And for the rest of us that's supposed to mean exactly what?
My original statement is that America is God's country.
So you think America is God's country? Prove it then.
God's country and Jesus' kingdom are two different things.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Since you do not have divine inspiration in your writings and since your theological grounding has been demonstrated as weak at best, I do not see how it is possible for you to conclusively assert this as a truth.
We are prophetic Israel and this is God's country until the end.
And you know that exactly how?
They were commissioned by the legislatures to declare the reason for secession.
No they weren't. The conventions themselves were commissioned by the legislatures to carry out secession. In those four states, the conventions chose to adopt among themselves a non-statutory declaration of their causes in addition to seceding. To assert anything more than that, as you do, is to lie. But as you have also shown, you seem to see no moral wrong in the act of lying on a regular basis.
All the declarations say slavery was the reason.
There are only 4 states with declarations of the sort to begin with, and one of those states also had a popular referendum that adopted DIFFERENT reasons, not one of which was slavery. You are truly grasping at straws.
If any state would've disagreed with these declarations, they woul've commissioned their own.
Such an assertion is a non-sequitur. Your conclusion that they would have adopted other declarations does not follow from your premise of agreement. It is therefore an invalid argument.
But was it Lincoln's doings?
His and the congress.
You left out the word "granted". But that's not surprising. You neo-Confederates cannot tell the whole truth because truth is not on your side.
Exactly what in the world does the word "granted" have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't rebut anything I said, nor does it show a falsehood on my part. It does show dishonest motives on your part though as you are obviously playing games of semantical bullsh*t artistry.
He wasn't impeached, therefore he acted according to the preservation of the Constitution.
That's another non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Heck, your conclusion does not even seem to have any significant connection with your premise!
Again you have left out the word "granted". Funny how you keep doing that.
It is not nearly as funny as how obsessed you are with the word "granted" to the point that you seem to consider me a participant in a conspiracy to exclude it from this discussion. Forgive me for digressing, but I simply do not see what is so special about that otherwise ordinary word that has attracted you to it. Then again, you aren't of very sound mind so I suppose I should expect it.
No need to try again. If he wasn't impeached by the legislature, then his actions stand.
That's another non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Therefore there remains a need for you to try again.
The legislature is the check on the president.
No. It is one of many checks. Another is the judiciary, which can rule presidential actions unconstitutional. That happened to Lincoln and he unconstitutionally refused to abide by the decision.
Editorials aren't the place to look for any official words.
No. They're the places to look for samples of various types of popular opinion.
Counties? LOL
Yes. Counties. Some even tried to secede on their own when their states were delaying.
The seceded states joined the states that issued Declarations.
On the flip side one could just as easily say that the states that issued the declarations joined the seceded states. In fact that would probably be more accurate because the confederate government was organized in Alabama. Alabama did not issue a declaration, though the 4 states that did came to Alabama to join the confederacy with all the other states that did not.
Secession was for slavery
Repeating that over and over as you do no more makes it so than waving your arms up and down over and over will give you flight. Try again.
You said to ignore the words that were quoted and to add your made up words.
Fib as you may, the record of this thread indicates otherwise. Fibbing is a sin, you know, and for someone who purports his faith so openly, you sure do sin a lot.
If he meant that, he would've said that.
But that is the point - he did say it. He used proletariat and working class interchangably as synonymous terms meaning the same thing. It appears over and over and over and over and over in the multi-hundred page volumes on communism he composed over his lifetime.
No, I'm just not as easily swayed by a subtle tongue as others.
People who shut their eyes on the world will never be swayed by any tongue of any degree. You have already admitted repeatedly that you opt to shut your eyes to the world. it has to agree with reality or I dismiss anything said as idiocy.
Persons who would not recognize reality upon finding it glued to their foreheads have little basis on which to evaluate consistency of a thought with reality. You are one such person. It therefore follows that you lack the ability to make such an evaluation.
Spooner was an idiot.
Seeing as you lack the ability to accurately determine that, your claim can be dismissed as nonsensical and uncredentialed.
He said that the cause of preserving the union was a sham. That qualifies him in my book as an idiot
In other words, you are doing exactly what you claim not to have done - you are dismissing him because you do not like what he says.
The South committed rebellion and attacked the United States after doing so. They got what they deserved.
The United States at one time committed rebellion and attacked Britain after doing so. Did they also deserve to be crushed and murdered by King George? Or do you conveniently have at hand some goofy speculative secret bible code that somehow makes that little rebellion different? And you can't lay every wartime malfeasance on Lincoln. That's intellectually dishonest.
A commander is responsible for his army as a captain is responsible for his ship. The buck ultimately stops with each. In Lincoln's army, sin and abuse went well beyond a tolerable degree and in fact was encouraged by several of the top commanders. Lincoln is therefore ultimately responsible for those sins.
So David should've allowed himself to be executed by Saul on false charges?
That's a nice straw man, but it is one you built, not me.
Read the site. There is a clear migration of the Israelites to America and Britain.
...so you may believe. It is still speculation on your part of a type that resembles speculation by hundreds of fallen kings and countries that once claimed themselves to be the exact same thing.
I don't care what it means for you.
So you think America is God's country? Prove it then.
It's too long to explain, read the site. My opinion is mostly the same. It documents the movements of the Israelites into the UK and America.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Since you do not have divine inspiration in your writings and since your theological grounding has been demonstrated as weak at best, I do not see how it is possible for you to conclusively assert this as a truth.
Jesus' kingdom comes when heaven is on earth. God's country exists in our flesh world because He said we are His people. That's Christianity 101. You are biblically illiterate.
And you know that exactly how?
It's too long to explain, read the site.
No they weren't. The conventions themselves were commissioned by the legislatures to carry out secession. In those four states, the conventions chose to adopt among themselves a non-statutory declaration of their causes in addition to seceding. To assert anything more than that, as you do, is to lie. But as you have also shown, you seem to see no moral wrong in the act of lying on a regular basis.
You just said the same thing I did. The legislature commissioned the conventions. The conventions issued the Declarations.
There are only 4 states with declarations of the sort to begin with, and one of those states also had a popular referendum that adopted DIFFERENT reasons, not one of which was slavery. You are truly grasping at straws.
All four said slavery was the reason for secession and any states joining them was joining their cause unless otherwise declared, and they did not otherwise declare.
Such an assertion is a non-sequitur. Your conclusion that they would have adopted other declarations does not follow from your premise of agreement. It is therefore an invalid argument.
Nope, any state joining their cause to perpetuate slavery was attempting to achieve those ends.
His and the congress.
How much of each?
Exactly what in the world does the word "granted" have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't rebut anything I said, nor does it show a falsehood on my part. It does show dishonest motives on your part though as you are obviously playing games of semantical bullsh*t artistry.
The Constitution says the powers granted in Aticle I were for Congress. Section 9 listed what was not granted.
That's another non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Heck, your conclusion does not even seem to have any significant connection with your premise!
The Congress is the check on the president. It's up to them to hold the president responsible if he acts illegally. Lincoln wasn't impeached so the Congress felt he acted appropriately in his duty to protect the Constitution.
It is not nearly as funny as how obsessed you are with the word "granted" to the point that you seem to consider me a participant in a conspiracy to exclude it from this discussion.
It's Law!!! If the word "granted" is in law it is to be followed.
Forgive me for digressing, but I simply do not see what is so special about that otherwise ordinary word that has attracted you to it. Then again, you aren't of very sound mind so I suppose I should expect it.
Any power granted would be of the Congress. Section 9 is clealy a section that lists what is not granted. Do you always ignore words that are printed clearly in law? Oh yeah, you're a neo-Confederate, you ignore what doesn't fit your agenda.
That's another non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Therefore there remains a need for you to try again.
The Congress is the check on the president to hold him accountable if he overreacts in his duty to protect the Constitution. Lincoln wasn't impeached so he acted appropriately.
No. It is one of many checks. Another is the judiciary, which can rule presidential actions unconstitutional. That happened to Lincoln and he unconstitutionally refused to abide by the decision.
The Congress has the power to impeach, not the judiciary.
No. They're the places to look for samples of various types of popular opinion.
Mostly inconsequencial.
Yes. Counties. Some even tried to secede on their own when their states were delaying.
LOL
On the flip side one could just as easily say that the states that issued the declarations joined the seceded states. In fact that would probably be more accurate because the confederate government was organized in Alabama. Alabama did not issue a declaration, though the 4 states that did came to Alabama to join the confederacy with all the other states that did not.
So South Carolina didn't begin secession?
Repeating that over and over as you do no more makes it so than waving your arms up and down over and over will give you flight. Try again.
To deny that secession was for slavery is to deny reality. That's nothing new to you neo-Confederates though, is it?
Fib as you may, the record of this thread indicates otherwise. Fibbing is a sin, you know, and for someone who purports his faith so openly, you sure do sin a lot.
You said to replace the words in the quote with your made up words.
But that is the point - he did say it. He used proletariat and working class interchangably as synonymous terms meaning the same thing. It appears over and over and over and over and over in the multi-hundred page volumes on communism he composed over his lifetime.
So why didn't he say proletariat if that's what he meant. If he meant proletariat, he would've said it.
People who shut their eyes on the world will never be swayed by any tongue of any degree. You have already admitted repeatedly that you opt to shut your eyes to the world.
I listen long enough to determine if it's idiocy. Reality deniers are idiots.
Persons who would not recognize reality upon finding it glued to their foreheads have little basis on which to evaluate consistency of a thought with reality. You are one such person. It therefore follows that you lack the ability to make such an evaluation.
You're the one that can't admit that slavery was the cause of secession.
Seeing as you lack the ability to accurately determine that, your claim can be dismissed as nonsensical and uncredentialed.
Spooner must not've realized that the union was preserved. LOL Idiocy.
In other words, you are doing exactly what you claim not to have done - you are dismissing him because you do not like what he says.
I'm dismissing him because the result of the North's victory was preservation of the union. That's reality and Spooner denied it.
The United States at one time committed rebellion and attacked Britain after doing so. Did they also deserve to be crushed and murdered by King George?
We seceded for freedom. The South seceded for slavery. Big difference.
Or do you conveniently have at hand some goofy speculative secret bible code that somehow makes that little rebellion different?
There's no such thing as bible codes.
A commander is responsible for his army as a captain is responsible for his ship. The buck ultimately stops with each.
So is Lee responsible for the murders of union prisoners?
In Lincoln's army, sin and abuse went well beyond a tolerable degree and in fact was encouraged by several of the top commanders. Lincoln is therefore ultimately responsible for those sins.
More northern troops were murdered than southern troops. Were Lee and Davis responsible?
That's a nice straw man, but it is one you built, not me.
You said that sin should not be committed to do right. Then you said David committed sin when he lied in the act of saving himself. Are you going to stand by your claim or not? I said David's lies were covert activity for self-preservation against evil and therefore not sin.
...so you may believe.
So I know.
It is still speculation on your part of a type that resembles speculation by hundreds of fallen kings and countries that once claimed themselves to be the exact same thing.
We're not fallen as the South so painfully learned. It's near the end. We, the UK, and Israel are prophetic Israel as made clear in that site which I almost totally agree with.
Look around.
Walt