Secession should be considered and allowed

[shnarkle]

waterlilyoflife

(1 Cor.6:19-20) is clear that the Christian is bought and paid for. Forget your use of terms of 'servant' or 'slave'. The Christian is bought and paid for.

If that displeases you, then by all means go back to your former slave master. Don't waste the LORD's time.

But don't try and live in this 'imaginary' world of 'freedom'. Where you imagine yourself as 'independent' and 'free to choose'. There is no such thing. You are either a slave of Satan or a slave of God. Which do you prefer?

Stranger

Jesus didn't say you cannot work for God or Satan, did he? He didn't say the two masters were God and Satan. No, he said the choice was between working for God or working for money. Take your pick. If you work for God, you can't work for money. If you work for money, you can't work for God. Jesus' words, not mine.

 

[Stranger]

Jesus didn't say you cannot work for God or Satan, did he? He didn't say the two masters were God and Satan. No, he said the choice was between working for God or working for money. Take your pick. If you work for God, you can't work for money. If you work for money, you can't work for God. Jesus' words, not mine.

(John 14:30) " Hereafter I will not talk much with you:for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me."

(2 Cor. 4:3-4) " But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

(Gen.3:1) " Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,..."


Satan is the prince and god of this world. It involves the political, religious, and economic systems. It involves sin with which he infected the whole human race with. If one is not a Christian then they serve the prince and god of this world, Satan.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

The reaction of grief and anger demonstrated by the liberals and Democrats reveals just how deep the divisions are in this country. (USA) Every election these reactions intensify as the divide gets greater. They are to the point now where peaceful transition of power, something the US always has prided itself in for several years anyway, is a thing of the past. Now the peaceful libs are not so peaceful. Rioting, destruction of property, beating people up because they voted for Trump, or using that as an excuse to beat white people up, is now a real danger. They speak of peace and unity according to their terms. No one elses.

Mayors of cities now declare that they will fight against Trump if He passes any law against Sanctuary Cities. Strange isn't it how when Obama and Democrats were in power that you must obey the Federal govt. Now that the power is back into Conservatives hands they say they will not obey. And we haven't even started yet on rescinding Roe-v-Wade.

Obama, Hillary, Libs helped create much of this violent reaction by labeling those who vote for Trump as deplorable, and evil, and full of hate. Thus now those who voted for Trump are the evil hate mongers of America. In other words, those opposed to the Libs, are evil.

I believe these divisions are based mainly on race and/or religion. I realize many voted for Trump for other reasons, but it doesn't matter to the Libs. The fact that they voted for Trump makes them a racist and hate monger or woman hater.

Rumors and threats of people wanting to leave the country and live somewhere else are common. And there are threats of states wanting to secede as a result of the election. I think the Govt. should think hard and long before dismissing 'secession' as wrong. Secession may be the only peaceful way to exist at this time. It would give people the ability to live under the type of government they want. Give power back to the States, even that of the right of secession, which was taken away violently due to another election, that of Lincoln. Now we have returned.

The United States since 1865 has been 'united' only by the bayonet. One might say secession is no answer. Well, fine, it may not be your answer. But my opinion is that the divisions are too great for any peace. My opinion is that we learn from history. It cost over 600,000 American lives to keep 'united'.

Stranger

The left has now taken up arms to kill certain of or any of the Christian right. The divide is not going to go away. The right wants to beg for unity but that is a pipe dream. The left will shed a tear with them so as to take some of the heat off of them at this time. But their agenda has not changed. Everyone is begging for unity only for the sake of unity. Ridiculous.

It is not going away. These shooting confrontations will continue. The divide is too great to have unity. Secession is looking better all the time.

Stranger

 

[Peanut]

Every now and then there arrives a group of uninformed political whiners that want to take their toys and secede.
Liberals pout to this day that multi-felon Hillary Clinton didn't win the election so she could pursue further Barack Obama's mission to destroy America. So once again secession is trumpeted by a resistance activist front that has no idea what they're talking about.

February 16th, 2010
Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"
Justice A. Scalia

God Bless America! And protect her against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

 

[Stranger]

Every now and then there arrives a group of uninformed political whiners that want to take their toys and secede.
Liberals pout to this day that multi-felon Hillary Clinton didn't win the election so she could pursue further Barack Obama's mission to destroy America. So once again secession is trumpeted by a resistance activist front that has no idea what they're talking about.

February 16th, 2010
Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"
Justice A. Scalia

God Bless America! And protect her against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

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

 

[Peanut]

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

It's odd to read someone argue that the united states is not united. And then make an argument concerning anarchy and division and then claiming the only way to survive that or stop it is to secede. Secession is division.

Secession: Treason or State Right?

BY: Sean Gravel, Florida State University College of Law Class of 2015

March 18, 2013

[Sic]...The final Constitutional arguments for and against secession are derived from the Bill of Rights. The first eight amendments are silent on secession, but the Ninth Amendment protects any right in the Constitution not mentioned in the first eight.[29] The Declaration of Independence declared that it was the right of the people to overthrow their government and establish a new one, therefore one could argue that the Ninth Amendment therefore protects the people’s right to overthrow their government.[30] The Tenth Amendment declares that all powers not delegate to the United States or prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the states.[31] This is the linchpin of a secessionist’s argument: the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to stop a state from seceding nor does it prohibit a state from seceding, therefore a state has the right to secede from the Union.

 

[Stranger]

It's odd to read someone argue that the united states is not united. And then make an argument concerning anarchy and division and then claiming the only way to survive that or stop it is to secede. Secession is division.

Why is it odd? Do you not see the great division in this country? We are united by law only. The people are not united.

Yes secession is political division. But we are divided already. Our supposed unity is a house of cards, ready to fall.

Secession is division. But it isn't wrong. Check out the writers on secession before the War between the States.

Because there is an unhealable divide, because the two sides are too different to ever unite, then the result will be a collapse of law and anarchy will be the result.

As I suggested earlier, if one doesn't like secession, fine. But don't pretend we are united.

Stranger

 

[ScottA]

The reaction of grief and anger demonstrated by the liberals and Democrats reveals just how deep the divisions are in this country. (USA) Every election these reactions intensify as the divide gets greater. They are to the point now where peaceful transition of power, something the US always has prided itself in for several years anyway, is a thing of the past. Now the peaceful libs are not so peaceful. Rioting, destruction of property, beating people up because they voted for Trump, or using that as an excuse to beat white people up, is now a real danger. They speak of peace and unity according to their terms. No one elses.

Mayors of cities now declare that they will fight against Trump if He passes any law against Sanctuary Cities. Strange isn't it how when Obama and Democrats were in power that you must obey the Federal govt. Now that the power is back into Conservatives hands they say they will not obey. And we haven't even started yet on rescinding Roe-v-Wade.

Obama, Hillary, Libs helped create much of this violent reaction by labeling those who vote for Trump as deplorable, and evil, and full of hate. Thus now those who voted for Trump are the evil hate mongers of America. In other words, those opposed to the Libs, are evil.

I believe these divisions are based mainly on race and/or religion. I realize many voted for Trump for other reasons, but it doesn't matter to the Libs. The fact that they voted for Trump makes them a racist and hate monger or woman hater.

Rumors and threats of people wanting to leave the country and live somewhere else are common. And there are threats of states wanting to secede as a result of the election. I think the Govt. should think hard and long before dismissing 'secession' as wrong. Secession may be the only peaceful way to exist at this time. It would give people the ability to live under the type of government they want. Give power back to the States, even that of the right of secession, which was taken away violently due to another election, that of Lincoln. Now we have returned.

The United States since 1865 has been 'united' only by the bayonet. One might say secession is no answer. Well, fine, it may not be your answer. But my opinion is that the divisions are too great for any peace. My opinion is that we learn from history. It cost over 600,000 American lives to keep 'united'.

Stranger

Interesting. The problem though, is that you can't secede from your neighbor without moving...which I have done. But leaving my state to the corrupt, just doesn't set well.

Wars and rumors of wars, I guess.

 

[Peanut]

And it makes no sense. To claim the country is divided and therefore dividing the country to the deepest level through secession and that then offered as a solution to the current division is not rational. Why go toward the deeper divide and all that would entail? Why not strive to unite and make a country stronger rather than weakened by separatists.

 

[Marymog]

Yes the Constitution and the Supreme Court protected slavery. And my point was that it was the South that fought for the Constitution, not against it. The North did fight against the Constitution. So who are the real 'traitors'.

No, the South didn't secede because they knew slavery wouldn't last forever. The seceded because they knew with Lincolns election that the North would continue its violence against the South and continue to ignore the Constitution. They seceded in short to protect its people and live peaceably. The North already had shown it did not care about the Constitution.

No, the same is not true with the 13 colonies of the American Revolution compared to the Southern States of the War between the States. The States of the Revolution voluntarily entered that Union against England. The Southern States left the Union of States in the War between the States and were forced back with the bayonet. Therefore, no matter how much time you allow after the war, and after the removal of the forced military rule, the only reason the Southern States are 'united' is because that unity is based on our being forced back. Thus your United States of America is united by the bayonet only.

Stranger

Hi Stranger,

I came across this debate and your statements are very unusual (best way I can describe them).

Have you read the Confederate Constitution?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

They wanted to continue slavery and it was written into their Constitution. Are you aware of that?

YOUR United States of America? Do you live in America?

I am not looking for a debate. Just curious if you were aware of the wording of the Confederate Constitution.

Curious Mary

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger,

I came across this debate and your statements are very unusual (best way I can describe them).

Have you read the Confederate Constitution?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

They wanted to continue slavery and it was written into their Constitution. Are you aware of that?

YOUR United States of America? Do you live in America?

I am not looking for a debate. Just curious if you were aware of the wording of the Confederate Constitution.

Curious Mary

Indeed I have read the Confederate Constitution. Yes, I am aware that they wanted slavery protected. But, understand this, slavery was already protected under the U.S. Constitution.

No need for debate, but are your willing to discuss it? Slavery was protected, but the North rejected the Constitution. The North described the Constitution as a covenant with hell.

So, I ask you, who were the rebels? The ones fighting for the U. S. Constitution or the ones fighting against it?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Interesting. The problem though, is that you can't secede from your neighbor without moving...which I have done. But leaving my state to the corrupt, just doesn't set well.

Wars and rumors of wars, I guess.

Then you fight to maintain your state. But if you can't then your options are limited. Be willing to obey those who took over your state or move. Welcome to the real world. Easy living is no longer a luxury allowed, due to so many allowing anti-American sentiment because they had it to good to stand up and say anything. Didn't want to rock the boat. Now, it is coming to every one's front porch.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

And it makes no sense. To claim the country is divided and therefore dividing the country to the deepest level through secession and that then offered as a solution to the current division is not rational. Why go toward the deeper divide and all that would entail? Why not strive to unite and make a country stronger rather than weakened by separatists.

It is called 'survival'. Go ahead and unite with all those that are against you. But what have you done? You have surrendered what you believe in. You have said I am willing to live under the laws of those I disagree with just for the purpose of 'unity'. How sick is that?

We separate to survive as a people, and to have what we believe in, survive. I have said before, unity just for the basis of unity is stupid. Just so you can say 'unity' is nothing. It is a facade. Unity is built around a common people with common beliefs. And that does not exist in the U.S. And you can pretend it does and lie to yourself, but it doesn't.

The country is not stronger in adhering to a false unity. We are weakened. We are a fake. Living on lies that makes us feel good.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Indeed I have read the Confederate Constitution. Yes, I am aware that they wanted slavery protected. But, understand this, slavery was already protected under the U.S. Constitution.

No need for debate, but are your willing to discuss it? Slavery was protected, but the North rejected the Constitution. The North described the Constitution as a covenant with hell.

So, I ask you, who were the rebels? The ones fighting for the U. S. Constitution or the ones fighting against it?

Stranger

Dear sir,

Willing to discuss.

The North was fighting for the US Constitution which was adopted in 1789...No debate about that.

The Confederates were fighting FOR the Confederate Constitution, not the US Constitution. The Confederate Constitution was adopted in 1861...No debate about that.

So my answer to "who were the rebels" is: the Confederates were the rebels. They were fighting against The US Constitution and wrote their own Constitution SEVERAL years later with the clear and written intent of keeping HUMANS as slaves....NO DEBATE ABOUT THAT.

Do you have a problem with one human having another human as a slave? I do..NO DEBATE ABOUT THAT.

The North's intent was to END slavery and some compromises were made....No debate about that.

Can you see the difference sir? One wanted to keep slavery. The other was trying to slowly fade it out.

Mary

 

[Stranger]

Dear sir,

Willing to discuss.

The North was fighting for the US Constitution which was adopted in 1789...No debate about that.

The Confederates were fighting FOR the Confederate Constitution, not the US Constitution. The Confederate Constitution was adopted in 1861...No debate about that.

So my answer to "who were the rebels" is: the Confederates were the rebels. They were fighting against The US Constitution and wrote their own Constitution SEVERAL years later with the clear and written intent of keeping HUMANS as slaves....NO DEBATE ABOUT THAT.

Do you have a problem with one human having another human as a slave? I do..NO DEBATE ABOUT THAT.

The North's intent was to END slavery and some compromises were made....No debate about that.

Can you see the difference sir? One wanted to keep slavery. The other was trying to slowly fade it out.

Mary

I believe it was the Constitution of 1787.

Mary, the Constitution of 1787 protected slavery in the U.S. By the time of the War between the States, slavery was protected also by the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case. Also, by 1861, Lincoln was willing to guarantee the perpetual protection of slavery if the South just would not secede.

Slavery was protected by the U.S. government. But, the agitators in the north did not care what the Constitution said, they attacked the South continually till someone like John Brown and his followers arrived and murdered so many Southern people to show their hatred for the Southern people and their disdain for the Constitution.

Slavery is a reality in this world. It is the perfect picture of the human race. You are a slave of someone. You are either a slave of satan and his world system, or you are a slave of God. You were purchased weren't you? At a very high price? Are you willing to be a slave of God bought with the blood of Jesus Christ...or is that too humiliating to you? Were you bought or were you not? Was God wrong in purchasing you?

You speak of the North's intent to end slavery. The North didn't care about slavery as a humanitarian issue. Only as an economic issue. The North's concern over slavery was that it fueled the Southern economy which was doing pretty good and kept us from being slaves to the Northern industrialization. Only a few off the wall abolitionists were concerned with the humane element.

And no, the north didn't want to fade out slavery. The South always had said that it could be faded out over time. Which it would be with the advance of technology. But the north wanted slaves freed 'now'. At the South's expense. And with no plan as to what to do with the freed slaves. The North's plan was finally implemented at the end of the war. And guess what, nothing but chaos was the result. Slaves were freed but didn't now where to go. Many went back to the plantations, if they still existed, looking for work.

Mary, you have bought into the common 'bill of goods' that the north is selling and always teaches now. I only ask that you do some research. Prove me wrong in what I have said. But be careful, you might not like what you find.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

I believe it was the Constitution of 1787.

Mary, the Constitution of 1787 protected slavery in the U.S. By the time of the War between the States, slavery was protected also by the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case. Also, by 1861, Lincoln was willing to guarantee the perpetual protection of slavery if the South just would not secede.

Slavery was protected by the U.S. government. But, the agitators in the north did not care what the Constitution said, they attacked the South continually till someone like John Brown and his followers arrived and murdered so many Southern people to show their hatred for the Southern people and their disdain for the Constitution.

Slavery is a reality in this world. It is the perfect picture of the human race. You are a slave of someone. You are either a slave of satan and his world system, or you are a slave of God. You were purchased weren't you? At a very high price? Are you willing to be a slave of God bought with the blood of Jesus Christ...or is that too humiliating to you? Were you bought or were you not? Was God wrong in purchasing you?

You speak of the North's intent to end slavery. The North didn't care about slavery as a humanitarian issue. Only as an economic issue. The North's concern over slavery was that it fueled the Southern economy which was doing pretty good and kept us from being slaves to the Northern industrialization. Only a few off the wall abolitionists were concerned with the humane element.

And no, the north didn't want to fade out slavery. The South always had said that it could be faded out over time. Which it would be with the advance of technology. But the north wanted slaves freed 'now'. At the South's expense. And with no plan as to what to do with the freed slaves. The North's plan was finally implemented at the end of the war. And guess what, nothing but chaos was the result. Slaves were freed but didn't now where to go. Many went back to the plantations, if they still existed, looking for work.

Mary, you have bought into the common 'bill of goods' that the north is selling and always teaches now. I only ask that you do some research. Prove me wrong in what I have said. But be careful, you might not like what you find.

Stranger

Dear sir,

I don't think I have ever revealed this on this forum however I am a professor of history. You have clearly bought into the southern "history" books that are backed by people who wish to justify their actions (or their ancestors actions) and the actions of men who owned other humans as property. How sad for you.

It makes me sad that someone on a Christian website, who claims to be Christian, is defending the actions of the southern politicians and defending the Constitution of the Confederate States.

It is a well known FACT that in 1789 Congress banned slavery in any federally held territory. In 1794 the exportation of slaves from any State was banned and in 1808 the importation of slaves into any State was also banned. The FACT is more progress was made to end slavery and achieve civil rights for blacks in America at that time then anywhere in the world. The evil men of the racist southern States CLEARLY wished to continue slavery and the put those beliefs on paper. They called that paper the Confederate Constitution which they were willing to fight and die for.

In May 1854 in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party called the Republican Party. The Republican Party was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”

It is a FACT that the Union’s claim that blacks and whites were equal both “socially and politically” was a claim too offensive for southern Democrat states to tolerate.

I pray that you will take the time to educate yourself about what the leaders of the Southern States wrote to justify their secession from the North. Read the speech that Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens gave on March 21, 1861 which set forth the purpose of the new government. That speech was entitled “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy.” In it Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers, even those from the South, had never intended for slavery to remain in America.

I could go on and on with FACTS and DAMNING quotes from southern politicians and documents from the time frame in history we are discussing to prove you completely and utterly wrong but I will stop here because I have a very tough decision to make. Should I believe you and your ilk or should I believe Frederick Douglass who believed the Constitution was an anti-slavery document?

You stated that "The South always had said that it could be faded out over time". That is a cute statement to make you feel better about your beliefs. All I ask you to do is Prove it!!! Show me one document from the Southern government that says they planned to phase it out. I will never claim to know everything. Maybe you can educate me.

Tough decision here but I take historical FACT over bizarre fantasy and I choose Fredrick Douglass, who was alive at the time, over you.

Historical Mary

 

[Stranger]

Dear sir,

I don't think I have ever revealed this on this forum however I am a professor of history. You have clearly bought into the southern "history" books that are backed by people who wish to justify their actions (or their ancestors actions) and the actions of men who owned other humans as property. How sad for you.

It makes me sad that someone on a Christian website, who claims to be Christian, is defending the actions of the southern politicians and defending the Constitution of the Confederate States.

It is a well known FACT that in 1789 Congress banned slavery in any federally held territory. In 1794 the exportation of slaves from any State was banned and in 1808 the importation of slaves into any State was also banned. The FACT is more progress was made to end slavery and achieve civil rights for blacks in America at that time then anywhere in the world. The evil men of the racist southern States CLEARLY wished to continue slavery and the put those beliefs on paper. They called that paper the Confederate Constitution which they were willing to fight and die for.

In May 1854 in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party called the Republican Party. The Republican Party was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”

It is a FACT that the Union’s claim that blacks and whites were equal both “socially and politically” was a claim too offensive for southern Democrat states to tolerate.

I pray that you will take the time to educate yourself about what the leaders of the Southern States wrote to justify their secession from the North. Read the speech that Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens gave on March 21, 1861 which set forth the purpose of the new government. That speech was entitled “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy.” In it Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers, even those from the South, had never intended for slavery to remain in America.

I could go on and on with FACTS and DAMNING quotes from southern politicians and documents from the time frame in history we are discussing to prove you completely and utterly wrong but I will stop here because I have a very tough decision to make. Should I believe you and your ilk or should I believe Frederick Douglass who believed the Constitution was an anti-slavery document?

You stated that "The South always had said that it could be faded out over time". That is a cute statement to make you feel better about your beliefs. All I ask you to do is Prove it!!! Show me one document from the Southern government that says they planned to phase it out. I will never claim to know everything. Maybe you can educate me.

Tough decision here but I take historical FACT over bizarre fantasy and I choose Fredrick Douglass, who was alive at the time, over you.

Historical Mary

That is fine. But why didn't you respond to the things I said? Was slavery protected by the Constitution, by the Supreme Court ruling or not?

And, are you a slave of God? Were you purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ or not? Is that humiliating to you? It is not to me.

You want me to provide proof for some things I said, that is fine also. I will. Will that change your mind? No. I can tell by the tenor of your voice that nothing will change your mind. I certainly will not educate you.

But, I will answer your questions to the best of my ability. Something you ignored in my previous post. Get back with you later.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

That is fine. But why didn't you respond to the things I said? Was slavery protected by the Constitution, by the Supreme Court ruling or not?

And, are you a slave of God? Were you purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ or not? Is that humiliating to you? It is not to me.

You want me to provide proof for some things I said, that is fine also. I will. Will that change your mind? No. I can tell by the tenor of your voice that nothing will change your mind. I certainly will not educate you.

But, I will answer your questions to the best of my ability. Something you ignored in my previous post. Get back with you later.

Stranger

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

 

[Stranger]

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

 

[bbyrd009]

If one is not a Christian then they serve the prince and god of this world, Satan.

that is your definition, but you got zero Scrip for that Stranger