Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
Hey Ferdie, you're a pretty boring guy (obnoxious too) but your writing style is vaguely familiar. What name did you go by previously, or should we just check your cookies?
“Hey Ferdie, you’re a pretty boring guy (obnoxious too) but your writing style is vaguely familiar. What name did you go by previously, or should we just check your cookies?”
What is it with you people?
We proudly fly 3 Confederate Flags in our house, each of my boys have one in their rooms. Their high school nickname was the “Rebels” and a “sort of” confederate soldier is the mascot. The students were all banned from flying the flag from their trucks at football games and all that, because we have a PC principal. He’s a idiot. People need to get over it, but it seems that the only ones who can’t get over it are the liberals and the democrats. The conservatives don’t look at it in a racial way at all.
Great post. Best explanation yet!
California? If Bush is smart, that's exactly what he'll do. As long as it stays inside Kalifornia.
The only reason La Raza Unida could take power in California is because a coalition of “moderate” Republicans who are terrified of being called “racist” (including President Bush) and anti-American leftist Democrats have failed to enforce our immigration laws. And even our legal immigration laws have been weakened by the passage of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, which nearly every Republican voted for out of (you guessed it) fear of being called “racist”.
In other words, the politicians empowering La Raza are the same ones who would be the first to scream “racism” at the sight of a Rebel Flag.
If La Raza does come to power in California, and given current trends it probably will, what would be the point of keeping it in the union? Our hack politicians didn’t flood California with third worlders out of pure stupidity alone. Granted, many of them are stupid, but there’s more to it than that. They wanted to change the demographics of the United States to make our land more open to centralized government and to create a massive dependent class in “need” of government services. Instead of the people selecting their leaders, our “leaders” are selecting their constituents. Many of our politicians don’t like the traditional population make-up of the U.S., so they’re replacing it with a new one composed of people with no traditions of ordered liberty, federalism, independence, etc.
California is the template for what they want to do to the entire country. California went Republican in every presidential election from the end of the New Deal through 1988, with the sole exception of the 1964 Johnson landslide. It elected Ronald Reagan twice as governor. Now it’s degenerating into a socialist wasteland which the GOP can’t win. Oh, a “moderate” guy like Arnold can occasionally win due to his action film star popularity, but otherwise the state’s lost to the far left wing of the ‘Rat party.
What would really be the point of keeping California in the Union? So that it can send two ultra-leftist senators to Washington? So that it can send forty or fifty or sixty (in coming decades as the population continues to swell) leftists to the U.S. House? So that it can provide a guaranteed fifty or sixty or seventy electoral votes for the leftist Democrat presidential candidate?
Lincoln fought to keep the South in the Union because he knew the South wasn’t hostile to the founding principles of the United States. If anything, Dixie was viewed as being obsessed with those principles, which is why it’s always been such a patriotic region. In contrast, who in their right mind would want a massively populated La Raza enclave in our midst?
Thank you.
OK, how about this scenario. Say California announces they're secession. The walk away from the Union asking nothing in return. They seize all military bases, Navy ships in San Diego, all airplanes, all tanks, etc. They announce they're withdrawing from the war in Iraq and demand the return of all California National Guard troops over there. They also announce that they're not responsible for any part of the national debt or social security obligations. Finally, they announce that goods destined for the U.S. are free to be landed in California ports, for a "small" tariff fee. What does the U.S do in response?
No problem.
Well, for starters, their citizens no longer recieve benefits from the federal government. They have to take care of their own illegal problem. We don’t interfere in anything they chose to do. But we don’t give them anything. They have to support their own country and citizens. Let them withdraw their troops from Iraq. We don’t need them. Besides, when the Kalifornia troops come back, the ones who want to can leave Kalifornia and apply for citizenship in America and go back to Iraq if they want to. As far as them announcing they aren’t responsible for Social Security, etc. If a worker earned his/her SS while they were still an American citizen, then we pay it. But new workers coming of age get nothing from us. And the illegals are their problem. How long do you think Kalifornia would be able to stand? As far as the military bases, etc. , that would be their problem. How long before they would have to close for lack of funds from the feds?
And the rest of the U.S. has to fund the government and service social security and the debt without money from California, support the war without a good part of the Pacific fleet or a big chunk of the air force, and the western U.S. is forced to pay higher prices for goods because California says so, or face a cut off of those goods altogether. How fair is that to the people who aren’t leaving?
No funding of the Kalifornia government. Whats the use of secession if you are still going to turn to the feds for funding? I don’t think the Confederates were asking for anything from the federal government. My point is it would probably be very inconvenient for awhile if Kalifornia were to secede but do you really think a bunch of liberals could stand on their own 2 feet for very long much less run a country?
Besides, without Kalifornia, we could probably win elections a whole lot easier.
No offense meant but I just had to chuckle at that response. If you look at the newspaper articles, especially from Greeley's paper, of the period that's pretty much the same position they were taking in 1861 before the Southern states started the war. Everything old is new again.
My point is, maybe the north should have taken that position. Just let the south secede and gave them Sumpter. If they could run things ok and become a good neighbor, fine. Slavery would have been abolished anyway. It was just to big a travesty to continue. The goodness in people would have eventually elected politicians who wound have abolished slavery. Actually, the vast majority of people in the south did not own slaves and were against it.
And my position is that the South wanted to walk away from obligations to debt and treaties, take whatever federal property they wanted without compensation of any kind, and leave the remaining states to shoulder the responsibility. How fair is that?
Slavery would have been abolished anyway. It was just to big a travesty to continue. The goodness in people would have eventually elected politicians who wound have abolished slavery.
But there is no evidence whatsoever that the good people of the 1861 South were interested in abolishing slavery. Even then, had slavery continued for 20 or 40 or 80 years it still would not have changed the underlying illegality of the manner in which the South chose to leave.
Actually, the vast majority of people in the south did not own slaves and were against it.
I challenge you to produce the slightest shred of evidence that supports such a ridiculous claim.
Most of the people were poor. They wouldn’t have been able to afford slaves. The rich landowners were the ones mostly who owned slaves. I don’t feel like looking back over this long long thread but I seem to recall that you, yourself, said that most of the southern people were opposed to slavery and that the politicians and landowners were forcing their views on everyone.
Slave ownership was very much a middle class institution in the South. Men like Thomas Jackson, a university instructor, owne as many as 10 at one time. Statistically speaking in states like South Carolina or Mississippi close to half of all families owned slaves. And many of those who did not own slaves made their living off of those that did.
I don’t feel like looking back over this long long thread but I seem to recall that you, yourself, said that most of the southern people were opposed to slavery and that the politicians and landowners were forcing their views on everyone.
I can assure you that you're wrong on that. I've never taken that position. On the contrary I'm not aware of any real opposition to slavery in the South, and freely admit that there was very little opposition to it in the North.
Mat 8:5 translates the KJV servant [pais] as 'child, boy or girl, servant or slave'. In 8:9 we have servant [doulos] translated as 'a slave, bondman, man of servile condition'. In the corresponding account found in Luke 7:2 servant [doulos] translated as 'a slave, bondman, man of servile condition'. In verse 3 we have servant [doulos] as slave, in verse 7 we have servant [pais] as 'child, boy or girl, servant or slave'. In verses 8 servant [doulos] translated as 'a slave, bondman, man of servile condition', and in verse 10 servant [doulos] translated as 'a slave, bondman, man of servile condition'.
BTW, you may have noticed that Jesus didn't condemn a lot of people who were obvious sinners. Take the woman caught in adultery for example.
One of my favourite passages. God said that He sent Jesus not to condemn the world but to save it. But the Bible is replete with passages against adultery, murder, lying, whoring, theft, lust, etc, but no passage condemning a slave owner or slavery.
2. Are you actually comparing the slavery the Greeks, Romans and Jews practiced with the chattel slavery practiced in the American South?
What distinction do you see? How is a slave not a slave? They are captures of war or sold by others. Roman slaves were captured from across the kingdom. Joseph was sold by his brothers into slavery to the Midianites, then sold to Potiphar. Slaves in America were captures of war, or sold by Africans to yankee slavers.
3. If chattel slavery is so cool with the Almighty, why did he whomp Egypt so hard prior to the Exodus?
Why did He allow Egypt to hold them captive for hundreds of years? (Maybe so they would turn to Him again ;o)
As far as 'whomping' the Egyptians, God did so only when Pharoh refused to allow the Israelites to leave, not as punishment for keeping them in slavery.
4. If the Almighty is OK with slavery and slavery was a legitimate state's rights issue, would you support repealing the 13th Amendment returning the issue to the states? If not, why not?
Ahh, the persistent belief that every Southerner secretly desires to own another. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not favour repeal of Amendment XIII. I wish that colony of Georgia had never overturned it's laws against slavery. Do you favour repeal of the 13th? Slavery was not ended by the war (or else why have an amendment?) The states duly elected legislatures met and voted to end the practice, yet even today the inference is that Southerners have some secret yearning to own slaves. In case you've forgotten, yankees had slaves for hundreds of years, sailed the oceans to obtain them. New York City was replete with slaves at one time, as were many northern cities.
Perhaps you could explain why New Jersey and Delaware rejected the amendment in 1865. Did they secretly wish to own slaves still? And while we're on the subject of amendments, perhaps you could explain why by Delaware, Ohio, California and New Jersey all refused to allow blacks the right to vote?
5. Oh, and passages of scripture condemning slavery? Try this one. I'm not aware of many business operations that the Bible compares to adultery and sexual perversion.
The NIV translates 'andrapodistēs' as 'man stealers'. Strongs has it as a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
It's a condemnation of unjust actions and theft, not a condemnation of slavery.
a) of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
b) of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them
Now back to the other original question, 'can you point to anyone/anything granting Abraham Lincoln the power to act as a moral surrogate for our Lord and Saviour?'
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.