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.
Then why do you post it to me?
Jesus' kingdom comes when heaven is on earth. God's country exists in our flesh world because He said we are His people.
Being God's people does not mean that providence gives its seal of sanction to all of our political activies.
That's Christianity 101.
Not really. Christianity 101 entails the recognition of original sin and its lasting effects combined with action to avoid those sins where possible by acting morally and welcome their forgiveness by our creator when they occur. Goofy speculative theories about divine sanction for a political state are far removed from that basis.
All four said slavery was the reason for secession and any states joining them was joining their cause unless otherwise declared
That is a non sequitur. Try again.
Nope
Yes. It is a non-sequitur. No necessary connection exists between your premise and the conclusion you purport from it. Your argument does not logically follow and is therefore invalid. If you do not like that, reconstruct your argument to where its premises lead to its conclusion.
How much of each?
Well, the congress votes on bills and the president signs them...
The Constitution says the powers granted in Aticle I were for Congress. Section 9 listed what was not granted.
Section 9 Clause 2 lists a retained privilege of the people while granting the lone method in which that privilege may be suspended. It therefore grants a power under those prescribed circumstances - the power of suspension.
The Congress is the check on the president.
Yeah. And so is the judiciary. The judiciary conducted its check on Lincoln. He ignored that check and accordingly violated the constitution by doing so.
It's Law!!! If the word "granted" is in law it is to be followed.
And the Constitution grants the legislature alone with the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus under certain prescribed circumstances. So what is your point?
Any power granted would be of the Congress. Section 9 is clealy a section that lists what is not granted.
No. Section 9 lists clauses that share in that they are restrictions upon what may be done, but contained within the restriction on habeas corpus a power to suspend that writ is granted under the specified circumstances. Since Section 9 is in Article I, the grant of that suspension power is to the legislature.
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.
It's still a non-sequitur. If you do not like that, fix your argument. Otherwise quit posting it and don't complain.
The Congress has the power to impeach, not the judiciary.
And the judiciary has the power to declare acts of the other two branches unconstitutional. That is its check. The judiciary did that to Lincoln. He ignored it. He therefore violated the constitutional authority of the judiciary.
So South Carolina didn't begin secession?
They did, but in doing so they acted alone. Alabama hosted the formation of the confederacy after other states, acting alone, also seceded.
To deny that secession was for slavery is to deny reality.
Prove your case of the sole reason then. To date you have been insufficient in your evidence for previously noted reasons. If you cannot offer anything more, you have no right to whine about it.
You said to replace the words in the quote with your made up words.
Where? Either prove your case or don't shoot your mouth off in the first place.
So why didn't he say proletariat if that's what he meant.
Because a synonym suffices. If I call you "stupid," do you ask why I did not instead call you "mentally slow"? No. Because both convey the same meaning. In marxian writings, the same goes for "worker" and "proletariat." The two are synonyms - they are different words that mean the same thing. What is it about that amazingly simple concept that you cannot grasp?
I listen long enough to determine if it's idiocy.
Not according to your earlier actions. You dismissed and ignored a brief two-paragraph quote from Spooner because you did not like it. That means you couldn't even "listen" for two paragraphs before shutting your eyes.
Spooner must not've realized that the union was preserved.
In other words, you did not read his quote. He recognizes that the country itself was retained intact. He attacks the legitimacy of the means in which it was retained.
I'm dismissing him because the result of the North's victory was preservation of the union. That's reality and Spooner denied it.
Where? It looks to me as if Spooner had many grievances with the way the union was retained. It is implicit in any such complaint that he knew the union to have been retained. Otherwise he would not have been able to complain about the methods used to retain it. Are you truly so stupid as to not comprehend that?
We seceded for freedom. The South seceded for slavery.
The south asserted the right to self government. Is that not freedom? The colonies asserted the maintanence of slavery. Is that not the system you decry?
There's no such thing as bible codes.
But you're convinced that America is the promised land?
So is Lee responsible for the murders of union prisoners?
In the cases they occurred and so long as they were under his command, he bears some responsibility.
More northern troops were murdered than southern troops.
The official records of the US government say otherwise. More southern POW's died in yankee hands than all of the northern POW's who died down south.