Featured Slavery and Civil war.

None of that negates the South voted to leave the Union over slavery! Who historiically started the Civil War? And said war was not against Lincoln's wishes?

 

Pretty clear.

 

Remember, Lincoln said if freeing no slave would preserve the union, freeing one slave would preserve the union, or freeing all slaves would preserve the union, he'do whatever it took, even though he was PERSONALLY against slavery. His first priority was PRESERVING THE UNION, which he put ahead of his personal desires.

And again, slavery was only PART of the reasons the South seceded. But after "reading" the majority of feeling within the union, Lincoln made the made Union cause emancipation. The union's opinion had changed some as the war dragged on, & Lincoln needed a cause for his men to fight for.

 

First statement in your post:

Why should not the South have been allowed to leave the "union."

The question was not over "slavery" but over authority.

Prior to that terrible conflict, the states held vast authority over nearly every aspect of the citizenship. There was no federal bureaucracy in which has held as superior to the "states' rights."

The conflict was first and primarily about authority and in particular at the local level and also at the national level.

The North wanting a tax structure that would cripple the southern economy.

The South wanting a tax structure that would cripple the northern industries.

It came down to money and authority. Same thing is happening in our modern times.

First question in your post:
It was the North that started the conflict by refusing to leave Sumter and Lincoln restocking it. And then historically, the North consistently invaded the South, not the other way around.

With the exception of Lee taking the battle to the North, and had he been in better health had won at Gettysburg, the Yankee's who were already suing for peace on multiple fronts would have capitulated the cause.

Second question in your post:

Historically, Lincoln did not desire the war, however when the issue was thrust into his administration, did as he was expected.

Had there been any other alternative in which he considered viable short of allowing the south to depart, then he would have taken it.

 

Lincoln personally was probably opposed to the institution of slavery. Nationally, however, slavery was such an ingrained institution that even the so-called "Founding Fathers" hd to come up with some sort of compromise in order to have our Constitution ratified. What they came up with in reality wasn't IMHO a compromise at all, but rather a delaying attempt to be settled "at some future time. This ambiguity led to just one unworkable compromise after another. The final unworkable incident was the 1860 firing of Ft Sumter in Charleston SC harbor. As President, Lincoln was, IMHO, forced to call up the very untrained & uncapable US Army to do SOMETHING for which the US Army was totally UNPREPARED (& thus UNCABALE) of doing. The collective National Militias would NOT support his move, & we had "The Civil War" thrust upon a very-undivided US Nation."

 

rlvaughn, IMHO, you are correct to a point. Back in the 1780s, the Constitutional Convention DID recognize slavery as an integral aspect of the Southern agrarian economy, in fact, (To some extent at least) that is why the members of the Constitutional Convention (Both the North & South) came up with what's called "The Three-Fifths Compromise" which for purposes of representation in the newly-formed Senate (and to some extent also in the US House of Representatives) the slaves were to be counted as three-fifths of a person in the first (and most like future) census, which was to be held in 1790, & every 10 years thereafter. IMHO, all they really did was ro pass on this almost-impossible dilemma of the Institution of Slavery to some future set of Constitutional "Know-It-Alls." While the Congress (Especially in the newly-created US Senate) DID pass on some, IMHO anyway, a few so-called "Compromises," all they actually did was to pawn off the "Slavery Issue" to the future generations. The most notable of these so-called "Compromises" IMHO was the "Compromise of 1850" which merely left "The Slavery Dilemma" up to each individual state (or territories hoping to become states). IOW, each state would determine for itself whether or not slavery would exist, and that decision was left up to each individual states' "Armed Militia" to enforce. This so-called "Compromise" failed to say who or what was to be done about the Federal Forts that protected all naval commerce from either arriving or leaving the US. Although each coastal state had these forts, it was in the South where the most commerce occurred. Then, in 1860, the Federal Fort Sumpter in the SC harbor of Charleston was fired upon & destroyed by the SC Militia. The newly-sworn in US President, Abraham Lincoln HAD to do something about this SC incident, so he did what the US Constitution stated that he MUST do--Send Federal Troops to defend the state of SC from future "Outlawed Incidents." But the US Federal Troops were totally unprepared for maintaining what their Commander-In-Chief ordered them to do. They were still trying to recover from the US-Mexican War some 10-15 years earlier which, even in that intervening decade, left them woefully unprepared and unready to do what they were ordered to do. Moreover, US President Lincoln most likely knew this, but he was hand-tied by the US Constitution in that most of the Southern States refused to give the US President either men or equipment that they had in their own states' arsenals. Thus, the US had a "Civil War" that literally destroyed the Southern economy AND its manpower to run it.

 

I believe God sent the civil war upon us as a punishment for slavery & a wandering away from Christian values. And I believe He's gonna send something worse upon us if we don't get back to Him.

 

May be so. BUT OTOH people have also asked that since God is ultimately in control of all of man's actions, be they "good" or "bad," why would He allow a nation to come into being that not only condoned the institution of slavery, but permitted slavery to prosper? (NOTE: These aren't my own personal views, but they are most likely the predominant views of most people.)

 

God allowed His chosen people, Israel, to begin worshipping idols and, once established, it persisted for centuries. But God kept His promise to punish them for their transgressions. Same for us. God isn't gonna tolerate national sin forever. The tolerance of sexual deviation & fornication, the gangs of false preachers, etc. will have a day of reckoning. But it's up to US as individuals to come to Jesus despite what our neighbors do.

 

If I correctly understand your viewpoint, you seem to be telling me that it is entirely up to humans to decide their eternal destiny. God Himself places two alternatives before us humans, but ultimately it is left entirely up to each person to decide which alternative he/she will choose. Please reconcile your view with John 6:27-40. IMHO, those verses seem to be telling me that God the Father is the one who determines one's eternal destiny & that He has already determined which one His "Chosen People" will take.

 

John 3:16 says "whoever", not "whoever if pre-chosen". Romans 10:13 says "whoever", not "whoever if pre-chosen". 2 Peter 3:9 says "all", not "All of the pre-chosen".

Why preach the Gospel, have Bibles, churches, or worship at all if everyone's destiny is already decided? Why did Jesus give the "Great Commission" to His disciples if everyone's destiny is already decided?

Calvinism is man-made & false. EVERYONE now living is eligible for salvation. God has provided the way for anyone to come to Him, through Jesus. And Jesus said, "Look, I come to the door & knock". But the "occupant" must ANSWER THE DOOR, open it, & let Him in; He doesn't often kick a door in as He did with Paul.

 

IMHO, it's because the left's daddy sees the USA as one of the major (ONLY, maybe?) real obstacles to his goal of "one world government"!

 

I believe the USA was "the nation" God promised Abraham.(Nation & company of nations-the company of nations was the British Empire. But that's a subject for a different sub-forum.)

 

You friend is correct. Juneteenth celebrated the news and effects of the Emancipation Proclamation reaching Texas on June 19, 1865, when Union troops arrived in Galveston as occupiers and declared the enslaved Americans free, a little over two months after the surrender at Appomattox (April 9, 1865).

Since Texas was on the frontier of the Confederacy, few Civil War battles were fought in Texas -- mostly along the coast -- and few Union troops ever set foot on Texas soil during the war. As an example of how remote Texas was from what happened at Appomattox, what is considered the last battle of the Civil War occurred in extreme south Texas (nearly in Mexico) on May 12-13, 1865, a little over a month after the South surrendered.

 

That sounds like that British Israelism nonsense.