, you try to jump in the fighter jet to fire upon an historic American History: save only that that jet you keep trying to fly, belongs to these United States and you can never ever afford the US Soldiers blood speaking both against you and your diatribe in this manner they will stop you from purchasing a jet to once again ever attempt a prolegomena for any future metaphysics of American politics. You and your proponents are corrupting the youth.
You and your proponents are committing treason and ought to be once again publicly hanged. Your side has already formed a blacklist called cancel culture. We have a blacklist of our own and we just may have to submit to our local magistrates (Romans 13).
It may indeed lead to a glorious victory in war over the existence of immaterial unconditional love.

English Standard Version 1 Corinthians 13
"(Love) does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth."

First, see The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which prohibited colonial settlers to cross into Native American territory. Where would the US be without expanding from sea to shining sea?
Switzerland has the Alps. We have two oceans.
Your assessment about a rather small scale of Scottish Presbyterians and their barbaric slaughter of Native Tribesmen located west of the Appalachian mountains was a free speech message to the Native American tribes under British allied operations against the Presbyterian War of American Independence; namely that this will be a sign to not tread on me. Now that I am speaking your language, so to speak. …Oh…behold of the irony… I submit this unto the magisterium found in your conduct of speech. All morality is subjective is what has been stated by this professor against the Eastern Orthodox Russian Church forbidding the promoting of homosexuality amongst the youth. What legislation does not legislate morality?

On War? Should we have never fought the British and their allies?
Yep. You must be against America to advocate such an idea. That is the logical conclusion of all of your arguments now discovered on the public record. How about we have our own summer of love right here?. But, we will not raid and vandalize stores in order to steal goods. We have the right to form militias and bear rifles undefined. (Protected in the immutable Bill of Rights) And if our military leadership doesn't split. They will quarter troops in our public lands and structures. This possible action would also violate once again the unchangeable Bill or Rights. And if our founding fathers bled, then I would be honored to be the first to die for true liberty, God, and country.

### I seek no sympathy nor need
For these thorns I bear were planted
from my tree
They have torn me and I bleed ###

{inspired from Lord Byron}

I tremble in respect. I would love to have been a former congressman made to defend my loyalty as our very own Sam Houston did when he beat the hell outta congressman Stanbury with a rod. Houston was dealing with similar lying allegations as I have also.

The rhetoric of the old path, which has stood the test of time, is always best in order to evolve and adjust to the gift of both the sciences and the technology thereof applied under the authority of our US Constitutional Republic.



3. On the use of rhetoric in history namely responding to the professor Sapper's Indian objective truth claims that we currently are facing. Oh…behold the irony unto the magisterium found in the professor's conduct of speech once again.


I humbly encourage our dear professor to extend upon these truths.


And even the A&M traditions are under threat, side point.
The current faculty of the History department is instructing a false Gospel concerning these religious and spiritual United States. And if you do not believe me, see the legal precedent and jurisprudence established by SCOTUS in Holy Trinity verses the United States in 1882. This interpretation of the US Constitution standing against the fate of who we are once more has declared that we are a Christian people. Do read the case. Every attorney mind can see that these former state laws mentioned by the Supreme Court justices support a foundation to which defines us as a Christian nation by the means of its historically States Rights' conclusion such Christian laws having been in existence. Hence was after the implications of the 14th Amendment SCOTUS decision.

Let that sink in…

For the original meaning of the former always holds precedence over the latter. The former and the latter run together. But, logic is the grounding upon which the courtroom rhetoric or argumentation is based. For it has already been written into a logical development for the a new possible Supreme Court Court case in the making. If so, we would receive a most favorable decision for the cause of preserving and reviving human dignity and civil rights. Thus enlightening both a true liberty structured upon the protection of the Law of the land. Not freedom from these unalienable Created Rights. Let liberty ring as the American soul warms again. Just as the prophecies by Dr. and Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.; in his famous "I have a dream."

We do have a dream. We do have a dream of joining hands with all races shouting unto the heavens that which makes us free at last…free at last…THANK GOD ALMIGHTY THAT WE ARE FREE AT LAST. This is the original foundation to which devoted King's prophetic dream. And the only doctrine bringing all of humanity or ethnicity together into a common brotherhood is the original Gospel held by these United States of America. For it is one nation under God. It is Indivisible with liberty and justice for ALL. Amen and Amen. May it be!
Give peace a chance! Give peace a chance!

Could you please, dear professors, consider to infer something for the American side which does engage for the betterment of humanity for once? For the logical conclusion of your agnostic secular worldview is that you can only treat the belly of those in need. Nothing more; Nothing less.

Sigh. May it never be! You sir, you are better than that! You are Imago Dei. Soli Deo.

May God bless America.

Dedicated to the honor of my dad's passing in July of 2022 in the year of our Lord. For he was an humble servant to both local government, to the state government, and to the federal government. My dad served in the Vietnam War along with other Southern Vietnamese soldiers fighting for liberty against the massacring of the North Vietcong Marxists. Dad also earned a civil engineering degree from Texas A&M University in 1974 as a lifelong former student after serving his country. For he found at A&M something that was not against Vietnam veterans, unlike certain capital located places, unfortunately for them. Ahem.

In conclusion, 'if you cannot tell me what a woman or a man is, then you cannot tell me what a human is. And if you cannot tell me what a human is, then you cannot tell me what human rights are.' (Douglas Wilson)


These Truths found directly underneath our noses are only self-evident to a common sense Christian society. For it is just a bunch of information if it is not revelation.

I do not think the public understands the severity of the situation that we are facing right now as I tremble and type in hope for peace through strength.

Who does not love their mom? This may be something women just cannot understand.

Warmly,

Joshua Brandon Wallace of Rockwall, TX.

On of the major battle hymns of this he American Revolutionary sang by patriots before they went into battle was "A Mighty Fortress." It's the same song they sung during the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and was written by Martin Luther. This is our battle cry even today.




We shall gig those slimy frogs. Gig'em.

Attention: My representative #John Radcliffe#
We are with you. Rep. Radcliffe knows this is not about race or ethnicity. He has the spine and info that we need to know. The Marxists and their allies both home and abroad threaten our individual liberty. And more than that…

And for the soldiers and their families separated by distance because of their service our country…



I set my face like a flint:

To the high command:
You took an oath to do whatever it takes to uphold the US Constitution. Please total recall.
Unless you, of course, know that the Texas Constitution was ratified by Congress after the Civil War and all of which it includes.

I am for the university upon which the crux of cross curriculum research of both arts and sciences to be practiced and applied at Texas universities. All of this while we do have freedom of religion in the sharing of power at public institutions of higher learning. Not this multiversity theory of relativity of self-defeating contradictions.

For some reason we have found ourselves back in another era where fighting is winsome.

Thank you for the armed service of your fathers for the preservation of our great country.

Oh and I am not ordained as a minister.

However, here is a painting of a Reformed Presbyterian minister preaching and preparing the people for war.

In reply to TheGreatEscape What is that guy doing with a cane or whip over behind the preacher near the tree?
Otherwise, I like the art, but that bit has me stumped.

In reply to Rongagin71 You bet. Looks like a saber for stabbing.
I had to zoom in in order to figure it out.
Good catch. Very observant. Moy brilliante.

In reply to Rongagin71

Rongagin71 said:

---

What is that guy doing with a cane or whip over behind the preacher near the tree?
Otherwise, I like the art, but that bit has me stumped.

---

It's a painting of a tent revival done in 1742 of George Whitefield. Not sure the exact role of the banners, trumpets, and whips, but tent revivals during the Great Awakening were often theatrical affairs as much as preachings. It's also the case that Whitefield was responsible for helping introduce slavery to Georgia a couple years earlier, so it's possible there's some symbolism there.

In reply to Sapper Redux Too cool. At least when I was in school, historians attributed the perfection of individual liberty arising from the z great Awakening of the 1740's being a cause of Independent liberties from Great Britain…

There were tent revivals in Texas that I went to as a kid back in the 50's.
Indeed, the atmosphere was very different from normal church.
Everybody seemed to be in a celebratory mood and the singing was loud.
Even under a tent it was hot but people were used to that in those days.

In reply to Sapper Redux

Quote:

---

Whitefield was responsible for helping introduce slavery to Georgia

---

I never knew that. Thanks for posting. I found this interesting article online after seeing your post:

George Whitefield's troubled relationship to race and slavery | The Christian Century

The author of the article states:

Quote:

---

Lest we wag our finger at figures like Whitefield, we should be reminded of the enormous difficulties of thinking outside of our cultural box. As much as I wish it were otherwise, if I had been born into a white southern slaveowning family in the Revolutionary era, I would almost certainly have died believing that slavery was a morally acceptable institution, too.

---

I have a mixed reaction to his point. Although he is correct in his last sentence, that seems to be an excuse based on common human weakness. No matter what most of us would have done, slavery, as practiced in the southern United States, violated almost every precept of the New Testament. The only possible way one might excuse slave owning was if the slave owner treated his slaves as Paul instructed Philemon to treat Onesimus. I'm not aware of any slave owners that did so, despite their claims of being Christians.

So Whitefield was not an untarnished hero, but was a deeply flawed, hypocritical human like the rest of us.