But OK if it's legal, right?
Second, even if I had not posted that excerpt about slavery's wrong, why should I have to keep posting over and over again what is painfully obvious to any sane individual? I suppose if you came along and started trying to justify slavery I would have a reason to argue against you over that. But seeing as you are not doing that, why should I bother reminding you every day that slavery was wrong?
Why don't you recognize that the Declarations state clearly that slavery was the reason for secession? I've never seen any of you do that. You avoid it like the plague.
Yeah, and unlike you he had no problem recognizing the sins of The Lincoln and his armies. Nor did he have any problem outing them for those sins. You on the other hand seem to be incapable of admitting that The Lincoln did anything wrong and attack those of us who suggest otherwise.
Lincoln did nothing wrong. He is Commander in Chief and protector of the Constitution. The Constitution is protected by protecting America.
If I were not concerned with it, why would I be posting one of the greatest philosophical attacks on slavery in all of human history?
Why won't you admit secession was for slavery like the Declarations of Secession say?
Obviously you do not care much about what anyone other than you says.
Spooner wasn't president, he was a man with an opinion. You're right that I don't put too much in any one man's opinion, especially a man who was inconsequencial like Spooner. I get my opinions from the bible and myself (one of God's gifts is individual discernment if we have the will to develop it) and I look for men in power that I can agree with that I can support. Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, and Bush43 are the presidents that I agree with most. That's enough for anyone to get through life on.
You do not respect the words of historical figures as evidenced by your butchery and/or dismissal of their words when you do not like what they say.
What they say disagrees with the bible. Jesus made the gentiles clean with His blood on the cross if they believe on Him and therefore become spiritual descendents of Abraham. Peter got a rough lesson in this when he disrespected some non-Israelites (non-genetic). Secession was for slavery as the Declarations of Secession clearly say. Slavery violates Paul's "do unto others" commandment from God. Most blacks are spiritual descendants of Abraham and therefore our "neighbors" as defined by Jesus. America is God's country, prophesy says so. The break up God's country over an evil of slavery over spiritual descendants of Abraham was about as wrong as could be.
Nor do you respect the words of your peers on this forum. Instead you misrepresent them and construct straw men to resemble them as a means of avoiding their content.
Because you make up stuff. You add stuff. Why can't you be like Walt and just stick to the truth and not add stuff to it?
It is also a philosophical argument of merit from an individual of greater authority on the slavery issue than 99.999999% of those other 30 million at the time. This fact indicates that your dismissal of it is not based on its numerical status as an opinion relative to those around it, but rather on the fact that you do not like what it says.
Because I think he is in disagreement with the bible.
For one, because it contradicts your implication that people who object to The Lincoln are slavery lovers by default.
No, because they never mention anything about how wrong it was to secede for slavery.
Beyond that, you would do good to pay attention to it because it came from a leading historical authority on the abolition of slavery, a topic you profess to abide by yourself. But since you are not interested in hearing anything but your own predetermined view of the conflict, I do not anticipate your interest in it will grow any. You might as well glue your eyes shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and pretend that the world around you does not exist. And in all honesty, you do not appear to be far from that point as it is right now.
At least I don't add words to historical quotes like you do. I stick with truth and I spend hours a week working on improving my discernment. You are correct that I don't put too much stock in any one man's opinion. It's so easy to be misled when you do that. Just look at this thread, early on some said they they believed one way, but after reading one man's opinion, they believed completely the other way. My goodness, don't their have any convictions or are they so easily swayed by the words of man? Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. That's how tyrants get their power, by a subtle tongue.
Sin itself is never "OK" and should be opposed, even when that sin is legal. But sin is also inescapable and in this present world and government it exists with great frequency. It is therefore up to all moral people to oppose that sin and work toward its elimination, but not by sinning themselves in return to that initial sin. In the case of slavery, a moral obligation existed to oppose that sin and work toward peaceful abolition. Abolition by means of violence, murder, and warfare was itself sinful and therefore not a moral alternative.
Why don't you recognize that the Declarations state clearly that slavery was the reason for secession? I've never seen any of you do that.
You must not read my posts then. When those declarations are the issue of discussion - there were a total of four of them, by the way - I have not once attempted to deny that slavery was cited as a major cause. I have commented previously that those declarations cannot reasonably be said to speak for the entire south nor were they the only cited cause of the war. In fact, they are the only documents out of the formal secession documents to cite slavery as a primary cause. That includes in entirity those 4 legislative declarations, 11 secession ordinances, 2 rump convention ordinances, and 2 territorial ordinances, and several treaties among the indian tribes.
Lincoln did nothing wrong.
He sinned in warfare and the waging of that warfare. So yes. He did something wrong. You are free to agree with the course of action he took, but to assert that he conducted himself on that course without fallability is a lie. It also wreaks of idolatry as it falsely extends an attribute of divinity to a flawed and sinful human being.
He is Commander in Chief and protector of the Constitution.
So he may have been. But he also violated that Constitution by suspending habeas corpus, dividing Virginia into a new state, violating the civil liberties of the bill of rights among civilians, violating the authority of the judiciary, and assuming powers beyond the scope of his office. You are free to argue that he was correct in doing this just as I am free to argue to the contrary, but that he acted in such a manner cannot be denied or excused away.
Why won't you admit secession was for slavery like the Declarations of Secession say?
Because those four declarations were but a small fraction of the stated reasons for secession, both in formal legislative documents and informally in speeches and newspaper editorials. Due to this fact it would be fallacy and dishonesty to assert that the entirity of the southern cause was for the sole purpose of slavery and no other. Slavery may legitimately be cited as a cause, but to assert it alone at the neglect of all others is to lie, and lying is a sin.
Spooner wasn't president, he was a man with an opinion.
He was also a leading figure in the abolitionist movement and an individual of great historical importance to the cause of abolition. To profess an understanding or advocacy of that movement without regard to its chief participants such as Spooner and Garrison is to offer an inherently incomplete and therefore skewed accounting of it as a movement.
You're right that I don't put too much in any one man's opinion, especially a man who was inconsequencial like Spooner.
Your tactics are becoming all the more sloppy. To discuss abolitionism while dismissing Spooner is akin to discussing the American Revolution while dismissing Jefferson. Both were central philosophical minds of their respective movements. It is therefore impossible to fully understand either movement without these individuals.
I get my opinions from the bible and myself
That is nice, but still it is no grounds to dismiss something of historical importance as "inconsequential" simply because you do not like what it says or implies about your previously decided historical interpretation of that same event. History is not a Luby's Cafeteria where you pick and choose what flavor Jello you get whiling leaving the rest behind.
What they say disagrees with the bible.
So Spooner's indictment of the union, in which he assails them for claiming victory over a sin when they achieved that victory by sinning themselves, is in conflict with the bible? And I suppose that St. Augustine, who also stated that to sin for the purpose of ending the sin of slavery was itself a wrong, is in conflict with the bible as well? If you truly believe that, I can only say that your concept of theology is a heretical perversion of Christianity in which a somewhat just result may be used to justify untold horrors, moral wrongs, and rampant sinfulness so long as each is used as a means to achieving that end.
America is God's country, prophesy says so.
Many nations have claimed themselves to be God's country, and many humans have claimed to be God's chosen ruler over this world. They all rise and fall with history. You should pay attention in particular to what your bible says of this in John 18:36. Jesus spoke in that passage:
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
You may certainly believe that it is with providence that America exists and is guided, but to claim America as the kingdom of the one true God is itself a falsehood.
Because you make up stuff. You add stuff.
Every accusation you have made of such to date has proven false. You claimed that Marx's words did not contain the very phrases I noted them to contain even though it was evident that they did to any sane reader of that quote. Nor is it a valid excuse for the construction of straw men to accuse another of "making stuff up." You built scarecrows to joust with and got caught. It is that simple.
Why can't you be like Walt and just stick to the truth
Walt would not recognize the truth if it were glued to his forehead. That he peddles falsehoods and offers a view that is only what he desires to see has been demonstrated many times here and elsewhere. You need only read one of the many threads where he has been taken to task to see an example first hand.
At least I don't add words to historical quotes like you do.
Every word you accuse me of adding to historical quotes is there. This has been shown to be so time and time again. The words I stated to be there were "workingmen" and "working class," Marx's terms for the proletariat of his revolution. You denied this yet they are there. I also stated that Marx described a "new era of ascendancy...for the working class" - a phrase he used to describe the proletarian revolution of his communist philosophy. You denied this yet it is there. I then stated that Marx predicted the "reconstruction of the social order" - a prediction of communism. You denied this yet it is also there.
It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that either you did not read the quote or you are lying about its contents when you claim that I added those words.
I stick with truth
That is a desirable goal, but it is one you have also failed to reach by a considerable margin. This is evident in your denial of the words I quoted directly from Marx's statement when they are readily evident for any reader.
and I spend hours a week working on improving my discernment.
I can only say keep working. You have quite a distance to go.
LOL - Sorry I missed that little gem. Wlat was the biggest liar around until you showed up. He constantly lies about what documents and court cases say. It's a standard tactic of his. Check his sources. When he says a letter "proves" this or that, go to the source and see. When he says a court case "proves" this or that, go to the source and see. Most of the time he's wrong, completely wrong, and the documents he quotes often prove the opposite of what he claims, or at best don't even apply at all.