Let’s see. About “lying,” you yourself “lie” because you agree with me that Texas, the state giving rise to this thread, said itself that was seceding because of slavery, Also, because you said “other states” said the same thing. You say three or four other states also said this. As you say, once you are immoral, you can’t be moral again.
You claim that Florida and the other states seceded for no reason at all. This is not true and you know it. You could at least say Florida seceded because they wanted to legalize marijuana or because the people of that state wanted open borders, and then provide a source. But, no, you refer me to a source that doesn’t give a reason.
Florida had to have a good reason to secede because it was a debt-repudiator. Back in those days, countries that repudiated debt opened themselves up to “gunboat diplomacy.” But, as a state of the U.S., Florida was protected by the Union. The British considered invading Florida (and Arkansas and Mississippi), but they didn’t want to tangle with the entire Union, most of the states of which honored their debts instead of spouting off about states’ rights and repudiating their debts.
I being a Christian, believe in repentance and forgiveness. So, I can think that people, individually and collectively, can right themselves. Go from being immoral to being moral. You, on the other hand, think once you are immoral, you can’t change and become moral. Brother, I invite you to an altar call.
Consider the immorality of slavery. And, in particular, Ex. 21:16. Chattal slavery is a capital offense. But, through all of history, this form of slavery was commonplace. We did not, as a nation, invent this form of slavery. We were part of a movement that ultimately put an end to it. Would that we had done so peacefully, like Britain did. But we didn’t. For us, it took a civil war. In that war, we put as many people into the ground as we freed. The scars of that war and of its aftermath remain with us to this day. And who got killed in that war? The military-age men on whom each side called. The very flower of the nation.
I believe that I and my son will one day be joined with my father and my uncles (sorry, that’s my only lineage in this country) and all others who have risen to the defense of their country (the goodness of this is also found in the Bible) who fought with honor. My father once brought me to Arlington and said to me this is the happy hunting grounds of soldiers. He had the honor to guard the tomb of the unknown back in his day. I believe there will be peace in the valley one day.
But, until that day comes, we need a President like Trump, who understands the enormous cost of war, and keeps us out of war except if and when that is absolutely necessary and then who prosecutes war with fury.
To be clear: Are you saying the North was fighting to end slavery and the south was fighting to keep slavery?
You claim that Florida and the other states seceded for no reason at all. This is not true and you know it. You could at least say Florida seceded because they wanted to legalize marijuana or because the people of that state wanted open borders, and then provide a source. But, no, you refer me to a source that doesn’t give a reason.
This is quite a bit of license with what I actually said. I never said they had no reasons for seceding, I merely pointed out that only a minority of them mentioned slavery as a significant reason, and that people who make the assertion that this minority speaks for the majority are deliberately misleading people so as to create the illusion that the war was only about slavery.
We were part of a movement that ultimately put an end to it. Would that we had done so peacefully, like Britain did. But we didn’t. For us, it took a civil war.
Lincoln did not launch the war to end slavery. He launched the war for the specific purpose of maintaining economic control over the revenue producing South, and to prevent Southern industries from using the additional capital that independence would give them to build competing industries to the northern power barons that were his financial backers for the Presidency.
Lincoln was a "mercantilist", and the South was producing the vast bulk of all the revenue collected by the Federal government, and so his money supply was trying to get away, and he wasn't going to let that happen.
Lincoln wasn't trying to stop slavery. In fact he condoned the creation of a new constitutional amendment to strengthen legalized slavery in an effort to keep his money supply from running away.
Lincoln was literally supporting efforts to keep slaves in chains indefinitely. He only chose to announce his policy of freeing them when he believed it could best serve the effort to subdue the South. He did not attempt to free the slaves then under his control in the North.