Was it biblical for the South to attempt to break away from the North?

Jessie said,

"I have to be honest. I get really touchy about the 'War of Northern Agression', so I won't be commenting much after this post, and maybe I won't put my foot in my mouth."

Same here. I know many of you have probably been waiting for the ol' Rebel here to comment. But to be honest, I have nothing much to say, myself. As to whether it was biblical or unbiblical, it was neither.

Enough said.

From the Southland,
Rebel [><]

 

Hey now! The granny went & found one of her little girl's posts, but will add these words:

DEO VINDICE! RESURGAM! AND THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!

Written by "Farmer's Wife"...

The phrase 'resistance to tyranny is obedience to God' was first 'coined' by William Tyndale...(if I'm not mistaken)...and later repeated by Thomas Jefferson. This phrase was important in the reason our early forefathers came to America in the first place and why they fought England! The 'true' preachers of the 1700's preached the truth about the Christian's responsibility to the civil magistrates.

If you will read the King James Bible concerning this, Romans 13:1 says,"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Now, I ask you, WHO is the highest power? GOD! All of our 'higher powers' in America have a soul(s)...so, therefore, are subject unto the Higher Power, GOD. If they are not obeying God then we are NOT to obey them! Acts 5:29, KJBible, "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

(Bringing this down on a 'home' level...children are to obey their parents as long as their parents are obeying God. Wives are to obey their husbands as long as the husband is obeying God. If either command the other to sin then they should be RESISTED and God should be obeyed. This unlimited submission to the civil magistrates teaching would be the same as if you taught a wife to continue to obey her husband if he has asked her to sin or if he is beating her...same holds true for the children. BUT, no one dares suggest that...so why insist on the same where the civil magistrates are concerned?!)

Look at all the examples set forth in the Bible...Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Daniel, Mordecai, the apostles in the New Testament, etc. Nowhere in the Bible did God instuct us to give unlimited submission to the civil magistrates! That is Catholic lie that has permeated most Baptist churches.

I encourage you to go back and read some of those sermons of the Chaplain's and Clergy of the 1700's! England taught that the King was law. But our forefathers held to belief that the Law was King (Lex Rex). What Law? The Bible! 'No King but Jesus!' was the cry of the martyrs!

 

No, in my opinion, the South was not within Biblical grounds to do so.
www.kusd.edu has a page on "The Unionists' Views on Secession" that spells out part of my reasons very clearly.

"The Southern secessionist argues that the states voluntarily joined the Union and, in theory, could voluntarily leave the Union if they voluntarily joined. However, the states did not merely join the Union and accept the Constitution as their temporary authority. The states signed under Article VII of the Constitution, which reads: "The Ratification of the states shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution." The states did not simply "join" the Union. The states RATIFIED the Constitution. That is they established the Constitution as their permanent form of government.....

Article VI, Clause III reads: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath to support this constitution." The entire government of a state would have violated the Constitution by seceding.
There is more, but some of the biblical principles include keeping covenants and one's word and using all legal means first to redress grievances. Not by attacking the U.S. at Fort Sumter.

On a different thread I posted a link to the secession statements of the various Southern states. Yes, states' rights were heavily involved in their decisions. Their states' rights to own slaves, which ability they saw under attack. Sure, there were multiple causes, but slavery was a major issue. See http://bessel.org/slavecw.htm

And MANY northerners saw it as a deeply moral issue, using a lot of the same concepts that pro-life people do now.

And segregation remained a lightning rod issue.
Witness the federal troops that had to be called in to Ole Miss in 1962 when James Meredith tried to enter. I think it is disingenuous to blame it all on Yankees and their "War of Northern Aggression".

I recommend the recent book, Founding Brothers.
Shows how the founding fathers deeply realized the divisive nature of the slavery issue and made compromises in order to found the Union, that simply postponed dealing with it.

Karen ( a descendant of three northern Civil War soldiers - including one who died in battle)

P.S. If you are amazed this is still such an issue after so long, try spending as much time in England as I have. The Scottish and English still are mad about William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, and that was about 1300.

 

The United States of America was born in rebellion. The colonies broke away from the England over the issue of money. The colonist's cry was, "No taxation without representation." The biblical christians at that time would have known Romans 13 and the sin of the american revolution.

The American civil war was primarily the issue of states rights, and parallels what the Revolution was about. "I want to control my own life."

It is a natural thing to desire, and we all have that disease. It was a fruit of America's selfishness that grew from its inception.
No man has the right to shed blood for his own freedom.

 

(message removed after re-thinking my stand of 'no comment')

[ December 05, 2002, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Jessie ]

 

Another battle cry was "No king but Jesus!" The biblical Christians of the time would have (and did) see that the unholy union of the monarchy and Church of England created unbearable oppression of true worship.

The desire to have moral freedom and liberty of conscience is consistent with the Bible. "I want to control my own life" is just as valid as "I will submit to the government no matter how immoral its basis."

 

A link to Founding Brothers,which won the Pulitzer Prize.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/0375405/002-1031347-9013659
I give up. Go to amazon.com if interested, and type in Founding Brothers.

Karen

[ December 05, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Karen ]

 

"No king but Jesus" was what they cried out in their battles, but it wasn't the reason why they went to war. The issue that moved the colonies to insurrection was not moral freedom, or a desire for a pure religion, but good old fashioned greed.