Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large

R

rexlunae

New member
fzappa13 said:
Well, if not, this would be a very dull website, no?
Click to expand...

There are differences of opinion, and sometimes that's valid, but in this case, there is an actual fact of the matter. The South did not secede to protect states' rights, no matter how much wishing some people do.
 
F

fzappa13

Well-known member
rexlunae said:
There are differences of opinion, and sometimes that's valid, but in this case, there is an actual fact of the matter. The South did not secede to protect states' rights, no matter how much wishing some people do.
Click to expand...

I understand ... for some reason I have yet to fathom only certain folks opinions are valid on certain subjects in their own mind.


Do yourself a favor and turn off the TV.

Reality awaits you.
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
fzappa13 said:
I understand ... for some reason I have yet to fathom
Click to expand...
The reason you're looking for is fact and supportive argument.

only certain folks opinions
Click to expand...
People with fact and supportive argument on a point.

are valid on certain subjects in their own mind.
Click to expand...
Happens all the time. Say, when a mathematician is arguing physics with a plumber, or a physician is arguing biology with a plumber.

Or, basically anyone with an advanced understanding of a thing is arguing with a plumber. :plain: Unless the subject is plumbing.

And then it's iffy.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Either we take the Confederate founders's words at face value or we don't. They cited perpetuating the institution of slavery as their reason for seceding. So either they didn't mean what they actually said, or they were sincere.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
fzappa13 said:
I understand ... for some reason I have yet to fathom only certain folks opinions are valid on certain subjects in their own mind.


Do yourself a favor and turn off the TV.

Reality awaits you.
Click to expand...

See Town's response.

I really don't see the point in continuing this line of...whatever it is. You haven't yet raised an objection that gets to my actual argument, which was that the Confederate flag alone disproves the revisionist narrative that the Confederacy was about states' rights, and you seem to prefer to try to sidetrack the discussion into irrelevancy. If you'd care to take another stab at what I was actually arguing, I'll respond on that subject, but I'm done talking to you about this.
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
drbrumley said:
Then why are you doing just that?
Click to expand...
He isn't, as my prior set outs and here's a link to the states individual declarations on point.

To remind:

Georgia:
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Click to expand...
So right out of the box they leave little doubt what is at the heart of the conflict.

Mississippi:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
Click to expand...

South Carolina: actually trumpets the overreach of the federal government into its sovereign authority (state's rights) and sets that up nicely. But what is the center of that overreaching? Guess. Or better yet, don't:
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
Click to expand...

Texas:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
Click to expand...

Virginia:
The people of Virginia...having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.
Click to expand...

Alabama:
Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama
Click to expand...
And here's a link to a letter to the Governor of Kentucky from Alabama underscoring the slave trade root in cause.

Excerpt:
It is upon this gigantic interest, this peculiar institution of the South [slavery], that the Northern States and their people have been waging an unrelenting and fanatical war for the last quarter of a century. An institution with which is bound up, not only the wealth and prosperity of the Southern people, but their very existence as a political community.
Click to expand...

Louisiana:
As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of an*nexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.
Click to expand...

And so on. :poly:
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Do neo-Cons actually think Alexander Stephens was lying, mistaken, taken out of context, or...or what, exactly?
 
R

rexlunae

New member
drbrumley said:
Lincoln agreed with him except, well you know, leaving the union.
Click to expand...

Not only is that untrue by Lincoln's own words, the declarations of causes issued by the seceding states that Town just posted contradict it explicitly from the pens of the seceding states. But you think you know better than everyone at the time.

In case you can't read it above, here it is again. Mind you, this is what South Carolina, first state to secede, said about Lincoln and the North:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.



If you can read that, and walk away with the impression that Lincoln felt the same about slavery as the South, then I just don't know what to say to you.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
rexlunae said:
Not only is that untrue by Lincoln's own words, the declarations of causes issued by the seceding states that Town just posted contradict it explicitly from the pens of the seceding states. But you think you know better than everyone at the time.

In case you can't read it above, here it is again. Mind you, this is what South Carolina, first state to secede, said about Lincoln and the North:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.



If you can read that, and walk away with the impression that Lincoln felt the same about slavery as the South, then I just don't know what to say to you.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no clue what about the CSA one thinks is worth defending without being ignorant, or just an outright racist.
 
drbrumley

drbrumley

Well-known member
Granite said:
That's either an outright lie on your part or just insulting ignorance. Sorry, but there's no comparing the men.
Click to expand...


rexlunae said:
Not only is that untrue by Lincoln's own words, the declarations of causes issued by the seceding states that Town just posted contradict it explicitly from the pens of the seceding states. But you think you know better than everyone at the time.

In case you can't read it above, here it is again. Mind you, this is what South Carolina, first state to secede, said about Lincoln and the North:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.



If you can read that, and walk away with the impression that Lincoln felt the same about slavery as the South, then I just don't know what to say to you.
Click to expand...

Corwin Amendment said:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Click to expand...

Lincoln favored it....an AMENDMENT he helped push thru both houses and hand delivered by Lincoln himself to the states.

Also note his words.

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . [H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable"
Click to expand...

Really, Is there any doubt?
 
M

Man.0

Guest
I see this shooting as the wrath/judgment of God.

'There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” ' (Luke 13:1-6)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top