Floridians mark anniversary of joining the Confederacy

The Florida Times-Union ^ | January 10, 2011 - 12:00am | Kate Howard

[cowboyway]

It was 150 years ago today that Florida declared itself sovereign from the United States.

Some Southern states have marked the anniversaries of secession with celebrations; in South Carolina, a secession gala was met with protests and controversy.

In Florida, a reenactment was quietly held by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Tallahassee on Saturday, where about 40 volunteers dressed in period attire performed a condensed version of the convention. It was at that convention where a 62-7 vote led to secession in 1861, making Florida the third state to leave and later join the Confederate States of America.

[central_va]

At the same time, they began firing on Federal Forces, and on May 6, 1861 declared war on the United States.

Can you show a link to that. I've heard different dates and I have yet to see the actual declaration.

[Sherman Logan]

Thanks for a very nearly uniquely thoughtful response.

Who is to say that God didn’t work thru Lincoln and the war?

Read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural. He was clearly aware of these isues.

To answer your specific question: Paul and Philemon did not live in a society that had explicitly expressed its dedication to the proposition that all men are created equal. Quite the contrary. Such a proposition would have been the most heinous treason and putting it forward would have brought speedy execution.

There were also significant differences between classical slavery and modern American slavery. Slaves in the Roman world were seldom directly distinguishable from free men. There was no racial or ethnic component. Slaves were just those who had the bad luck to become enslaved.

Slaves were also very frequently freed. When a Roman citizen freed one of his slaves, the freedman immediately became Roman citizen with the right to vote. Well, not in Paul’s day, as nobody really voted by then.

Freedmen often reached the absolute heights of wealth and power below the Emperor. While there was significant social discrimination against them, it seldom carried over to the second or third generation. In fact, many sons of freedmen became senators.

Contrast that with the race-based slavery of USA. Blacks, per the Dred Scott decision, were not and NEVER COULD BECOME citizens of the US.

To be fair, there were numerous ways in which US slavery was less oppressive than clasical slavery. Killing slaves on a whim was never legal, for instance, and sexual exploitation was at least considered unbecoming of a gentleman.

But, all told, I’d much rather have been a slave in Rome than in Alabama.

[paladin1_dcs]

So, when the majority of the population elected Obama, are you saying that we wanted socialism, chose socialism and got socialism so we should be happy?

After all, we as a nation, chose to do this.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "It is a futile, and mostly symbolic, gesture, in my opinion."

Don't underestimate the effects of these "futile" gestures -- they are at least a start.

Remember this: the Progressive Liberal Democrat empire that we live in today did not happen over-night.
It started many years ago -- NO, not with Lincoln, but when the Solid South was voting solidly for Progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

Since Barry Goldwater in 1964, the South has voted more and more Republican, and in recent years quite solidly so.

In 2008 that was not quite enough to stop the Obama tsunami.
But 2010 was a much different story, and 2012 is looking like a possibility...

I would not give up hope. One step at a time.

[paladin1_dcs]

Personally, I believe that the ACW was punishment towards us for our failure as a nation to deal with the issue at our founding. I realize that it was politically explosive, but I honestly believe that we merely delayed dealing with the issue and made it worse. Much like what God promised He would do in Exodus 20:5 “for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;”

So does that mean I believe Lincoln was God’s agent in this? No, well, at least not directly. I do believe that His will was carried out once the war began, but I believe it was carried out in a manner that was a hinderance to our later development as a people and not a help.

As for the differences in American slavery and Roman slavery, I do agree that several differnces do exist but at it’s core the issue still remains. Which is more valuable, personal liberty or personal salvation. In America, I believe we failed this test in almost the worst possible way because we not only rejected personal liberty and replaced it with chattel slavery (note: chattel slavery is NOT the same as biblically acceptable slavery) but because we pursued this course, we hindered the personal salvation of millions.

One other quick thought, if the sins of the fathers are visited on the third and fourth generations, then did we pass or fail the test of World War II? What does this last generation reflect?

[BroJoeK]

lentulusgracchus: "How about Pearl Harbor revisionism, under whose Klieg lights FDR suddenly doesn't look so hot -- and in fact looks like a downright skulking scoundrel and rotter?"

A hopefully brief change of subject:
Pal, your words describe what conservatives have always felt about FDR's New Deal & other domestic policies -- policies that the South most solidly and consistently voted to support.

Modern "revisionism" only effects the question of whether Roosevelt provoked and knew specifics about the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

I think he did, but the evidence is slim at best, and a lot of good Freepers honestly disagree with me.

[mstar]

Sherman L; I realize Lee was all in favor of “spiritual liberty” for blacks. He just didn’t think they should receive their physical liberty anytime in the next few centuries. Do you disagree that people are less likely to achieve spiritual liberty when they are physically enslaved?

I had already posted the following before but am gaining great knowledge on how to use the same studies over and over and over again and again since there are, and always will be, individuals with brains and hearts truth will never penetrate and just don't care one way or another.


So for any interested in what the Word of God instructs, and not what "so and so" THINKS . . . here is a study on the Apostle Paul's letter to Philemon. . . and a few thoughts from yours truly.

me aka mstar; "Most planters were Christians and followed the Biblical pattern given by the Apostle Paul in "The Book Of "Philemon". There were some "Simon Legrees", but most evangelized their slaves providing houses of worship for regular churches services. The "Slave Narratives" provide a great glimpse into this.

The system was failing, the land exhausted, the industrial revolution was around the corner. Had time been given the antiquated system would have collapsed on its own with less bloodshed and emotional "baggage".

Below is a study on "The Book of Philemon" from "GotQuestions.org";

Author: The author of "The Book of Philemon" was the apostle Paul (Philemon 1:1).

Date of Writing: "The Book of Philemon" was written in approximately A. D. 60.

Purpose of Writing: The letter to Philemon is the shortest of all Paul's writings and deals with the practice of slavery. The letter suggests that Paul was in prison at the time of the writing.

Philemon was a slave owner who also hosted a church in his home. During the time of Paul's ministry in Ephesus, Philemon had likely journeyed to the city, heard Paul's preaching and became a Christian. The slave Onesimus robbed his master, Philemon, and ran away, making his way to Rome and to Paul. Onesimus was still the property of Philemon, and Paul wrote to smooth the way for his return to his master. Through Paul’s witnessing to him, Onesimus had become a Christian (Philemon 10) and Paul wanted Philemon to accept Onesimus as a brother in Christ and not merely as a slave.

Key Verses:

Philemon 6: "I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.

" Philemon 16: "…no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord."

Philemon 18: "If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me."

Brief Summary: Paul had warned slave owners that they had a responsibility towards their slaves and showed slaves as responsible moral beings who were to fear God.

In Philemon, Paul did not condemn slavery, but he presented Onesimus as a Christian brother instead of a slave. When an owner can refer to a slave as a brother, the slave has reached a position in which the legal title of slave is meaningless.

The early church did not attack slavery directly but it laid the foundation for a new relationship between owner and slave. Paul attempted to unite both Philemon and Onesimus with Christian love so that emancipation would become necessary. Only after exposure to the light of the gospel could the institution of slavery die.

Connections: Perhaps nowhere in the New Testament is the distinction between law and grace so beautifully portrayed.

Both Roman law and the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament gave Philemon the right to punish a runaway slave who was considered property. But the covenant of grace through the Lord Jesus allowed both master and slave to fellowship in love on an equal basis in the body of Christ."

"Paul would have liked to keep Onesimus with him. Paul, however, honored the social tie that bound a slave to his master and respected the duty Onesimus owed to Philemon, his master. Guided by the tenth commandment, which forbids coveting another man's worker, and by the law of love, Paul decided Onesimus should return to Philemon.
Paul was about to send Tychicus, a co-worker, to Colosse with a letter Paul had written to the church there. Philemon was a member of that church. Tychicus' traveling to Colosse offered Paul the opportunity to send Onesimus with Tychicus to Philemon.
Onesimus went willingly as a penitent Christian to seek his master's forgiveness and to return to his service in Philemon's household. Paul wrote his letter to Philemon and had Tychicus hand carry it to him.

Content Of The Letter To Philemon

In his letter Paul did not command Philemon to free his slave Onesimus. Rather, Paul commended Philemon for the loving compassion he showed to his fellow Christians and then interceded in Onesimus' behalf.

Paul pleaded that for love's sake Philemon would treat Onesimus kindly. Slaves, such as Onesimus, who were brought back to their masters were often treated most harshly and under Roman law could be killed. Paul noted that Philemon was having Onesimus come back to him as more than a slave but as a brother in Christ and fellow believer. Paul asked that Philemon would receive Onesimus as he would receive Paul himself. Since it was quite possible that Onesimus had wronged Philemon and was indebted to Philemon for what he had stolen, Paul even offered to have Philemon charge the debt to him so that Paul might repay him. In offering to repay Philemon for Onesimus' indebtedness, Paul reminded Philemon that he owed him his very life, for it appears that in some way as a result of Paul's gospel ministry Philemon had become a believer in Christ the Savior. In the course of his letter Paul hinted that he would very much like to have Onesimus back with him in Rome."

from "Christian Inconnect"



So "Battle Hymn Of The Republic" anyone? What do you mean it doesn't seem to "work" with all this scripture????? Well it IS kinda "catchy" and all . . . that "Glory, Glory" verse really does sound all spiritual and stuff. . . /s

[paladin1_dcs]

I’m glad someone else knows about Philemon. One thing that I would like to point out though is that those involved in Philemon, even though they were all Brothers in Christ, never forced their will upon each other. That, in my mind, is where we failed. Instead of slavery ending due to the influence of the Gospel, abolitionists forced the issue before it was time and a war resulted.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

what did you think of the rest of my reply?

This really is not an area of consuming interest for me - none of my ancestors even lived in the US at the time of the Civil War. When I saw the post I originally responded to while browsing, I was curious and a cursory search showed me that the poster's claim of slavery not being a reason for secession was incorrect.

As to whether it was the only reason, I doubt it simply because decisions made by large numbers of people can't have a single motivation uninfluenced by other reasons. Would those other reasons have been sufficient to drive all Southern states to secede if slavery didn't exist as an issue? I don't know - after reading the secession documents I tend to doubt it but quite frankly I'm a little mystified that this subject is still a source of divisiveness. This is history - it isn't our fight.

[mstar]

those involved in Philemon, even though they were all Brothers in Christ, never forced their will upon each other. That, in my mind, is where we failed. Instead of slavery ending due to the influence of the Gospel, abolitionists forced the issue before it was time and a war resulted.

Absolutely. Few abolitionists were Christian, many were Spiritualists following their "spirit guides" to another Jesus.

[BroJoeK]

lentulusgracchus: "the issue Texas took with their having done that, was that it was a violation of the Constitution, viz., denying Texans the protection of federal troops, which was still extended to other States that were in better political odor with the Northern political faction."

I'd say you're fantasizing.

When Texas seceded, "Doughfaced" Democrat James Buchanan was President, and Colonel Robert E. Lee was in charge of protecting Texas.

In Buchanan's cabinet were:

• Secretary of War from Virginia
• Secretary of Treasury from Georgia
• Secretary of Interior from Mississippi
• Postmaster General from Kentucky

Sorry, but the whole idea that the South had somehow been "oppressed" or "ignored" by Washington is just rubbish and nonsense.

[BroJoeK]

Lee'sGhost: "Interesting, in re to the SC secession document that you provided a link to, you have to go through 14 paragraphs of reasons as to why they felt compelled to secede before there is ANYTHING mentioned connected to slavery."

You misread it. It's only about slavery.

Here is the key statement:

"On the 4th day of March next, this party [abolitionist Republicans] will take possession of the Government.
It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

That is their key reason, and it is false.

[Sherman Logan]

Thanks for the explanation of Philemon, most of which I was fully aware of.

I did not attempt to make an explicitly biblical argument for abolition. I agree the Bible fully accepted slavery as a normal condition. I’m not sure you want to get into prescribing other aspects of modern life to line up with that recognized by the Bible.

For instance, democracy is an utterly unbiblical concept. The Bible counsels submission to the governmental authorities placed over us by God. The American Revolution was thus completely unscriptural. Does this in your opinion make it improper?

For another example, when the Jews brought the woman to Jesus who had committed adultery and was to be stoned, he didn’t say it would be wrong to stone an adulterous woman. He merely said those who had not committed a similar sin should throw first. Perhaps you think we should reinstitute stoning for adultery? That would help with American overpopulation!

I made an American argument against slavery. The Declaration of Independence put forward the innovative and unscriptural doctrine that “all men are created equal,” and that governments are legitimate only as long as they support this doctrine.

The CSA was specifically set up to defend and extend an institution by which men were declared eternally unequal. Thus it rejected the ideology that made America American.

[Sherman Logan]

even though they were all Brothers in Christ, never forced their will upon each other.

Sorry. Won't fly.

The institution of slavery is the ultimate in forcing your will upon another.

Were none of the slaves the Brothers in Christ of the slaveowners?

[Sherman Logan]

Few abolitionists were Christian

You got something remotely resembling documentation for this remarkable claim?

Are you aware that almost every Protestant denomination split over the issue of slavery in the 20 years or so before the war?

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "My ancestors, who were in the Army of NoVa, were from Bedford County VA. and none owned slaves."

Virginia voted against secession, as long as the "rights" of slave owners were was the only issue.

After Fort Sumter, when the issue became war against the United States, then Virginia joined the Confederacy.

[mstar]

The Declaration of Independence put forward the innovative and unscriptural doctrine that “all men are created equal,” and that governments are legitimate only as long as they support this doctrine.

Actually this country was founded on the Christian principle of "Liberty", a principle found only in the New Testament concept of Grace.

[Lee'sGhost]

I can’t fight dumb.

[Sherman Logan]

Colonel Robert E. Lee was in charge of protecting Texas.

Nope. Lee was stationed in Texas, in command of Fort Mason. I believe he was still a captain at this point.

General Twiggs was in charge of the defense of Texas. He surrendered all US troops to the state, then resigned and was (coincidentally no doubt) appointed a Confederate general.

Lee went back to DC, where he was promoted to colonel by Lincoln. He didn't resign his US Army commission until after VA seceded.

But your basic point is absolutely correct. The Texans were thoroughly pissed off they weren't being protected more effectively against the Comanches, but that was not an easy task. Took decades after the end of the war to be completed.

[Sherman Logan]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Men have Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness because they are created equal.

Equality is the root principle. Rights are derived from it.