Did America sin declaring independance from Britain?

I completely disagree.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

The Civil War was definitely about slavery, in that it was the motivating factor behind secession, which then led to armed conflict. For the North, initially, it was about preservation of the Union, and slavery ended up being more of a factor as the war dragged on. For the South, though, the reason for secession was to preserve the institution of slavery.

South Carolina (Dec. 24, 1860):
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
(bold emphasis mine)

If you read that and come away with the notion that secession wasn't about slavery, I don't know what could convince you otherwise. That's a primary text "from the horse's mouth," so to speak. It also wasn't the product of a single person. It was adopted by the convention that declared secession in South Carolina.

 

Amen, and no I'll will towards you though Brother, still love ya.

 

And it's not just South Carolina---


The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States


From Georgia (Jan 29, 1861), starting with the first sentences

(bold emphasis mine)

 

He did fight for it and was assassinated for it.
Yes It ended it. Maybe not to every ones satisfaction but it ended it.

 

That's not technically accurate, regarding the proclamation. The EP was only effective for areas still under Confederate control because it was a wartime measure. Slaves (tragically) were considered property, so it would have been constitutionally suspect (to put it mildly) for an executive order to unilaterally emancipate them. However, because "property" being used to contribute to the rebellion/insurrection against the United States could legitimately be confiscated, he had the legal authority to declare what he did.

It did start the ball rolling, for sure, but the Constitution did have to be amended first. After all, there were slave states that never left the Union.

 

Paul said that rulers are not a terror to good works.

When one in power does become a terror to good works, he is no longer a ruler, but a tyrant. Were the saints right to resist the Beast when he made war with them?

 

Let me clarify. I'm not trying to obfuscate the issue. I'm just thinking of the complexity.

I'm not trying to make the case that the EP didn't accomplish anything, etc. Of course it did. It effectively made abolition one of the main goals of the war effort, and it began liberating slaves every time Union forces took control of an area.

I'm only saying that the EP was the first legal step.

For the occupied territory, an executive order was sufficient to emancipate the slaves legally. Obviously, the former slaves didn't experience freedom until they were under Union control, but their legal status, from the perspective of the US government, had changed as of the effective date of the EP.

For the slave states not in rebellion, though, something more than an executive order was needed. Slavery was still legal and remained so until outlawed at the state level or by the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

My point for all this is not to diminish the importance of the EP. It was definitely a watershed order. Lincoln did all he could do at the time, and, in the EP, he set the nation on a clear course for total abolition.

I certainly do not want to create the impression that I think Lincoln's order was emancipation-in-name-only or materially defective. I think it was a very astute way to provide legitimate legal justification eventually to free the vast majority of slaves.

 

No, either he never said it or he evolved.

 

Again I agree with John Macarthur on Romans 13. The historical believers, Jesus, and the apostles were oppressed by rulers but willingly submitted to their authority to the point of death. Romans 13 and these clear examples show that authority granted by God Our Father is not to be circumvented. Our witness is not our rebellion but instead our witness to suffer and die for our faith and conscience.

 

Ok, a subjugated nation conquered by an empire is an open question, just look at Israel in the time of the Judges. Although, if, when, and how to revolt are important questions that must be answered by the potential rebels. The key for the rebels is determining what God wants the potential rebels to do. USA, though had no such excuse. If the native Americans rebelled it might make sense, but the founders were British colonists and were descendents of conquerors.

 

The Earth is spherical and the moon landing was genuine.
Actually research Old Abe's own words, and you will find he would have left the slaves in their chains in order to "preserve the Union".
If that was achieved without the freeing of slaves, it would have been so. He stated so himself on numerous occasions.
Had a Southern State laid down arms (even after the Proclamation) they would have kept their slaves.

Therefore:
1.) Freeing slaves was not his purpose
2.) Later Political measures had to be taken in order to actually abolish slavery.

Two things can easily be deduced from this:
1.) Lincoln did not fight "TO free the slaves"
2.) The EP did not free them.....later measures were required to do so.

Those are facts, rather you want to make snarky juvenile swipes or not.

 

That Lincoln said he would preserve the union without freeing a single slave,.... or what