Abraham Lincoln

In the book Ken, the CSA leaders, especially Lee, suspect the SAers as being evil from the beginning, and eventually the split occurs. Turtledove does not tie the CSA to South Africa. Don't let that part keep you from the book, I think you'd really enjoy it. I have read several times.

 

Dr. Bob:

In school, we learned that your namesake (Lee) was disappointed that his home state, Virginia, chose to secede, because he wanted to lead the Union army. Is that a fact or is it a distortion of fact?

Roy

 

Slavery was an issue, not the sole issue, but and issue nonetheless. To say otherwise brings into question where you are getting your information from. Read source material from the time instead of someones viewpoint. Look at what Congress was arguing about during that time.

Some facts: One white family in four owned slaves, so the majority of southerns did not own slaves so ultimately I agree that it came down to simple boneheadedness and refusal of the south to be told what to do by the north. It was the priniciple that the south was fighting for, and stupid honor for their states than protecting their insititution, but you can not seperate slaverly from the equation.

al

 

So Ken explain to me your position.

I believe the south was correct in some areas, but ultimately they were wrong because they were "rebells" and that is sin.

al

 

But when the states don't get their way, then they should secede? There's no provision in the Constitution for secession.

Those who say that sececession was not primarily about slavery are dead wrong. Jefferson Davis, long before the first shot of the civil war broke out, said that, if an abolitionist president were to be elected, then the South must secede. The South believed that the federal government had no right to make slavery illegal, and they knew this was coming. However, the hypocracy of then-southern thought was prevalent when they south insisted that slaved be counted as population when it came to determining the number of representatives in congress. The north told the south they can;t have their cake and eat it too. The reslt was the 2/3 compromise, where 2/3 of the slave population was counted for representation (even though blacks were forbidden from voting or holding office).

 

It was and is notably absent from the constitution, and federal courts have since interpreted ruled that secession is not constitutional.

I'm not stranger to the era. It's a rather interesting era, and quite fun to research. I'm not to naive to think that the North (which, in and of itself is often a misnomer) was guilt free in contributing to the economic condition of the time. I strongly disagree with many of the federal actions of the time, such as the trade embargo with the south, and the 2/3 compromise. Without a doubt, to uplift the slavery issue to the the pont where many think it was the sole issue is simply incorrect history, would be wrong. Equally wrong has been the recent trend to downplay it to the point where many mistakenly believe it was a minor issue. It most certainly was not.

 

Where is your support for this statement.

1. Where does God teach we have the right to throw off governments.
2. Where does Scripture teach that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are God-given rights.
3. If a government breaks one of those "rights" are you saying one has the right to rebell?

al

 

Sorry, but admission to the union as a state is permanent. There's no Constitutional implication that it is limited by time. This has been tested in the courts several times. The only way to change one's statehood status is to secede from an existing state, into another state. This was the case with West Virginia (which many Virginians think was also unconstitutional, a notion that is also incorrect).

If I as a Californian raised the idea of seceding from the US and returning California to Mexico, I'd be called a traitor. For some reason, when a Southerner does it, he's not branded with the same iron.

 

Well, I could respond, and let you respond, and me respond, but the conversation will go something like this:

You're wrong.

No, YOU're wrong.

No, it's you won'se wrong.

No, that's you.

No, YOU.

No, it's YOU.

Nuh uh.

Yeah huh.

So rather than go that route, suffice it to say it's better that we agree to disagree.

 

But we don't press the issue, because we really don't want 'em back ...

Any 'eers out there, I'm just joshin'

Mark

 

I went through the Scriptures about Cyrus (Ezra, Chronicles etc)last night just to make sure I did not miss anything....Ken, there was no rebellion against Cyrus during his reign.

Yes, I agree that God has used other nations to punish Israel, but that is called war and God is a God of war, so I don't see your reasoning there. But nowhere in Scripture does God teach that man has the right to throw off the authority because the authority wishes to take your money without asking you.

Look at the example of the Exodus. God faught for Israel and the Egypitians let the Hebrews go, all without the Hebrews raising a sword in rebellion.

Ken, Cyrus is a bad example. He was still the authority over Israel during his reign.

No, I do not believe God gave man the unalienable rights that Jefferson thinks He gave us as he laid out in the Declaration. The pursuit of happiness? We are told by God to pursue happiness.

2 Timothy 3
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money , boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4traitors , headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

Christ commands us to deny ourselves not seek happiness. Being happy or having joy is a result of being saved. No one can take that away.

Liberty, is liberty from sin, not liberty from a despot or king. Ken you have twisted the Scripture to support rebellion.

Ken, it was not necessary. Read my thread on the American Revolution/Rebellion.

The "Yankees" were the authority, the Confederacy was in rebellion (even they saw this, they called themsevles rebells) and this is sin.

1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

No, I am not a pacifist but an obeyer of the commands of God. You Ken are teaching against God's commands.

In His love,
al soto

 

Didn't the dirty Yankees also own slaves during that time (including "Honest" Abe himself)?

The war was about States Rights and nothing else. The slavery issue was smoke and mirrors. If you doubt me, just read the Emancipation Proclamation and then research Southern Democratic segregationists in the South and tell me how long it took for all men to be considered "equal". If the North were really serious about slavery being the primary issue of the war of Northern Aggression, then they never would have allowed segregation to go on as long as it did after the war. The true purpose of the war was to do away with the Constitution and give ultimate power to the dirty liberals in the north, thereby, eliminating States rights.

BTW, I think the South probably did just fine before Abraham Lincoln instituted an illegal war against a soveriegn nation, killed, and starved them into submission. It almost reminds me of another two-bit, dictatorial, war criminal we just captured in Iraq.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Regardless of what you have heard, there is no truth to this assertion. Lincoln is sometimes confused with other presidents who did own slaves, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. But Abraham Lincoln never owned slaves.

Jefferson Davis said differently. He said, years before the first shot fired at Fort Sumpter, that if the U.S. ever elected an abolitionist president, it would result in secession.

Interesting, since it was southern states, like Alabama, that said legal segregation was a sovereign right of individual states. So said then governor George Wallace.

The north wasn't concerned about their own states' rights? The issue over "states'" rights was that the south saw it one way, and everyone else saw it another.

There was nothing illegal about the Unites States moving United States troops on United States territory. The South was still United States Territory.

Interesting, since the South was abundant with agriculture.

Oh please!