And breaking up God's country to perpetuate slavery is especially wrong.
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.
They were the official declarations endorsed by the legislatures. If anyone would've disagreed with them, they could've declared their own.
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.
The others were simple ordinances. A stop sign doesn't list the reasons to stop, it just says "stop". That's what an ordinance is, a simple statement of a legal act.
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.
Of course he sinned like everyone, but his actions in defeating the Confederacy were not legally wrong.
So he may have been. But he also violated that Constitution by suspending habeas corpus,...
The Constitution only forbids the Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus except in certain cases.
...dividing Virginia into a new state,...
This was all Lincoln's doings?
...violating the civil liberties of the bill of rights among civilians,...
There was rebellion and therefore it was legal to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus.
...violating the authority of the judiciary,...
There was rebellion and the Constitution requires the president to protect it.
...and assuming powers beyond the scope of his office.
The Constitution gives the president the power to protect it.
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.
The Constiutution gives him the power to protect it.
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.
Newspapers? Come on! If any state disagreed with the Declarations of Secession, they could've issued their own.
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.
If any state disagreed with the Declarations of Secession, they could've issued their own.
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.
The Declarations of Secession say slavery was the reason for secession.
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.
Profess an understanding? LOL All I've said is that it was wrong for the South to secede for slavery.
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.
Boloney. The South seceded for slavery. They were wrong and deserved to be beaten. Individual opinions of the time notwithstanding.
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.
But Spooner wasn't president nor did he push secession so his role is inconsequencial.
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?
He's wrong.
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.
LOL You making things up again. Slavery is wrong and to break up the country for slavery is wrong. The North responded to attacks on it's property and beat the South. Anything else is just noise meant to confuse.
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.
I didn't say that America is Jesus' kingdom, I said it's God's current country for Israel as prophecy says.
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.
You added words. You made stuff up.
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.
Got caught? You made stuff up with Marx' quote adding words that aren't there. Simple really.
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.
Walt simply uses real quotes from real people. How could it be false?
You need only read one of the many threads where he has been taken to task to see an example first hand.
I've yet to see one of these threads, I guess. LOL
Every word you accuse me of adding to historical quotes is there.
You added stuff to Marx' quotes in your explanations.
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 did it again. Marx did not say these words, he said "working men" and "middle class". You make stuff up like all neo-Confederates do.
You denied this yet they are there.
I deny that "communism", proletariate", and every other word you made up were 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 did it again. Adding words. "Working class" means "working class", you have to make stuff up to make a point.
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.
You did it again. Marx did not mention "communism", but you say his words say he did. You make stuff up like all neo-Confederates do.
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.
Marx did not say "communism", or "proletariate" in his quote. You added them. You made it up.
That is a desirable goal,...
One you obviously are having a hard time achieving.
...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.
Marx did not say "communism" or "proletariate". They're just not in his quote. They are two words you threw in. You made them up because truth is not on your side and you have to spruce the truth up to make a point.
I can only say keep working. You have quite a distance to go.
At least I don't add words to people's quotes. LOL
On what grounds do you claim that this is God's country? He said in rather explicit terms that his kingdom was not of this world.
They were the official declarations endorsed by the legislatures.
No they weren't. They were documents of interest explaining the motives of some, but not one of them had any legal statutory meaning to it. They were legislative resolutions adopted separately from the secession ordinances by the respective conventions of 4 states to assert some of the positions of those conventions.
The others were simple ordinances.
Not all of them. Some detail grievances about the abusive strength of the federal government. The territorial ones cite different causes entirely, such as the failure to provide frontier protection and mail services in the far west.
Of course he sinned like everyone, but his actions in defeating the Confederacy were not legally wrong.
The action of dividing Virginia was legally wrong - it violated the constitution. Suspending habeas corpus was legally wrong - it violated the constitution. Usurping and ignoring the judicial authority was legally wrong - it violated the constitution. Disregarding the civil liberties of citizens was legally wrong - it violated the bill of rights.
The Constitution only forbids the Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus except in certain cases.
To the contrary. The Constitution only permits the suspension of habeas corpus in certain cases. The clause permitting that suspension is granted as a power only to the legislature. The founding fathers were in unanimous agreement on this. So was every court ruling on the issue. So were the most prominent legal scholars of the early 19th century.
This was all Lincoln's doings?
He facilitated it and permitted it.
There was rebellion and therefore it was legal to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus.
No it wasn't. Only Congress can do that under the constitution.
There was rebellion and the Constitution requires the president to protect it.
Rebellion or not, the President's actions are governed and checked by the authority of the judicial system under the Constitution. When that judicial system ruled against The Lincoln, he disregarded it. In any other time he would have been impeached with good cause.
The Constitution gives the president the power to protect it.
But not the power to destroy it. Do you not realize the implications of your own argument? If an idividual takes actions in conflict with the Constitution in order to "protect it" from what he percieves to be destruction by others, he has in effect done for himself exactly what he set out to prevent among others.
Newspapers? Come on!
Yeah. Newspapers. They are among the most detailed sources of historical information available to us.
If any state disagreed with the Declarations of Secession, they could've issued their own.
...or perhaps their leaders could have listed their own reasons (as they did in many states), or perhaps they could have listed those reasons in their secession ordinances (as they did in some states), or perhaps they could have adopted resolutions locally in cities, towns, and counties (as they did in some states).
Profess an understanding?
Your implication is exactly that when you act to dismiss something you disagree with in the historical record of documents.
But Spooner wasn't president nor did he push secession so his role is inconsequencial.
He did push abolition though and abolition was part of the political dialogue. Therefore he was not inconsequencial.
He's wrong.
Simply saying that does not make it so. Since you dismissed Spooner without offering any consideration whatsoever to his arguments, you cannot legitimately claim to have demonstrated the error you ascribe to him. I may therefore dismiss your assertion in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
LOL You making things up again.
Not at all. I am referencing theological and philosophical concepts that conflict with your assertions and asking you to explain or reconcile those conflicts. To date you have avoided doing so.
Slavery is wrong and to break up the country for slavery is wrong. The North responded to attacks on it's property and beat the South.
So you believe that sinful actions to achieve a percieved good end are justified by that end? I ask because if so, you are asserting a doctrine in conflict with Christian ethics.
I didn't say that America is Jesus' kingdom, I said it's God's current country for Israel as prophecy says.
And you know this exactly how? Lots of countries have claimed themselves to be the current Israel, and lots have claimed that this is a matter of prophecy. Yet they have all fallen at some time or another.
You added words. You made stuff up. Got caught?
Yeah. You got caught building straw men. I'm sorry if you do not like it but that is not of my concern.
You made stuff up with Marx' quote adding words that aren't there.
You have claimed this many times yet not once have you made a sound case. In fact the only case you attempted was itself fraudulent, as the words you claimed not to exist were all shown to be present. Therefore I may reject your assertion in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Walt simply uses real quotes from real people. How could it be false?
When those quotes themselves assert falsehoods as is regularly the case.
You added stuff to Marx' quotes in your explanations.
Not in the least. When Marx called for the working men of the world to unite, it goes without saying that he was calling for a communist revolution. Why then is it so hard for you to understand that he was speaking of the same thing when he wrote about the working men ascending and the reconstruction of the social world?
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. - ME
You did it again. Marx did not say these words, he said "working men" and "middle class". You make stuff up like all neo-Confederates do. - YOU
It is on things like this that I base my case for your diminished mental capacity. Here is the quote. The words are in bold:
"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world"
It's all there in bold for any sane person to read. If you still deny this you are either blind or lying.
I deny that "communism", proletariate", and every other word you made up were there.
I never said that the words "communism" or "proletariat" were stated by Marx. I did however say that he was speaking of communism and proletariats and that is an indisputable fact. "Working class" = proletariat to Marx. He used them interchangably. When he said ascendency of the proletariats, he meant communism. When he said ascendency of the working class, as was the case in this quote, he meant the exact same thing. Exactly what is so hard about that concept to make it beyond your grasp?
At least I don't add words to people's quotes.
No. You simply deny that they are there when you don't like what the quote says.