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.
Britain, the US, and Israel are the prophetic Israel that God will fight for in the battles of Armageddon and Hamongog.
He said in rather explicit terms that his kingdom was not of this world.
You're confusing Jesus' kingdom with prophetic Israel.
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.
No the legislatures commissioned these Declarations.
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.
Yep. Conventions commissioned by the legislatures.
Not all of them. Some detail grievances about the abusive strength of the federal government.
Against slavery.
The territorial ones cite different causes entirely, such as the failure to provide frontier protection and mail services in the far west.
So secession was for mail?
The action of dividing Virginia was legally wrong - it violated the constitution.
This was Lincoln's doings?
Suspending habeas corpus was legally wrong - it violated the constitution.
The Constitution does not forbid the president from doing this.
Usurping and ignoring the judicial authority was legally wrong - it violated the constitution.
The Constitution gives the president the power to preserve it.
Disregarding the civil liberties of citizens was legally wrong - it violated the bill of rights.
The Constitution does not forbid the president from suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus.
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.
The Constitution says the powers granted went to the legislature. That section dealt with what wasn't granted.
He facilitated it and permitted it.
But was it his doings?
No it wasn't. Only Congress can do that under the constitution.
The Constitution does not forbid the president from doing this.
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.
He wasn't impeached so his actions stand.
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.
Nope, he can be impeached by Congress. He wasn't, his actions stand.
Yeah. Newspapers. They are among the most detailed sources of historical information available to us.
Written by individuals! Should we now read the NYT editorial page to find an accurate description of average American opinion? I didn't think so.
...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).
Or they could've commissioned their own declarations. They didn't so they supported the ones that were there.
Your implication is exactly that when you act to dismiss something you disagree with in the historical record of documents.
I dismiss your adding of the words "communist" and "proletariate".
He did push abolition though and abolition was part of the political dialogue. Therefore he was not inconsequencial.
Inconsequential to me.
Simply saying that does not make it so.
It does to me.
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.
I've considered his arguments. The South was in rebellion for slavery therefore they deserved to lose. Simple.
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.
You're making things up. What do you want me to resolve?
So you believe that sinful actions to achieve a percieved good end are justified by that end?
Defeating the South wasn't sin.
I ask because if so, you are asserting a doctrine in conflict with Christian ethics.
David lied to avoid capture by Saul. Was this right? In any case, defeating the South wasn't a sin. They rebelled for slavery and then attacked us. They got what they deserved.
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.
Genesis prophesies for the last days. We are Israel. God renamed Manasseh and Ephraim as Israel. We are Manasseh and Britain is Ephraim. Read this to get my opinion on this issue. I am in almost total agreement with this site.
Yeah. You got caught building straw men. I'm sorry if you do not like it but that is not of my concern.
Oh, OK. LOL
You have claimed this many times yet not once have you made a sound case.
He did not say "communist", or "proletariate".
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.
Show me whaere the word "communist" appears in that quote.
When those quotes themselves assert falsehoods as is regularly the case.
How is this?
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.
Was he?
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?
Because I've never read his words. I don't read one man's opinion. You say that's what he meant. I think if that's what he meant, he would've said it. You've gotten everything else wrong that I don't trust your judgment on anything.
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 do not see the words "communist", or proletariate" in that quote. Those are words that you made up to spruce it up.
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.
A fact? LOL Why didn't he just say "communist", or "proletariate"? You made those words up to add to the quote.
"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?
That game could be played with anything. I could say that anytime Davis said "freedom", that he meant "freedom to practice slavery". Why don't we just stick to the real quotes like Walt does instead of changing them to suit our agenda? You neo-Confederates just like to make things up all the time. I guess it's because the truth isn't on your side.
No. You simply deny that they are there when you don't like what the quote says.
Where have I denied that "working men" and "middle class" exist in the quote?