Posted on 01/10/2011 8:57:06 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...
In other words, like a typical libtard on a mission (Cindy Sheehan comes to mind), you're going to attempt to hijack every thread on the War of Northern Aggression with these whiny little posts all saying the exact same thing. I'll bet your pals over at DU are real proud of you.
I’ll keep going as long as I need too.
Or until, like your pal NS, you're banned, which I'm officially calling for you, mikefromohio, to get the zot immediately for being a disruptive troll. Are you listening mods?
Sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the timeline. Go back and reread Philemon with an eye towards the fact that Paul was counciling one Christian to accept another Christian as a brother, even though the first was a slave to the second.
First is the fact that slavery at this time was different than American slavery, also known as Chattel slavery. These slaves, as outlined in the Old Testament, could only be held for six years and then had their freedom. Those that wished to, could remain beyond this time but were considered servants for life after that point. Onesimus was one of these “permanent” slaves and was not being held against his will. His crime, aluded too in verse 18, was that he made a vow to remain beyond the six years and then broke that vow. There were penalties for this, which Paul was stating that he would pay so that Christian unity could be restored between these two.
Second, I agree that some of the slaves were fellow Christians to the slave owners in 19th Century America, but I also point out that when this happened, it often resulted in the owner releasing his slaves because they were his fellow Christians.
Well, that's just speculation. Lee specifically stated that it was the will of Providence, which turned out to be much shorter than the time frame that you're referencing.
less likely to achieve spiritual liberty when they are physically enslaved?
It could be opposite, if you think about it.
Lee quite obviously and explicitly did NOT consider “all men to be created equal.
Where did he explicitly state this?
Actually, the root principle is that men derive their rights from their Creator, not from a government. Equality is not the root principle, Divine authority over the rights of Man is the root principle.
We don't need to go any further. Good day.
Sherman - I’m beginning to believe that you have some false impressions and faulty understanding of Scripture and how it relates to America’s founding. I honestly believe you have the correct intent in that you’re wishing to be logically consistant in your treatment of the subject so please bear with this discussion as I suspect it’s about to take a wild turn.
I should point out that when I say “Divine authority over the rights of Man is the root principle”, I’m stating that the Rights of Man come soley from Divine Authority, not from Secular Authority.
Just to clear that up.
Highly unlikely. I understand this is what the OT required, but it is generally agreed the Jews had abandoned the practice long before this, just as they had abandoned similar rules for land ownership.
In fact, quite a few scholars contend these rules were never implemented, but rather were held up as ideals.
Both Philemon and Onesimus had Greek names. While this is not dispositive, it at least makes it more likely they were gentile converts rather than Jews. And Paul himself had made it very clear Jewish Law was not binding on gentile Christians.
Philemon lived in Colossae, a Roman/Greek city in Asia Minor. Jewish traditions with regard to slavery would have had no force of law there, assuming they had such force anywhere.
The relevant law code was either Roman or Greek, in which slaves were quite literally consider "animals that speak," and had almost exactly the same status as livestock. Under this law code owners could legally have a slave crucified on a whim. If an owner died mysteriously or was killed by one of his slaves, all his slaves, in some cases many hundreds, were executed.
BTW, if southern slavery was based on biblical precedent, what happened to the whole freedom after seven years bit?
One more point. Let us assume Philemon was a Jewish Christian who would have followed the letter of Jewish Law on the subject carefully.
There is no reason to believe Onesimus was a Jew, and the OT allows lifetime and hereditary slavery for non-Jews.
Okay. According to the DOI, God gave all men equally right to Liberty.
On what basis then can any government legimately deprive some men of Liberty?
My basic time-line reference book is Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac (c2008), which is not 100% infallible, but I'm sure generally correct.
It says the Confederacy declared war on May 6, 1861 and Virginia ratified secession on May 23.
FYI, here is a link to a large selection of Confederate documents, including the Declaration of War.
I note the Declaration of War states:
"and whereas, the State of Virginia has seceded from the Federal Union and entered into a convention of alliance offensive and defensive with the Confederate States, and has adopted the Provisional Constitution of the said States;"
Virginia seceded in stages.
Virginia's state convention first reversed itself and voted for secession on April 17.
The final ratification came from Virginia's voters on May 23.
The vote was 97,750 in favor of secession, 32,134 against.
Western Virginia first declared its independence from Virginia on June 17.
The first Union forces crossed into Western Virginia around July 7.
The first major battle -- 1st Manassas / Bull Run -- began in mid-July.
I take it that you are a defender of the Southern Cause, and have a good sense of humor? ;-)
My argument here includes the following:
As for today's Obama voters -- didn't you know, they all voted for "hope and change" and now they just hope the change in their pockets will be enough to live on... ;-)
Of course, if you wish to argue that 90% of Southerners had no idea what they were getting into in 1861, then you'd be perfectly correct.
In the same way, 90% of Germans never realized until way, way too late where Hitler was leading them.
Declaring war is just H*ll, especially war against the United States.
But of course, that is the Big Lie -- the Lie that all good Southerners tell each other, and some even believe.
The truth is, in 1860 the North did nothing, except elect Lincoln & Republicans.
And even that could not have happened if the South had not first had a big hissy-fit with their own Northern Democrats, splitting up their party and letting the minority Republicans win.
Then they used their self engineered political defeat as their excuse for secession -- then provoked war, declared war, and sent their forces into every Union state and territory surrounding the South.
So Northern Abolitionists were just the South's excuse, not their real reason.
Their real reason was to take total control over their Slave Empire -- no future interference from Washington.
Revisionism can mean learning new facts and adjusting one's views to new information, so I can't say it's always wrong. What's objectionable is the idea that somehow pro-Confederate views represent some kind of original truth and that everything else is revisionism.
If you look back to how people looked at the war in the 1860s you come up with something very different from the consensus view of the 1960s centennial that a lot of people take as the original view of the Civil War. Post-bellum Southerners tried to whitewash their earlier support for slavery.
Early 20th century professors, North and South, angry at the Republicans and industrialists who dominated their era, had a lot more sympathy for the rebellion than their fathers who fought against it did (sometimes even more than their fathers who fought for it did). For them the war was the fault of radical abolitionists and a blundering generation of politicians. By the time the centennial came around, established attitudes were very different from what they'd been a century before.
As for Webster and Lincoln, were they really the revisionists? Certainly they were closer to the spirit of 1787 than Calhoun and his followers were.
[You, delightedly feigning outrage] Please consider this post a general cease and desist order.
STOP FABRICATING US HISTORY!
Keep your shirt on. I misattributed a quote I got from another thread last March and mislabeled the saved file as well.
The conversation in question began with this question put to me by FReeper Diamond about admission and secession of States, in particular Missouri, admitted after the original 13 had formed the Union:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2468441/posts?page=90#90,
whereupon Idabilly posted and pointed us both to the linked paragraph. I didn't realize it didn't have to do with the Philadelphia Convention at all, but instead the series of negotiations having to do with the Corwin Amendment so-called (in which I've never taken much of an interest myself, since I've always considered it a red herring). I confused it with Elliott's and thought it was from the Philadelphia Convention, and so I saved it and misidentified it and went on to answer FReeper Diamond's question. I made a mistake about provenience of the link, which I couldn't correct by reading the quote, but would have had to pull up the link and pull out the context myself -- which didn't really have to do with the admission of Missouri to the Union.
That all said, I apologize for the misattributed cite and quote.
While I don’t dispute that the practice of Levitical Slavery had probably been corrupted, the actual day to day practice is irrelevant to the discussion as it’s the principle that was laid down in Exodus that is important. Our belief in or practice of a point does not validate that point, it merely reflects on our own morality.
That being said, the idea that Jewish Law was not binding on Gentile Christians is only partially true. After all, Paul pointed out that we were no longer under the law, as the law had been fulfilled by Christ’s death, but His sacrificial atonement was for a covering of our sins and a transferal of His righteousness into our soul. This does not cover some of the other portions of the law dealing with daily life, which is also where a large portion of our legal code comes from.
In the case of Onesimus and Philemon, Paul was in fact reinforcing the idea that Onesimus must keep his pledge of lifetime service to Philemon, while at the same time reminding Philemon that Onesimus was more than just a servant now and to treat him as a fellow Christian. Roman or Greek law may have allowed something stricter than what Paul was saying, but that has no bearing on the situation.
Finally, I never said that American slavery had it’s roots in Levitical Slavery and instead pointed out just the opposite. Because of America’s sins of chattel slavery, and her refusal to repent from it, she was doomed to bloodshed long before the election of 1860 came around.
In reply to your other point about Onesimus possibly not being a Jew, I would reply that Christ said all believers would be grafted into the true vine which is Israel, so in effect, Onesimus became a Jew when he accepted Christ was the Jewish Messiah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.