Dear sir,
You are equating human slavery with a slave of God in scripture? Really?? If that makes you feel justified then I feel very sad for you.
Yes, you could change my mind...WITH FACTS.
I look forward to your "proof".
I ignored NOTHING in your previous post. I destroyed all your fantasies except the Dred Scott statement which was a fantasy also. I didn't think I needed to address it since I assumed you were taught about it in High School or sooner. The Dred Scott decision stated that since slaves were not citizens, they did not possess the legal standing to bring suit in a federal court. It didn't uphold slavery. But since you are historically illiterate....you wouldn't know that. It was clearly the WRONG decision but it was their decision.
Mary
Well, slavery is slavery. I don't need to feel justified. Just trying to gave you some of your 'facts' you keep asking for. So, you didn't answer, are you a slave of God purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ? (Acts 20:28)
I don't know what fantasies you are talking about. Concerning the Dred Scott case, that was proof that the U.S. Constitution protected slavery. I gave that because you stated the Confederates were fighting for the Confederate Constitution which protected slavery. But the U.S. Constitution protected slavery as well.
How you say the Dred Scott decision did not uphold slavery is beyond me. Scott was suing for his freedom because he had lived in some free states. But then after, he went to a slave state and was considered a slave. Thus he was suing for his freedom. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against him and here are the points of that ruling.
(Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jeff Davis, Da Capo Press, 1990, p.70-71) "The salient points established by this decision were: 1.) That persons of the African race were not, and could not be, acknowledged as 'part of the people', or citizens, under the Constitution of the United States; 2.) That Congress had no right to exclude citizens of the South from taking their negro servants, as any other property, into any part of the common territory, and that they were entitled to claim its protection therein; 3.) Finally, as a consequence of the principle just above stated, that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 insofar as it prohibited the existence of African servitude north of a designated line, was unconstitutional and void."
So, Dred Scott did not get his freedom, slavery was now protected everywhere in the U.S., and the Southernor was free to take his slaves to any state or territory he wished.
So why would the Southernor be fighting against the Constitution? He wasn't. He was fighting for it. And those fighting against him, what were they fighting for? Certainly not the Constitution. So, who were the real traitors in that war?
Concerning my statement earlier of there was sentiment in the South of gradual emancipation: (The Coming of the Glory, John S. Tilley, BCL, 1995, p. 15-16) " About the year 1814, advanced thought, North and South alike, looked forward to a gradual freeing of the slaves. In 1831 the Virginia legislature had under consideration such a program. There is reason to believe that at this juncture any reasonable method of relieving the country of the incubus would have carried strong appeal to a large element of Southerners. It is the view of a notable Virginian that excesses of men of the John Brown stripe effectively blocked the progress of the movement.
Robert E. Lee went further than to free his own slaves; upon payment to their owners of reasonable compensation, he favored root-and-branch emancipation of the negros. To his thinking, slavery, as an institution, was a 'moral and political evil.' ...Lee unhesitatingly proclaimed that 'the best men in the South' disapproved the system and would welcome a sane movement for its extirpation. Taking note of the persistence of such sentiment, the English biographer of Stonewall Jackson characterized intemperate abuse on the part of abolitionists as a barrier in its path. Graphically he pictures the impasse which loomed up'with fanaticism on the one side and helplessness on the other."
Stranger