This does not reflect a Christian perspective or an honest representation of history. This is just a regurgitation of modernist, cultural marxist talking points.
Southern history is baaad because they fought for slavery. “good scholarship” has clarified that it was all about slavery, nothing to do with States Rights? That may be what neo-con and liberal scholars say, but it’s certainly not the view of reputable scholars who actually study history…and please don’t waste your time pointing to the secession ordinances when they reference slavery. They were making a legal argument based on the constitutional compact being broken (over refusal to enforce the fugitive slave laws) by one party then releases the other parties of the compact. People read it,but they don’t understand what they read.
In 1860, over 70% of federal revenue collections came from import tariffs collected at Southern ports. These were paid by the value of Southern agricultural exports, mainly cotton. The high tariff policy was draining the lifeblood of the South while the proceeds were used for pork barrel projects and political largesse in the north. Lincoln’s policy was to more than double the already high tariff rates, to over 50% in some cases. Meanwhile, in his first inaugural address, he promised to uphold the institution of slavery, enforce the fugitive slave laws and endorsed the “Corwin Amendment” which would have make slavery permanent and irrevocable under the US Const.
When the Southern States exercised their sovereign right to form their own govt, the same as their grandfathers had done in 1776, and refused to bow to Lincoln’s tyranny, Lincoln provoked a war and invaded the South, resulting in the death of over 1 million Americans, including hundreds of thousands of slaves.
After the war, the South was subject to a brutal military occupation, the deprivation of all political rights under military rule and the impoverishment and humiliation of its people. All for the “crime” of wanting to live under a constitutionally limited govt of their own making. The monuments to Confederate heroes were erected once the South had recovered from the brutality and starvation of Reconstruction and Confederate veterans were aging and dying out and people desired to see permanent markers honoring their memory AND the cause for which they fought.
To consent to marxist mobs vandalizing and destroying memorials to these brave men while commending a man like Grant, who ran the most notoriously corrupt administration in American history, is to display an utter lack of spiritual discernment and betrays a profound ignorance of history and lack of Christian thinking. To be ashamed of displaying a portrait of Robert E Lee, a man of sterling Christian character and arguably the greatest American general of all time, is disgusting and pusillanimous. It is a detestable case of calling evil good and good evil
By the author’s own admission, the bible declares that slave holding is lawful for God’s people (Lev 25:44 – 46) and so you cannot possibly justify Lincoln’s invasion and waging of total war against the South unless you are upholding the very principles of totalitarianism represented in statues found in communist countries.
I could not extend the hand of Christian fellowship to a man who actually believes the dishonest drivel trotted out in this article.