• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Did America sin declaring independance from Britain?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You're visiting a house of someone whose politics you don't like. While there somebody tries to break in and you join the person in fighting the intruder off together.

Does that mean that you suddenly support his politics? .....

Of course not, but that's not the argument you made. Analogies are not your strong suit. You said the war wasn't about slavery. That is patently false. The war was about slavery, regardless of the politics of individual soldiers. I doubt even they would make the argument you are making.

The video addresses all of your arguments. They are completely debunked. It was about slavery. Period.
 

Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Of course not, but that's not the argument you made. Analogies are not your strong suit. You said the war wasn't about slavery. That is patently false. The war was about slavery, regardless of the politics of individual soldiers. I doubt even they would make the argument you are making.

The video addresses all of your arguments. They are completely debunked. It was about slavery. Period.

I completely disagree.

We will have to agree to disagree.
 

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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)
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
...

The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals . . .

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States
. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
...
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

...
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

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.
 

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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)

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

. . .

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.


. . .


An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.


. . .


The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.


. . .


The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.
 

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
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?
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

This is a roundabout way of admitting you're wrong and obfuscating the issue. Of course it ended it. When wars are declared over, there are always skirmishes that persist. Do murder laws prevent all unjust killings?
 

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is a roundabout way of admitting you're wrong and obfuscating the issue. Of course it ended it. When wars are declared over, there are always skirmishes that persist. Do murder laws prevent all unjust killings?

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.
 

Steven Yeadon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?

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.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BTW, thanks for bringing the topic back to the OP.

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.

We agree on this. The question is, if Israel could have rebelled and gained back their sovereignty from Rome, would they have been in sin for doing so? No question that Paul should have obeyed and respect Roman law. But Rome, at some point, seized that land from Israel (directly or indirectly). Did they sin in doing that? And would Israel be in sin if they took their land back? Were they in sin when the fought to retake their land in modern times?

I'm not sure Paul's admonition to obey governments covered the issue of how nations are fought for and birthed. Israel itself was birthed quite violently.
 

Steven Yeadon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BTW, thanks for bringing the topic back to the OP.



We agree on this. The question is, if Israel could have rebelled and gained back their sovereignty from Rome, would they have been in sin for doing so? No question that Paul should have obeyed and respect Roman law. But Rome, at some point, seized that land from Israel (directly or indirectly). Did they sin in doing that? And would Israel be in sin if they took their land back? Were they in sin when the fought to retake their land in modern times?

I'm not sure Paul's admonition to obey governments covered the issue of how nations are fought for and birthed. Israel itself was birthed quite violently.

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.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

It's an open question, in my mind, in that an overseas king, governing another land, was trying to conquer a new land, and, in essence, failed. To me it matters not what peoples were in a particular land first. The native Americans that were there when the colonists arrived likely pushed out others natives that were there first. Squanto's entire tribe was wiped out by another native tribe.

Paul was not laying out any laws about settling in particular lands. He was telling Christians that wherever they moved to they were to respect local governments that were already established in those lands. God divided the nations according to lands and languages by breaking up an empire, and empires do tend to crumble when they get too big. Seems to be part of a natural law.
 

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
As I've seen this debate over the years, many anti-Independence folks do not take into consideration some factors.
  • They fail to see the conflict in a continuum dating back to the English Civil War through the Glorious Revolution.
  • They fail to see the initial Contientlal position as just seeking their rights as free-born Englishmen.
  • They fail to see London's ham-handedness in the years leading up to the Revolution.
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
.....and the earth is flat, and the moon landing was on a secret set.
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top