Of course not, but that's not the argument you made. Analogies are not your strong suit. You said the war wasn't about slavery. That is patently false. The war was about slavery, regardless of the politics of individual soldiers. I doubt even they would make the argument you are making.
The video addresses all of your arguments. They are completely debunked. It was about slavery. Period.
Did America sin declaring independance from Britain?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Calminian, Oct 23, 2019.
Page 3 of 8
-
Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
We will have to agree to disagree. -
-
The Civil War was definitely about slavery, in that it was the motivating factor behind secession, which then led to armed conflict. For the North, initially, it was about preservation of the Union, and slavery ended up being more of a factor as the war dragged on. For the South, though, the reason for secession was to preserve the institution of slavery.
South Carolina (Dec. 24, 1860):
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
(bold emphasis mine)
-
Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
And it's not just South Carolina---
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia (Jan 29, 1861), starting with the first sentences
(bold emphasis mine)
-
Yes It ended it. Maybe not to every ones satisfaction but it ended it. -
It did start the ball rolling, for sure, but the Constitution did have to be amended first. After all, there were slave states that never left the Union. -
Paul said that rulers are not a terror to good works.
When one in power does become a terror to good works, he is no longer a ruler, but a tyrant. Were the saints right to resist the Beast when he made war with them? -
-
You dont think he was lying, do you? -
I'm not trying to make the case that the EP didn't accomplish anything, etc. Of course it did. It effectively made abolition one of the main goals of the war effort, and it began liberating slaves every time Union forces took control of an area.
I'm only saying that the EP was the first legal step.
For the occupied territory, an executive order was sufficient to emancipate the slaves legally. Obviously, the former slaves didn't experience freedom until they were under Union control, but their legal status, from the perspective of the US government, had changed as of the effective date of the EP.
For the slave states not in rebellion, though, something more than an executive order was needed. Slavery was still legal and remained so until outlawed at the state level or by the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.
My point for all this is not to diminish the importance of the EP. It was definitely a watershed order. Lincoln did all he could do at the time, and, in the EP, he set the nation on a clear course for total abolition.
I certainly do not want to create the impression that I think Lincoln's order was emancipation-in-name-only or materially defective. I think it was a very astute way to provide legitimate legal justification eventually to free the vast majority of slaves. -
-
Steven Yeadon Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
BTW, thanks for bringing the topic back to the OP.
I'm not sure Paul's admonition to obey governments covered the issue of how nations are fought for and birthed. Israel itself was birthed quite violently. -
Steven Yeadon Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Paul was not laying out any laws about settling in particular lands. He was telling Christians that wherever they moved to they were to respect local governments that were already established in those lands. God divided the nations according to lands and languages by breaking up an empire, and empires do tend to crumble when they get too big. Seems to be part of a natural law. -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
As I've seen this debate over the years, many anti-Independence folks do not take into consideration some factors.
- They fail to see the conflict in a continuum dating back to the English Civil War through the Glorious Revolution.
- They fail to see the initial Contientlal position as just seeking their rights as free-born Englishmen.
- They fail to see London's ham-handedness in the years leading up to the Revolution.
-
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Actually research Old Abe's own words, and you will find he would have left the slaves in their chains in order to "preserve the Union".
If that was achieved without the freeing of slaves, it would have been so. He stated so himself on numerous occasions.
Had a Southern State laid down arms (even after the Proclamation) they would have kept their slaves.
Therefore:
1.) Freeing slaves was not his purpose
2.) Later Political measures had to be taken in order to actually abolish slavery.
Two things can easily be deduced from this:
1.) Lincoln did not fight "TO free the slaves"
2.) The EP did not free them.....later measures were required to do so.
Those are facts, rather you want to make snarky juvenile swipes or not. -
Page 3 of 8