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!
Well, Lincoln must be a typical redneck, we say. Of course, he was in a tricky situation. He truly opposed the expansion of slavery (his family fled from Kentucky to Indiana to get away from slavery) but could not be seen as advocating black equality, because that was exactly what Douglas was trying to bait him into.I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
Ah, slippery Lincoln. "Of course I don't believe that black people are my equals," he says — but that's not the point. When it comes to enjoying basic rights — Jefferson likely would have been bemused or dismayed — blacks deserve the same formal equality before the law as white people."I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence — the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."
Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Dear rl,..........There are a lot of parts to consider. First, is slavery itself a moral good, a moral evil, or morally neutral? I find the thought of owning or being owned objectionable, but that is just personal opinion. In light of what I find in the Bible that speaks to the issue, it appears to me that the concept of slavery/servitude itself is neither good nor bad......
I would disagree on this. A major motif of the OT is God reminding the Israelites that He has delivered them from slavery and bondage in Egypt, and that because of that, they should rejoice and more whole-heartedly serve Him.
Karen
On April 12th 1861, the Confederate States opened fire on Fort Sumter (South Carolina). The South shot first. </font>[/QUOTE]Aah! And such a beautiful sound it made!!Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
And winners write history for sure. To justify the vile invasion of the Southern states by their "brothers"
On April 12th 1861, the Confederate States opened fire on Fort Sumter (South Carolina). The South shot first. </font>[/QUOTE]Aah! And such a beautiful sound it made!! </font>[/QUOTE]About as beautiful as, oh, the last breath of 600,000 people?Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
And winners write history for sure. To justify the vile invasion of the Southern states by their "brothers"
Amen...Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
Anyway, that's not the point I want to make. My point is this, many southerners at the time of the war were afraid of the federal government becoming too powerful and being able to completely control the states, leaving the states with little or no authority. I would say, especially with the events today in Alabama, that our southern fathers were right on the money.
Since the war, just look at how the U.S. has become increasingly more federalized. every year, the national government takes more and more power away from state and local governments.
So my position is, regardless of their reasoning for going to war, be it slavery or whatever, the southerners were right in wanting to prevent this from happening to our country. Unfortunately, since the south lost, all of their fears have become realities. By this I don't mean slavery, but the complete control of every state by the federal government.
If we didn't have states, who would administer the lottery? Where would the Washington pols get their training?Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
Here's my question. Why even have states? What good are they anymore? They can not make their own laws because the federal government will no doubt find some reason or another to overturn them. What's the point in keeping separate states if they're all going to be governed the exact same way?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htmOriginally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The South shot first? I beg your pardon. You've been reading those "winners-write-it" histories again.
After the legitimate secession of South Carolina from the Union as a Sovereign State as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, the black Republican Lincoln invaded HER territorial waters by sending a supply ship to support the rebellious federal troops illegally holding Fort Sumter, a part of South Carolina.
His intention, open and stated, was to provoke by this act of agression a salvo from the defenders of Charleston and become a "cause celebre" for war.
If you're going to start a war, you WANT the world to think the "other guy" is the agressor.
On April 12th 1861, the Confederate States opened fire on Fort Sumter (South Carolina). The South shot first. </font>[/QUOTE]Aah! And such a beautiful sound it made!! </font>[/QUOTE]About as beautiful as, oh, the last breath of 600,000 people?Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
And winners write history for sure. To justify the vile invasion of the Southern states by their "brothers"
Only after the shots were fired - not before.Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Yes it was a waste but then you're already conceded that you would have bagged your duds and headed up north to enlist and contribute to the slaughter.[/QB]
Only after the shots were fired - not before. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Irregardless of the timing. I would have been duty bound to shoot yore yankee behind.Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Yes it was a waste but then you're already conceded that you would have bagged your duds and headed up north to enlist and contribute to the slaughter.![]()
I would liken the South's actions more to the Palestinians who attack the Israelis, but to each their own.Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Shooting first in defense of your home is NOT wrong, Scott. Read about Lexington and Concord in the First Revolution.
Lincoln invaded and provoked the sovereign state of South Carolina and they defended themselves (and acquitted themselves nicely, driving out the federals without the loss of life).
Parallels abound:
6-day war in the Middle East. Israel, pushed to the limit, wiped out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces in an opening salvo. We applaud them.
As I do P.G.T. Beauregard.