Were families more united during slavery?
At a campaign event earlier this year, an audience member asked Moore for his opinion on when the last time America was "great." Moore responded: "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction."
You got an audio / video with Moore saying that?
Video Listen to Roy Moore comments on family, slavery and when America was great
Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore speaks on Sept. 17, 2017 at an event in Florence, Ala.
Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times
Roy Moore
Anne Arundel Democrats call on Michael Peroutka to resign
Roy Moore, Steve Bannon and racial progress: Five myths about Alabama | Opinion
http://www.latimes.com/politics/95396983-132.html
First, I would wonder what makes him think families were more united then? Obviously, he wasn't alive at that time, so where does this idea come from?
But, no, I have no reason to believe families were more united during the time of slavery. In fact, families were torn apart because of slavery.True! The slave masters raped the slaves. The wives could say nothing. My Tate ancestors were on a plantation in Kershaw County. Mary Boykin Chestnut wrote about her husband's having children with the slaves. She was an abolitionist. She was a Boykin and married a Chestnut. I have Boyking and Chestnut surnamed relatives from Kershaw County, SC.
Mary Boykin Chesnut
https://ehistory.osu.edu/biographies/ma … in-chesnut
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … 325-2521r/Very interesting! Learning about one's ancestry is like reading a great novel.
My aunts and uncle, 88, 90 & 92, love for me to ask them questions and pull information together. I plan to go to Alexandria, VA, and Harnett County, NC, either next year or the year after. I trace Nelson/Moss family back that far.
Researching one's family tree is a rewarding and sometimes surprising venture, Diane. Have you considered a DNA test? I think I'm gonna try one to see where my other ancestors hailed from other than those I've already traced. Good luck!
I've tested w/ Ancestry and FTDNA. I'm going to test w/ 23&Me to cover the bases. It is very interesting and keeps me from getting Alzheimers!
Ha! I already have "oldtimers" disease, Diane.
I've had CRS for quite some time now. "Can't remember szet!"
I listened to what was presented by the LA Times. What I heard was a politician giving an answer off the top of his head and not making any sense. I would have to say it doesn't matter what families were like pre or post the civil war era. None of us will know the reality because we can only read other people's accounts of it. Families are different now. Issues families have to deal with are different. When I was growing up, if your mother had a job that meant your family was facing some hard economic times. It was something that made you feel embarrassed. Now, if your mother doesn't have a job you feel embarrassed. As a kid, people in an interracial marriage were people you avoided. I had a friend who married a black girl, and the stories they told me about the families on both sides were incredible. Now, it's not so much of a big deal. I think we need to look at the issues of today and deal with them. I hope people STOP comparing life today with life over a hundred and fifty years ago...we're different people facing a very different world.
From all the research I've read, families existed in all types throughout the history of our nation. There was the nuclear family, extended family, single-parent families, and families derived from just living together (cults, business arrangements, etc.), so What does Roy mean by family?
When Roy said our country had a direction - which direction is he referring to? The continued oppression of minorities and women during slavery? Maybe he was referring to the Confederacy as his country. (Send that man a note. Alabama lost that war along with the other southern states.)
The definition of what a "family" is happens to be more fluid than Moore appears to be.
(maybe Dr. Phil can help him on that one.)I would love for him to explain how he knows about the strong families. He had to know that the slaveowners and their male family and friends raped the slaves. The more I think about it the more ridiculous his assertion is.
I agree. I wonder if this is an example of the "cultural war" of politics which the far right love to practice. Roy has to know that, like P.P. said families were torn apart by the issue. Steve Bannon once said that in the "cultural wars, the far right always wins." I think this is where we get this ridiculous statement from - it's calculated to make sure those who would have voted for him anyway come to the ballot boxes. Also, he's putting the rest of us who may not know of him on notice as to where he really stands.
Even more important: It's another example of why we need groups like Run for Something to seek out and put law makers from diverse backgrounds into local, and when possible, national leadership roles.You have probably heard my chorus a few times. "It is a heart matter."
It doesn't matter what party is in. People (each and every one) must respect the right of everyone else to exist and have full access and opportunity.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago
0No , there were plenty of families that weren't united during slavery : Both of my great -great grandfathers , before they were even fathers were separated from their loved ones too . Here is a list of things they were doing back during the Civil War and slavery ,of course they were white and not subject to slavery; nor were they allowed the victimology so easily assumed by many today;
--Both union soldiers
--Marching from Washington D.C. to Georgia
--Sleeping on the ground or in white canvas tents
- Laying in civil war hospital wards with healing wounds from ;
--Gettysburg , The Wilderness , Antietam , Leesburg
--Eating hard tack and drinking coffee if they had it
--Marching between battles and the lulls between
--Patching leather boots rotted by the walking in mud , blood and dust
Of course , they weren't allowed automatic victimology like the above and below .FACT;
It is the greatest irony and lie of modern times that the democrats call themselves the hero's of the slave era , of civil rights , of equal rights ........etc. When as one reads real history , ------looks at the D--or --R before the opposition names ; We find that it was the democrats that fought racial progress all the way from BEFORE the writing of the constitution to the modern affair of media and democratic party love affair.
But who continues on with the popular victim clause ?
The same opposition party as opposes true progress today , Democrats.The topic here is Roy Moore's illusion about the "family" during slavery.
And I notice your "illusions" always goes to racism . But we thought the TOPIC is "united families during slavery" so why is real history a. deferred subject matter ? Or shall all our responses be simply about racism like yours, I notice you ignored the subject of soldiers in my family so divided by the civil war , Reasons?
Interestingly , One thing I'm considering is a series of articles about Democratic opposition to civil rights . I suppose many liberals would simply ignore them .I didn't ignore your comment about white men going to war and being away from their families. They did! The slaveowners chose to war because they wanted to continue having slaves, raping them, commiting adultery, etc.
You are right. There were no family values.Actually I didn't say there were no family values I have however said there ARE none now. Any real historian knows we were far more morally inclined then than now however .
Family then that was divided was far more likely to be so because of economics and thus economic migrations . Even in slavery black or white families were far more morally centered than today. We are evolving away from family and towards social groupings today . That , I believe ,is more than obvious.I agree. The irony or sequence: Don't have an abortion. I hope it is a girl so I can molest her as a teen.
Personally, I don't believe in abortion either. However, I think people put a microscope on the things they determine to be most important ignoring their own fallacies.Families were not divided because men were the bread winners. There was no birth control so they ended up with one to two dozen kids (seriously). The women did not know how to take care of the kids and work. They were at a grave disadvantage. So men had outside children and the women could say nothing.
Remember it took the suffrage movement for women to vote. There was a time women couldn't get a home mortgage. Their names didn't even show up on deeds with their husbands.
Women had no choice!--I still contend that women , mothers, families were closer , more centered and less morally divided than today ,
-- Women generally not only grew what they all ate , prepared it , fed it and grew it again . But were far , far less likely to fail at family constructs than they are today.
Don't under value woman's contributions then .
--I doubt that women's issues were very important then as they are today , they had no time .
--Were women socially, culturally dominated by men , yes.
But today we slip continually backwards in maintaining family units . I blame that one on boys becoming fathers before they are men . Girls becoming mothers before they are women and neither men or women capable of maintaining as moral and character positive influences .ahorse, I'm with you. I use to tell my high school students that they were in school to learn not make out and get pregnant. I've witness 12 and 13 year old girls being pregnant.
This is a moral crisis! An economic crisis! a mental and emotional crisis for the kids!Diane ,I still say the all blame lays in parenting , what will it take to return morality and God to the family , how to return the man to his responsibilities , AND it is man , we know that . I don't know of nor can I imagine one more social program to save us from what lays ahead . Something worse.
Hopefully it's a swing effect in our cultures and will swing again the other way .Unfortunately, I don't see it getting better.
"Any real historian knows we were far more morally inclined then than now however . "
And interesting statement, considering that:
Women were second class people, not entitled to rights of men
Children were little more than obnoxious pets, and beaten violently as punishment
There was no tolerance whatsoever for anyone not agreeing with (local) Christian philosophies
Work conditions were deadly, with no one caring whether workers lived or died.
Slavery of other people was normal and accepted.
I could go on - the list is nearly endless - but it's pretty plain we've come a long, long way. The relatively picayune moral issues we're so concerned about today just don't compare to what was considered normal, right and proper 500 years ago.But what good is to "...Come a long way ...." in a culture , media or society , at least we may have in our perception of that , IF the family unit suffers further decline now ? Surely you don't think the family unit is more united now ?
I would have to argue that .I'd love to address this but you would say I'm proselytizing. Actually, I would! I will say that there is no unity in what people value.
"Morally inclined"? Depends on your point of view, if morality included people enslaving others then lets have more immorality. As for the rest of you post, it is all debatable, not obvious.
Credence , Always to the victim-hood and racism huh , And yes family constructs were more moral in America , centered and closer , whatever the ethnicity Divorce for one thing wasn't a social fad like it is today. I suggest you read a few history books , it's simply egocentric and blind to suggest today's families are tighter .
If we want to blame someone for today's family problems , look to your Democratic organized social , safety net programs . Planned Parenthood for one and general welfare programs , Planned .Parenthood now undergoing an FBI investigation for selling aborted fetuses .No, divorce wasn't a social fad like it is today. I am horrified at how easy it is to get a divorce in some parts of the world. When I got divorced in Australia (after my husband ran off with one of his 19-year-old students...), I had to wait 2 years. In the circumstances, I'd like to have gotten it over with faster - but actually I think the delay is a good thing. it makes people realise the seriousness of what they're doing.
However, I think that "in the old days" it went too far the other way. Both men and women stuck it out in miserable marriages for so many reasons. My parents had me in their forties so I had an insight into the generation that grew up in the wars. I think my parents were happily married but I saw so many of their friends who barely tolerated their spouses, but were stuck in marriage for so many reasons - either because the social stigma of divorce was too great, or because they had no money of their own, etc.
I suppose if you are the sort of unforgiving person who says marriage is for life even if your husband beats you, you wouldn't see that as a bad thing. I hope most people would have more compassion.Marisa , trying to pigeon holing me is not going to work , I have stated conservatism in most points but am simply an independent old ,cantankerous ,colonial , New Englander . The institution of marriage in the U.S. has been pretty much reduced to ashes . Not many people have the attention span for it anymore to begin with. Americans have the committal mindset of a half hour sitcom these days .It would do many here people a lot of good to stick to anything a little longer , a job , a marriage , a school class a movie ..........:-]
Yes , men and women stuck to marriage longer then than now and there was nothing wrong with that . What exactly is a miserable marriage ? One where the offspring know only one dad , one mom ? One where over half of the marriages performed won't last longer than seven years ? What is too long and why are most difficult ones where there is domestic violence occurs in the first three years ?
Yes families were more united then than now , people in general were too , towns , villages , churches , grange halls , women's and men's clubs and schools . College for instance wasn't one five year frat party . church , no matter how today's cultures looks at the past , were more community gatherings than now. You and many modernly enlightened people cannot except today's cultural failures , but familial life in general was better then , today; modern selfishness rules all our societal environments .
And no I don't"..... support a marriage where a husband beats......... " Why would any decent man ? There you go demonizing your ideological opponent , so new-modern liberal , If the shoe fit's wear it ?ahorseback,
I have to agree that people don't have the attention span of a flea in our times. It was harder in my parent's generation to get a divorce, and as Marisa says, there was a waiting period, so they had to think about it more. There were also a list of reasons, now we just say we have "irreconcilable differences." But in most states the house or whatever they own is split 50/50, making their futures hard, and yet they still keep getting married. I feel like anyone can make a mistake once, maybe too young. I even think a mistake can be made twice, although they should have learned something. I refuse to attend 3rd weddings. Enough already!
I feel strongly about stable marriages. Both parties take a "vow." Maybe they need to look it up in the dictionary. Generally, it was easier on a couple when family lived closer, so they had help with relatives watching the kids, or had bigger family dinners a few times a week. In the 1950's, when home prices were cheap, many men bought 3 or 4, so as kids grew up and married, they got a free house. That sure took off a lot of financial pressure. My Grandfather did that, but was a supposed devout Catholic. My Paternal grandmother died when my Dad was in High School, and he came home two months later to find his Dad with another woman already! It turned him against the Church and he barely spoke to his Dad again for the rest of his life. But he and my Mom were married for 30 yrs., until he died, and although they married young and had little help, I always believed they loved each other.
Couples today don't have a realistic view. They don't consider one day they will have financial problems, health issues, children, deaths, and all kinds of sorrows and pressures. They get married because they think each other are "hot."
In our generation, certain things were harder. We had to move farther from our parents and loved ones to be able to afford a home, or get a good job. So young families didn't have as much guidance. Church attendance is down. Divorce is at 50%. It seems couples are too immature to be married. They don't look ahead to potential issues, they live too much in the moment. When I got married, my husband and I were both 24. So we had good jobs, new cars, and dated five years, and really knew each other (we didn't live together, not with any of our parents)! He was there every time I needed him, and I hope I did the same for him. People don't take marriage seriously anymore. Millennials all want to do everything they can in life, and feel like marriage is something they might do years down the road. It's low on their priority list. But a good marriage is so wonderful.
See, we agree, and race and politics have nothing to do with it!
It is sort of hard to talk about slavery in America without racism playing a role, do you think, Ahorseback?
Exactly. My ancestors from a tribe here as well as of African-American descent were busy trying to help slaves escape from those "perfect" "families." Although one party isn't to blame, as D.T. points out, here of late, the far right has been going after the "access" points to power for those marginalized groups. This started in the 1960's, when LBJ took up the cause of the disenfranchised, in order to give them more routes to power in our nation (education, food and other resources, more mobility in the military, etc.) The Democrats proclaimed: "We have lost the South," and this was LBJ's party.
However, the Republicans seized on this: they called it the plan for the Solid South. This referred to getting White southerners to vote for them to restrict those avenues to power (voting, education, etc.) Apparently, it worked in some regard.
Only in a limited fashion, of course. Many are not fooled. The only way to render victimization a mute point is to be proactive in our democracy. This includes all families, regardless of revised language about historical misstated facts.Actually, I would look forward to reading your articles about Civil Rights and the Democrats. Now, let me thank you and your family for fighting for the U.S. during that troubled and bitter time in our past. Perhaps, race appears to creep up when the intentions are not bad in our forums is because we are trying to have an open conversation about these things as Americans. We all can agree that the truth has been shifted around, watered, changed, and altogether left out because these parties want to control the narratives. It's our America - we can write the narrative.
That's why for Roy to say such a thing is a slap in the face for those who know better. I believe he does, too. He wants people like us to offend each other and further divide our nation. That's part of the tactic of cultural warfare.
The anger is used to make us all sensitive to the slightest comment while he walks away with the prize. (Again, I am not just blaming one party; it's just what's happening right now.)
Of course, logic tells us: there had to be good White, Black, Native, and others during the Civil War era and before. Otherwise, that odd institutions (Lincoln's words) Of slavery would not have ended. Likewise, there were atrocious people; many of them were White plantation owners.I think learning how to be parents is essential. That's not happening because of external forces on the family dynamic. Young people grow up not knowing how to take care of kids or themselves. (That's one social program we can create that would benefit the whole of society. It's matter of approaching it the right way.)
It's worth noting: When force of any kind takes away choices of the individual to act as an adult, how can that be better? When force is placed on an enslaved population to act according to the dictates of a master, how can that be a better time? Perhaps, if you are not a member of the poor White indentured servants, Blacks, or women during that period, it's heaven I'm sure.
The family unit is in a state of flux today. There are few Brady bunches running around or Evans family (Good Times.) However, single-parents are still here (America looks more like Sanford and Son, That;'s my Mommy, What's happening, etc. Those television families did not seem to focus on constant turmoil.)
What's happened lately is the prevalence of drugs and a gradual turning away from the church. There's part of the morality issue. However, morality cannot be legislated. (We tried that with Prohibition.)
"Strong family," by its very definition, is a loaded phrase. The family unit changes over time anyway. People grow up and move out. This may be a cultural thing, but I think we are seeing a genuine shift in our perceptions of family. For instance, older children who have careers are moving their elderly parents with them or returning home. Baby Boomers retiring caused a shift in the concept of "family." Or maybe Roy was letting us know that women belong beneath him. I can'[t be sure where that guy is coming from.Tim, I promise, before reading your comments, I thought to myself, "You can't legislate morality."
Many aspects of society either contribute to or add distaste to the concept of morality.
1. The current religion thing going on now with who to vote for and how to vote is pathetic.
2. The church did not progress with integration. Now many of the churches that are not multicultural are dying.
3. School policy is don't curse; however, all of the songs the kids hear are about sex, drugs and violence.
4. Reality shows glamorize immoral living. The Kardashians is a prime example. The mother-manager wants her kids doing things that increase ratings.
5. Movies have outrageous cursing in them.
The list goes on.
I'm sorry; I don't remember ever stating my party affiliation. (Who's really on an ego trip, here?) You are entitled to your opinions, but you probably should do more reading yourself. Then, we could have a conversation void of personal attacks. Or perhaps, someone is misrepresenting who they really are. You see, I can have an opinion without a personal attack. Slavery was brutal, families were ripped apart because of it, and if you don't want to comprehend that simple fact - then, enjoy your opinion. There was this thing called the Civil War that happened, too. We do have monuments around from that war, also. Study up on it.
For someone to suggest that families of that era were somehow superior than now otherwise indicates a feeling for the system which your own ancestors fought against. (Again, no personal attack.) Try responding that way.
You don't even know if I voted for the Trump machine or not.
You don't even know if I voted for
Barack Obama.
I never said in my post that families were "stronger" or better. I questioned motivation of Roy. There was no research at the time conducted on families from any respectable source. Read, read, read. I'll know if you did, my friend.
God bless you. (You see, morals are still alive and well just changing. But before, women couldn't hold top exec positions,
Black people couldn't become president or lead the Joint Chief of Staff. Where did they learn to work to obtain those positions. Hint: it wasn't from people telling them slavery offered them a better opportunity.).)You might try addressing who your talking to.
+1
"(You see, morals are still alive and well just changing. But before, women couldn't hold top exec positions, Black people couldn't become president or lead the Joint Chief of Staff. Where did they learn to work to obtain those positions. Hint: it wasn't from people telling them slavery offered them a better opportunity.)" - TIM TRUZY INFO4U
Its subversion. It was the Democrats, the Klan. Attack the black Republicans, burn the cross, lynch them, and call them the Uncle Toms, the house 'n' word. The opposite is true. The dumbing down of America!
Added:
"First black senator from SC reads hate mail on the Senate floor — and only those that didn’t use the N-Word"
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevo … Ty22AXp.99
Added: "Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party. "
The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo
Research it out fact by fact. That could take months, years on Google, if you dig deep.
Thank you Tim! I hate for every forum question to end uup being the very same, regardless of how it starts.
Another important point: we are all one race. President Lincoln (Are you a fan?) said that when freedom is diminished for the one then all of democracy suffers. Now, he was a lot wiser than Roy. So, you constantly scream "victimization," perhaps, you don't understand you are a victim yourself because freedom is not the possession of a few.
"I hate for every forum question to end uup being the very same, regardless of how it starts."
- dianetrotter
"Huh? "hate".
I like to end in truth and love, but it is difficult when there is 'hate'.It's called speaking with a little taste. Speaking in general will make a guilty conscious show through. If you are feeling guilty, progress, my friend.
In any case, my questions were not answered: A marriage where partners are not equal is one reason why divorce hovers around 50 percent. (Should we legislate morality? Tell a wife she has no rights. Tell her husband he has the deed to her life?)
This is why you can never convince a thinking person somehow marriages and the family was better when the wife could get murdered by her husband and society ignored it. What about the children? Oh, yes, they were "property" too in that type of society.
Forget the pre-Civil War Era, what Roy wants is the Neanderthals to come back alive. They're dead, too, just like the Confederacy.
It takes courage to reshape and reform society along new norms. Going backwards is counterproductive and people who have earned their rights will not give them back to please some played out ideas about what something was like.
Roy may win today, but rejected his ideas years ago.To your way of thinking my friend , quite typical of today's media informed , all things traditional are then prejudiced by bias , ignorance , right wing , sexist , hate , "neanderthal" thought , .....etc....? What's lacking in your interpretation however is our common knowledge of that , yes , today's american culture is less moral , less religion based , less generally self or culturally disciplined AND particularlly less honest period .
"Thinking person " ? Afraid not so much today , today's average "thinking person ", no personal offense to you , is more than likely often shallowly informed than you think. With our totally liberal education system most of the "thinking today " isn't thinking at all it's simply pre-programmed thought and of that programming , biased in all genuine historical truth .
Oh and your reasons for failed modern marriages are also naively not-thought out , If you think it's male domination alone that's the issue , you just proved me right . Woman's lib , two worker homes , less married committal to sacrifice , jees , I could go way on ...........
Thinking man ? You may be getting there but ,..............
Excellent, we agree there is a problem. A starting point. No I don't completely blame male domination, the factors are extensive and diverse. But (hypothetical because I do not know nor wish to query), would either one of us want our sisters in a relationship where they had no say? How about mothers? Aunts etc.?
Just something to ponder.
The conditions women experienced after helping extensively during and after W.W. II caused them to push for change. Good for them.
They had already demonstrated their ability to mobilize to force the Prohibition Amendment (which was repealed). They needed no help from me. Demographically, women will soon surpass men as the majority in the U. S. population.
Of course, both parties know this. I don't think playing to the idea that women are meant to behave in a submissive role as they did during the pre-civil War era is going to play well for either party.
We as Americans will make it work.I agree , I have never said women should be dominated or as in my situation dominant .....:-} But its simply the closer relationships of family units that I proposed
was in effect. Believe me , I've seen male dominance , that 's why I believe that Men today are the cause of almost all family problems , was that true then , I don't really know .
Today , I know many women who feel that woman's lib hasn't produced the greatest results with too many working mom's , divided families , too much for economic pressures on the family unit all together , and more so today. I say enact legislation to equalize pay for women ! Now.
See , in spite of popularly held opines ,nothing is real obvious or predictable about my independent opinions.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
".........EVEN THOUGH WE HAD SLAVERY ................."
Aside from other allegations , Could somebody point out how saying that makes a man a racist ?
If it does then I know who the real racist's are .This means he thought white families were united, never mind that they treated Black people like animals and tore their families apart.
It was good for the slaveowners. That is what was important to him.Diane , you can read "racist" in about any sentence spoken ?
It's one thing to discuss racism , another to read it in anything that's ever spoken though ?So how were the families of slaves united?
So you comprehend when he's saying "....Families were more united even though we had slavery " As that it somehow means that he's a racist because he's answering to that even during slavery , actual families were or weren't more united ?
I can't make the connection of his being accused of racism because of that sentence though ?
We all realize some were broken families because of slavery , at least I think.You are reading more into question. The question is about families being united, EVEN though there was slavery. Should we believe that the slaves families were united even though they were slaves?
Somewhere in the region of 60 to 67 % % of black families today have single parenthood ? Which makes our entire society of any color today ,shameful . Was it worse then ? I can't find the numbers for back then . Where are WE failing today ?
DAmn it, Ahorseback don't be so obtuse. Would you want to have been a slave? It is not a matter of 'numbers'. Your man, Moore, is a bigoted clown of unfathomnable dimension.
Have you even bothered to wake up?
This unity of family stuff is completely irrelevant when you really expect to include slaves in any comparison with white and free families, as Roy Moore alludes to and yet still have a straight face while saying it. Go ahead and compare apples with hand grenades....Sadly , liberals stop at nothing immoral or acidic to include in your usual and disgusting comparisons of conservatives to slave holders , bigots , racists , mysoginist's, That is all this is , and when it doesn't work cry victim.
What has Moore got to do with slavery ?
How about we stop with all the phony accusation and drama .Well, I for one am happy Roy Moore was defeated tonight. He didn't even have the grace to concede, he blathered on about a long Biblical Psalm that had nothing to do with today's events.
I do not like seeing anyone tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. But Moore WAS waxing poetic about the "good old days of family and slavery". That's just sick. It's bad enough he wants to ignore the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. But trying to return our country to Civil War times is just downright crazy.
The United States is a secular country, and there are many religions celebrated besides Christianity. We are great because we have a choice to worship as we choose, or not to worship at all. Christian fanatics like him are similar to what began the Taliban and Isis, and I don't understand why people don't see that.
The whole "War on Christmas" was invented by Bill O'Reilly on a slow new night. As a child my family received cards that said, Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings, Merry Christmas. Once again, much ado about nothing.
And if a black person drew out a gun while on stage making a speech, he or she would have been shot dead. Also, what's with riding on horseback to vote? Moore is unstable, as is obvious in his behavior. I am grateful enough people saw the way the future is moving, not by fads, but evolving. It can't be stopped.Hi Diane,
I see you around on these forums and know you as a kindred spirit. I'm glad the people of Alabama have spoken and sanity prevailed!
Marisa,
Thanks for being on the side of sanity. Remember the time you thought one of my articles on a certain person were too harsh, lol?
So you agree with Roy Moore that "even though" they were slaves, their families were united.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
So wiki- says 67% now aren't united ,according to different sources many , many slave families were united, could it have been worse then than now- is what I'm asking?
You know, I don't really care much for Moore he seems too establishment politician to me , yet exactly how is he wrong ? Remember: Alabama is a conservative state. This mean they reject those worn out ideas as well. It wasn't a liberal thing, it was an American decision.
Alabama feels that a democrat can represent them better than More - again, after not having a Dem. in that position for decades.
DJT said let the people of Alabama decide. They did. Our families are changing just like Ala. has. We will survive and thrive. It's what we do well as Americans. In fact, an "outsider," Winston Churchill once said that America will try and try again until she gets it right.
This forum was great. See you guys around Hub Pages. God bless America.- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Once again , Democrats explode Into their highly regarded courtrooms of public opinion , the halls of ajudicated hypocrisy and the jury's of media orchestrated outcome , electing one more swamp dweller .
Related Discussions
- 42
Roy Moore: Last Time America Was 'Great' Was During 'Slavery'
by Paul Winngert 6 years ago
Trump Approvedhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/roy-moore-la … 33620.html
- 34
How is Splitting Families at Border the same as Slavery?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
It is the same because Trump's AG Sessions used SAME verses from the Bible to justify taking children away from Families at the border that fellow conservatives used to Justify Slaveryhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … tions.html
- 127
Should black people who live in the USA be given reparations?
by LoliHey 7 years ago
Should black people who live in the USA be given reparations?If so, who would get it? All black people in general, or just those descended from slaves? And what about mixed people, with one black parent and one white parent? Or anyone with at least one black person in his or her...
- 39
Michael Moore Declares, “People Don’t Trust Democrats Anymore”
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
“How Else Could A Socialist Win 22 States?” Moore said.* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLsRFcgHkvAHe claims that no one trusts Democrats anymore – because if they did a “socialist” (Bernie) would not have won 22 states.I don't agree with Micheal Moore very often but in the past couple of...
- 49
Before anyone asks,I am opposed to making Juneteenth a Federal Holiday
by Credence2 2 years ago
I think that making Juneteenth a Federal Holiday is a step too far. Unlike the King holiday that commemorates the nationwide struggles of those not considered part of the dominant culture and reminds all of the need to attain to a higher standard, this observance is more localized and while...
- 56
Reparations - Is it a Realistic Conversation?
by Denise 5 years ago
With several democratic presidential hopefuls using the carrot of reparations as a vote getter, can someone tell me how it would work and what it would accomplish?If you think a group owes another group something, based on skin color, who benefits? And who in those groups? Would it be all men,...