Secession should be considered and allowed

[bbyrd009]

Secession is looking better all the time.

leave the world and you don't even have to think about all that yack anymore lol

 

[bbyrd009]

Our supposed unity is a house of cards, ready to fall.

thank you God, for Failed States, that the true Church may operate

 

[Marymog]

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

Dear Stranger,

Acts 20:28 says nothing about slavery and even if I were to go into your fantasy world and pretend it did being a slave to God is different than being a slave to another human being. It is totally bizarre that you are equating the two somehow.

I have taken the time to read other peoples response to you in this thread. They have all said the same thing I would say therefor it would be a waste of my time to repeat it. Educate yourself on the FACTS of the 3/5's clause and you will see it was one nail in the coffin for slavery.

Your bizarre statement that the South fought FOR the US Constitution makes absolutely ZERO sense. The fact is they were fighting for the Confederate Constitution because it UPHELD slavery. The US Constitution DID NOT uphold slavery. It did not, at that time, come right out and say slavery was illegal but the politicians were on their way to getting rid of it and the South knew it. That is why they wrote it into their Constitution.
How can they be fighting for two opposing documents? Your statement makes ZERO sense.

Dred Scott was considered property according to the Supreme Court decision. Just like a chair or a candle or a wagon. Can a chair a wagon or a candle be a slave? No. The decision was based on him being PROPERTY not HUMAN. Do you agree with Jefferson Davis praising of Chief Justice Taney and his Dred Scott decision? Do you, like J. Davis condemn those who condemned the Dred Scott decision?

I asked you to show me one document from the Southern government that says they planned to phase out slavery. You failed to provide that document. The only document the South produced that showed what they planned to do with slavery was their own Constitution. Take the time to read the Secession Documents of each southern State. They wanted to secede so they could continue slavery, not uphold the US Constitition. End of story.

Historical Mary

 

[Stranger]

Dear Stranger,

Acts 20:28 says nothing about slavery and even if I were to go into your fantasy world and pretend it did being a slave to God is different than being a slave to another human being. It is totally bizarre that you are equating the two somehow.

I have taken the time to read other peoples response to you in this thread. They have all said the same thing I would say therefor it would be a waste of my time to repeat it. Educate yourself on the FACTS of the 3/5's clause and you will see it was one nail in the coffin for slavery.

Your bizarre statement that the South fought FOR the US Constitution makes absolutely ZERO sense. The fact is they were fighting for the Confederate Constitution because it UPHELD slavery. The US Constitution DID NOT uphold slavery. It did not, at that time, come right out and say slavery was illegal but the politicians were on their way to getting rid of it and the South knew it. That is why they wrote it into their Constitution.
How can they be fighting for two opposing documents? Your statement makes ZERO sense.

Dred Scott was considered property according to the Supreme Court decision. Just like a chair or a candle or a wagon. Can a chair a wagon or a candle be a slave? No. The decision was based on him being PROPERTY not HUMAN. Do you agree with Jefferson Davis praising of Chief Justice Taney and his Dred Scott decision? Do you, like J. Davis condemn those who condemned the Dred Scott decision?

I asked you to show me one document from the Southern government that says they planned to phase out slavery. You failed to provide that document. The only document the South produced that showed what they planned to do with slavery was their own Constitution. Take the time to read the Secession Documents of each southern State. They wanted to secede so they could continue slavery, not uphold the US Constitition. End of story.

Historical Mary

Were you bought and paid for, historical Mary? Paul didn't mind being a slave of Christ. (Rom. 1:1). Do you? Are you to 'good' for that?

You keep saying you want me to give you facts. Which I have. Yet you never produce any. You say to me educate yourself on the 3/5 clause. Well, if that is a fact you are trusting in, why don't you educate me. Why don't you produce some 'facts'? Tell me what the 3/5 clause proves, and support it with your 'facts', which I haven't seen yet.

I have showed you that the Constitution protected slavery. You disagree and simply howl your opinion. But you don't give any facts as I did. Yet you whine and moan about needing 'facts'. Yet you disregard the facts. The fact is the Supreme Court decided against Dred Scott and allowed for slavery to be allowed everywhere. That is the facts. You can't change it. You don't like it but you can't change it. And long before the Dred Scott decision the Constitution already protected slavery. (Article IV Sec. 2) The runaway slave was to be delivered back to the owner.

So again, my question, who were the traitors? Who was fighting for the Constitution? It wouldn't be people like you, would it? The South was fighting for the U.S. Constitution. The agitators in the North were fighting against it. That is the facts. Sorry to burst your bubble. But, I warned you, you may not like what you find.

Yes, I agree with Jeff Davis. Yes, I condemn those who condemned the Dred Scott decision. But that is immaterial. We were talking about the Constitution and what the law was. And the Southernor was not going against the Constitution. The North was. Just like you would have and are now. You, just like the North did, want to make themselves above the Constitution. Because it makes you feel so good and humane. So, stick to the argument. Produce some 'facts' that show the South was going against the Constitution instead of just your emotional feel good opinion.

The Southern government didn't exist until after secession. My point to you was that there was sentiment of the people of the South, before the secession, that they would like to see slavery done away in a gradual emancipation process. Which I proved to you. There would be no gradual emancipation possible because of the abolitionists and fanatics in the North. Once secession was done, the Confederate Government formed, then it too protected slavery just like the U.S. Constitution did.

It is not 'end of story' because you say so. The South was fighting for the U.S. Constitution. Again, I ask you, what was the North fighting for? Not the Constitution. Because the Constitution protected the South. Produce some facts, 'historical Mary'.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Were you bought and paid for, historical Mary? Paul didn't mind being a slave of Christ. (Rom. 1:1). Do you? Are you to 'good' for that?

You keep saying you want me to give you facts. Which I have. Yet you never produce any. You say to me educate yourself on the 3/5 clause. Well, if that is a fact you are trusting in, why don't you educate me. Why don't you produce some 'facts'? Tell me what the 3/5 clause proves, and support it with your 'facts', which I haven't seen yet.

I have showed you that the Constitution protected slavery. You disagree and simply howl your opinion. But you don't give any facts as I did. Yet you whine and moan about needing 'facts'. Yet you disregard the facts. The fact is the Supreme Court decided against Dred Scott and allowed for slavery to be allowed everywhere. That is the facts. You can't change it. You don't like it but you can't change it. And long before the Dred Scott decision the Constitution already protected slavery. (Article IV Sec. 2) The runaway slave was to be delivered back to the owner.

So again, my question, who were the traitors? Who was fighting for the Constitution? It wouldn't be people like you, would it? The South was fighting for the U.S. Constitution. The agitators in the North were fighting against it. That is the facts. Sorry to burst your bubble. But, I warned you, you may not like what you find.

Yes, I agree with Jeff Davis. Yes, I condemn those who condemned the Dred Scott decision. But that is immaterial. We were talking about the Constitution and what the law was. And the Southernor was not going against the Constitution. The North was. Just like you would have and are now. You, just like the North did, want to make themselves above the Constitution. Because it makes you feel so good and humane. So, stick to the argument. Produce some 'facts' that show the South was going against the Constitution instead of just your emotional feel good opinion.

The Southern government didn't exist until after secession. My point to you was that there was sentiment of the people of the South, before the secession, that they would like to see slavery done away in a gradual emancipation process. Which I proved to you. There would be no gradual emancipation possible because of the abolitionists and fanatics in the North. Once secession was done, the Confederate Government formed, then it too protected slavery just like the U.S. Constitution did.

It is not 'end of story' because you say so. The South was fighting for the U.S. Constitution. Again, I ask you, what was the North fighting for? Not the Constitution. Because the Constitution protected the South. Produce some facts, 'historical Mary'.

Stranger

Your name fits you.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Were you bought and paid for, historical Mary? Paul didn't mind being a slave of Christ. (Rom. 1:1). Do you? Are you to 'good' for that?

You keep saying you want me to give you facts. Which I have. Yet you never produce any. You say to me educate yourself on the 3/5 clause. Well, if that is a fact you are trusting in, why don't you educate me. Why don't you produce some 'facts'? Tell me what the 3/5 clause proves, and support it with your 'facts', which I haven't seen yet.

I have showed you that the Constitution protected slavery. You disagree and simply howl your opinion. But you don't give any facts as I did. Yet you whine and moan about needing 'facts'. Yet you disregard the facts. The fact is the Supreme Court decided against Dred Scott and allowed for slavery to be allowed everywhere. That is the facts. You can't change it. You don't like it but you can't change it. And long before the Dred Scott decision the Constitution already protected slavery. (Article IV Sec. 2) The runaway slave was to be delivered back to the owner.

So again, my question, who were the traitors? Who was fighting for the Constitution? It wouldn't be people like you, would it? The South was fighting for the U.S. Constitution. The agitators in the North were fighting against it. That is the facts. Sorry to burst your bubble. But, I warned you, you may not like what you find.

Yes, I agree with Jeff Davis. Yes, I condemn those who condemned the Dred Scott decision. But that is immaterial. We were talking about the Constitution and what the law was. And the Southernor was not going against the Constitution. The North was. Just like you would have and are now. You, just like the North did, want to make themselves above the Constitution. Because it makes you feel so good and humane. So, stick to the argument. Produce some 'facts' that show the South was going against the Constitution instead of just your emotional feel good opinion.

The Southern government didn't exist until after secession. My point to you was that there was sentiment of the people of the South, before the secession, that they would like to see slavery done away in a gradual emancipation process. Which I proved to you. There would be no gradual emancipation possible because of the abolitionists and fanatics in the North. Once secession was done, the Confederate Government formed, then it too protected slavery just like the U.S. Constitution did.

It is not 'end of story' because you say so. The South was fighting for the U.S. Constitution. Again, I ask you, what was the North fighting for? Not the Constitution. Because the Constitution protected the South. Produce some facts, 'historical Mary'.

Stranger

Dear stranger,

Would you rather be a slave or slave owner?

To be clear I am talking about one human owning another human and treating them as property.

Curious Mary

 

[aspen]

Indeed, there is no right to secede today. But, that is because that right was taken away in 1865 by war and invasion.

As to the liberals and left, you must recognize that the divide between leftist atheists and Christian right is too great to ever breach. You should be able to see that today as it is being played out. The left cannot live under the right anymore. Thus they are in an all out war to stall, to stop, to derail, anything the Trump administration wants done. And they are using every means possible. Media. Court system. Liberal judges. And they are successful in what they are trying to do.

There is never going to be unity in this country anymore. It's over. Many can pretend we are unified but we are not. It's a pipe dream. The final result one day will be a total collapse of the law and anarchy. It will then be a question of survival and winner take all. The one guard that could stop that is secession.

If one doesn't like secession, fine. Just don't pretend that the United States is united.

Stranger

What is unity? Living under the rules of the fallen South? The South lost, got over it. America is a country of immigrants and we should be striving for equality.

 

[Stranger]

Dear stranger,

Would you rather be a slave or slave owner?

To be clear I am talking about one human owning another human and treating them as property.

Curious Mary

I'm curious, Mary. Why ask me this? We were discussing many aspects of the war between the States and in my last post I think I asked about five questions that you didn't respond to. So now after several days you come back and want to come at it again from a different angle and want me to answer your question.

You're trying, just like everyone does when it comes to this war and slavery, to take the high moral ground. They did it during that war, and they, like you, still do it today. And of course you can make a lot of hay with it, which is why you and others still do it. Just bring up the slave question and your opponent must hang their head in shame. And if one doesn't, my what a racist he must be. A neat little package.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

What is unity? Living under the rules of the fallen South? The South lost, got over it. America is a country of immigrants and we should be striving for equality.

It is not us that can't get over it. It's you and others like you. We would just like to be left alone. But you and others like you want to continue to bring it up, stir the pot, then take our flags and statues and symbols down. Then when we respond, hypocrites like you come back with, 'Get over it'. How about you get over it.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

I'm curious, Mary. Why ask me this? We were discussing many aspects of the war between the States and in my last post I think I asked about five questions that you didn't respond to. So now after several days you come back and want to come at it again from a different angle and want me to answer your question.

You're trying, just like everyone does when it comes to this war and slavery, to take the high moral ground. They did it during that war, and they, like you, still do it today. And of course you can make a lot of hay with it, which is why you and others still do it. Just bring up the slave question and your opponent must hang their head in shame. And if one doesn't, my what a racist he must be. A neat little package.

Stranger

Simple question:

Would you rather be a slave or slave owner?

I will answer for myself. I would rather be a slave owner.

You?

 

[Stranger]

Simple question:

Would you rather be a slave or slave owner?

I will answer for myself. I would rather be a slave owner.

You?

Demanding Mary, I asked you about 5 simple questions in post #104, yet no response. Yet you demand of me to answer yours and take the argument in another direction. I don't mind answering your simple question. I think you should at least answer mine first. Don't you?

I am going to be out of touch for a few hours. But will get back.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Demanding Mary, I asked you about 5 simple questions in post #104, yet no response. Yet you demand of me to answer yours and take the argument in another direction. I don't mind answering your simple question. I think you should at least answer mine first. Don't you?

I am going to be out of touch for a few hours. But will get back.

Stranger

Dear sir,

Post #104 has been answered. Refer back to my previous posts.

I don't know what being bought and paid for means. Sadly, I believe your trying to equate it to slavery.

Simple question: Would you rather be a slave or slave owner?

Curious Mary

 

[aspen]

It is not us that can't get over it. It's you and others like you. We would just like to be left alone. But you and others like you want to continue to bring it up, stir the pot, then take our flags and statues and symbols down. Then when we respond, hypocrites like you come back with, 'Get over it'. How about you get over it.

Stranger

Your statues and flag are not appreciated by the majority of citizens who use the public places they are displayed in. Your separatist viewpoints are held by a tiny part of the population - the majority of people do not want to celebrate the good ole days of slavery, Jim Crow and rebellion. Celebrate it at home, if you must. Public place should represent the values of the people who use them.

 

[Stranger]

Dear sir,

Post #104 has been answered. Refer back to my previous posts.

I don't know what being bought and paid for means. Sadly, I believe your trying to equate it to slavery.

Simple question: Would you rather be a slave or slave owner?

Curious Mary

Demanding Mary, sorry, the questions were not answered. So, answer them, or show me where you answered them. Then I will gladly answer your simple question.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Your statues and flag are not appreciated by the majority of citizens who use the public places they are displayed in. Your separatist viewpoints are held by a tiny part of the population - the majority of people do not want to celebrate the good ole days of slavery, Jim Crow and rebellion. Celebrate it at home, if you must. Public place should represent the values of the people who use them.

You have not proved any 'rebellion'. You assume it. If the South was fighting for the Constitution, how is that rebellion?

We can't celebrate it at home. The South is our home. But the reconstruction continues. The yankees stir up the minorities to tear down the Southern culture and history. It makes hay.

If ever I found I yankee that was willing to mind his own business, I would make a statue of him. But that won't happen. As I said, your are a hypocrite. You speak of 'equaltiy' but you lie. You don't want equality. You want preferential treatment. That is the only way you get ahead. Equality gets you nothing. With equality...you lose. Sad isn't it?

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Demanding Mary, sorry, the questions were not answered. So, answer them, or show me where you answered them. Then I will gladly answer your simple question.
Stranger

Hi stranger,

I stated in post #104 that others on this thread “…have all said the same thing I would say therefore it would be a waste of my time to repeat it.”

A person by the name of Tom55 in post #35 answered the 3/5ths clause question. Like I suggested in post #104; It would be a waste of time to repeat Tom55’s statement. That answers your 3/5th’s clause question....again.

If you read Post #94, #96 and #103 the answer to your questions about “who were the traitors?” Who was fighting for the Constitution?” has, IN FACT, already been answered. I used FACTS to back up what I said. You call them opinions. Whether they are facts or opinions it is still an answer. Just because you don’t like the answer does not negate it from being an answer.

I don’t understand this game you are playing. I asked you to show me one document from the Southern government that says they planned to phase out slavery. YOU NEVER PRODUCED THAT DOCUMENT. You, my friend, lack credibility and fact on this issue.

I asked you if you are equating human slavery with a slave of God in scripture? YOU NEVER ANSWERED.

I asked you how the South could be fighting FOR two opposing documents? YOU NEVER ANSWERED.

I asked you, can a chair a wagon or a candle be a slave? YOU NEVER ANSWERED.

Based on your lack of answers to my past questions I suspect you won't answer the question at hand: Would you rather be a slave or slave owner?

Mary

 

[Stranger]

Hi stranger,

I stated in post #104 that others on this thread “…have all said the same thing I would say therefore it would be a waste of my time to repeat it.”

A person by the name of Tom55 in post #35 answered the 3/5ths clause question. Like I suggested in post #104; It would be a waste of time to repeat Tom55’s statement. That answers your 3/5th’s clause question....again.

If you read Post #94, #96 and #103 the answer to your questions about “who were the traitors?” Who was fighting for the Constitution?” has, IN FACT, already been answered. I used FACTS to back up what I said. You call them opinions. Whether they are facts or opinions it is still an answer. Just because you don’t like the answer does not negate it from being an answer.

I don’t understand this game you are playing. I asked you to show me one document from the Southern government that says they planned to phase out slavery. YOU NEVER PRODUCED THAT DOCUMENT. You, my friend, lack credibility and fact on this issue.

I asked you if you are equating human slavery with a slave of God in scripture? YOU NEVER ANSWERED.

I asked you how the South could be fighting FOR two opposing documents? YOU NEVER ANSWERED.

I asked you, can a chair a wagon or a candle be a slave? YOU NEVER ANSWERED.

Based on your lack of answers to my past questions I suspect you won't answer the question at hand: Would you rather be a slave or slave owner?

Mary

Frustrated Mary, I ask questions in the flow of the argument of the one I am speaking to at the time. Many times I will ask the same questions but to a different person and it may be to prove a completely different point. Which means the response of the one in another post will not be the same for you. Thus, when I ask you questions it is in the flow of our discussion. And they should be answered.

Guess what, I think I have been asked your question before also. I don't remember where. May not have been on this forum.

I did answer your question about a slave of God. I said slavery is slavery.

I did answer you question about two opposing documents. There wern't any.

I don't remember about the chair or wagon. They are certainly property as the slave was.

No, I won't. For the reasons I have given. Answer my question in light of our discussion. And I will be glad to answer yours.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Frustrated Mary, I ask questions in the flow of the argument of the one I am speaking to at the time. Many times I will ask the same questions but to a different person and it may be to prove a completely different point. Which means the response of the one in another post will not be the same for you. Thus, when I ask you questions it is in the flow of our discussion. And they should be answered.

Guess what, I think I have been asked your question before also. I don't remember where. May not have been on this forum.

I did answer your question about a slave of God. I said slavery is slavery.

I did answer you question about two opposing documents. There wern't any.

I don't remember about the chair or wagon. They are certainly property as the slave was.

No, I won't. For the reasons I have given. Answer my question in light of our discussion. And I will be glad to answer yours.

Stranger

Dear stranger,

I predicted the future. I suspected correctly. But your an easy one to figure out.

God gave us (slaves of Him) life and free will. He loves us and we love him.

Slave owners didn't give their slaves life, they sucked it out of them. They don't love their slaves and the slave didn't love his master. A slave does not have free will. It is bizarre you are trying to equate the two meanings.

Slave of God=human slavery....bizarre.

Mary

 

[Stranger]

Dear stranger,

I predicted the future. I suspected correctly. But your an easy one to figure out.

God gave us (slaves of Him) life and free will. He loves us and we love him.

Slave owners didn't give their slaves life, they sucked it out of them. They don't love their slaves and the slave didn't love his master. A slave does not have free will. It is bizarre you are trying to equate the two meanings.

Slave of God=human slavery....bizarre.

Mary

Prophetess Mary, you still didn't answer my questions. And yet I answered yours.

The only reason you refuse to answer my questions is that they bring you to the conclusion that you are wrong. Thus you want to avoid them. Prove me wrong, and answer them.

Just because I am easy to figure out, doesn't make you right. Does it?

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Prophetess Mary, you still didn't answer my questions. And yet I answered yours.

The only reason you refuse to answer my questions is that they bring you to the conclusion that you are wrong. Thus you want to avoid them. Prove me wrong, and answer them.

Just because I am easy to figure out, doesn't make you right. Does it?

Stranger

Dear dodging stranger,

It's a simple question. I believe 100% of the people asked that question would say they would rather be the owner and not the slave.

What is your answer?

Still waiting Mary