What This Cruel War Was Over

[Jermyn Davidson]

Does anyone care to discuss the merits of this article?

Originalist, this is where you can enter your thoughts about the confederate flag.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...tm_source=SFFB

[good samaritan]

I don't agree with slavery, but in scripture Paul admonishes slaves to do good for their masters. Why is this? I think Paul understood that the greatest things people where slave to was sin. The thing we should be free from is sin. I think the church should try to remain as neutral as possible in these race wars. The Church is a body where blacks and whites have love and respect for one another. We should relinquish our pride from either side of these race wars. Love those who persecute you. That is the message of Jesus Christ and are we his followers. Satan laughs at all the confusion that is caused from this and many such topics. Flags really mean nothing, no matter what is on it. The heart of men is what is important. If this nation would have Holy Ghost revival this wouldn't even be an issue.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Does anyone care to discuss the merits of this article?

Originalist, this is where you can enter your thoughts about the confederate flag.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...tm_source=SFFB

Jermyn, I do not care about southern symbols as much as I do the original construct of this Union as created by the Founders.

But let's consider all the quotes in the article you posted in context.

Ten years of absolute northern hypocrisy on the matter of slavery, and flagrant violations of the south's constitutional rights brought on the crisis. The north thrived off of the taxes from slave labor. It was those taxes that funded the north's massive system of "internal improvements" also known as "corporate welfare". The South did not need the Federal Government for its well being while the north had become completely dependent on it. The north also had imposed harsh tariffs on the south to force them into buying their goods that nobody else in the world wanted. When the south pushed back against this unfair treatment, the north, especially in New England, began to try to entice slaves to rise up and kill white people. Does that sound like "insuring domestic tranquility to you?"While at the same time the north passed laws forbidding even free blacks from migrating into their regions or from partaking in the western homesteading because they saw that a threat to white labor. With the election of a President whose party had promoted a book by Hinton Helper that called for a white slaughter by blacks in the south ("Impending Crisis"), the south knew their security within the Union was a thing of the past, so seven States left. At first the north rejoiced at the south's departure and even defended their right to do so. But six months later when their revenues began to dry up and their economy was on the brink of ruin, they changed their mind and called for war. The States of the upper south did not secede until after Lincoln called for troops, so obviously they were not seceding over "slavery".

Yes, the LOWER South seceded partly over "slavery" but in the context shown above. Let me ask Jermyn. Do you condone slaves being encouraged to commit mass suicide by rising up and trying to slaughter all white people in the South? Was anyone who encouraged them to do such a thing really their friend? I can understand a slave that was brutalized like Frederick Douglas wanting to escape and to see slavery abolished. But would he not become a murderer if he snuck back into the south and began murdering any slave holder he saw, even the ones that were not brutal? That is the context of those times.

Furthermore, while the south did indeed SECEDE in part over slavery, they FOUGHT because they were invaded. That is why we say "the WAR was not about slavery". The north was more adamant than the South that it was not about slavery.

Think of this Jermyn. In February of 1865, the Hampton Roads Peace Conference took place. This was an informal meeting between Lincoln, Sec of State Seward and others on the northern side and various officials on the Confederate side. No notes were allowed to be taken. The following is a partial synopsis of that meeting....

The subject of slavery then came up and Mr. Stephens asked President Lincoln what would be the status of the slave population in the Confederate states, and especially what effect the Emancipation Proclamation would have if the Confederates rejoined the Union. President Lincoln responded that the Proclamation was only a war measure and as soon as the war ceased, it would have no operation for the future. It was his opinion that the Courts would decide that the slaves who were emancipated under the Proclamation would remain free but those who were not emancipated during the war would remain in slavery. Mr. Seward pointed out that only about two hundred thousand (200,000) slaves had come under the operation of the Proclamation and this would be a small number out of the total. Mr. Seward then brought up the point that several days before the meeting, there had been a proposed 13th constitutional amendment to cause the immediate abolition of slavery throughout the United States, but if the war were to cease and the Confederates rejoined the Union, they would have enough votes to kill the amendment. He stated that there would be thirty-six (36) states and ten (10) could defeat the amendment. The reader should be reminded at this point that President Lincoln, in his Inaugural Address before the war, gave his support to the first 13th amendment pending at that time which would have explicitly protected slavery where it already existed.

Mr. Stephens then inquired as to what would be status of the states in regard to their representation in Congress and President Lincoln replied that they would have their full rights restored under the Constitution. This would mean that there would be no punishment or reconstruction imposed. President Lincoln then returned to the slavery question and stated that it was never his intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed and he would not have done so during the war, except that it became a military necessity. He had always been in favor of prohibiting the extension of slavery into the territories but never thought immediate emancipation in the states where it already existed was practical. He thought there would be "many evils attending" the immediate ending of slavery in those states. Judge Campbell then asked Mr. Seward if he thought there would be good race relations in the South upon immediate emancipation and inquired about what would happen to the freed slaves. President Lincoln responded by telling an anecdote about an Illinois farmer and how he avoided any effort in finding food for his hogs, and his method would apply to the freed slaves, in other words "let'em root!" The Confederate delegation showed no interest in protecting slavery in the Confederacy with their only interest being independence from the Union and the protection of the right to secede

Think of what transpired there! The South was being baited back into the Union with a good change of killing the 13th Amendment and turned it down!! Shortly after they began freeing slaves to join the army and fight the invaders! When they had to choose between keeping slavery or gaining independence they chose the latter.

This I know. This Union was CREATED by 13 former colonies of Britain that had EACH had become an independent State. In other words, each one was a republic. Those States formed a union for specific purposes. They never surrendered their sovereignty upon entering this compact. They retained the right to go it alone if they felt that was in their best interests in the future. These feelings were just as strong in the north as they were in the south...until...1861. The States now are viewed as mere provinces of the central power that will be drug over the cliff into global domination unless they wake up and realize who and what they are. We are NOT "one NATION". We are a compact of free republics. The south did not invent that idea and the civil war did not change it.

So why did the north not want the south to leave? The editorials of the day in northern newspapers say it all.....

"The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage...If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched." ---New York Times March 30, 1861

________________________________________

"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." " ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861

________________________________________

From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?"
"That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad.... If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.....Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports. ---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.

Keep in mind that prior to economic reality setting in, the north had defended the rights of the the first southern States to secede. The upper south did not secede until Lincoln called for troops, thus they didn't secede over slavery.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don't agree with slavery, but in scripture Paul admonishes slaves to do good for their masters. Why is this? I think Paul understood that the greatest things people where slave to was sin. The thing we should be free from is sin. I think the church should try to remain as neutral as possible in these race wars. The Church is a body where blacks and whites have love and respect for one another. We should relinquish our pride from either side of these race wars. Love those who persecute you. That is the message of Jesus Christ and are we his followers. Satan laughs at all the confusion that is caused from this and many such topics. Flags really mean nothing, no matter what is on it. The heart of men is what is important. If this nation would have Holy Ghost revival this wouldn't even be an issue.

Paul said that because to NOT would jeopardize their lives and the lives of the church as well as be a bad witness to potential slave masters coming to Christ.

[Praxeas]

That flag is and has been a symbol of WHITE southern Pride. When they say "Heritage", that goes back before Civil rights when blacks could not drink from the same water fountain.

It goes back to the civil war which was over the state's RIGHTS to own slaves.

It needs to be removed from government buildings

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That flag is and has been a symbol of WHITE southern Pride. When they say "Heritage", that goes back before Civil rights when blacks could not drink from the same water fountain.

It goes back to the civil war which was over the state's RIGHTS to own slaves.

It needs to be removed from government buildings

It's a symbol of SOUTHERN pride, not WHITE southern pride.

And the states rights that were fought over, was the right to leave the union. The "right" to own slaves was not legally being questioned.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Paul said that because to NOT would jeopardize their lives and the lives of the church as well as be a bad witness to potential slave masters coming to Christ.

I agree with you. That wasn't the focus of my post though. This whole issue is built upon hate. Both sides are at fault, but we the church are to beacons of light and not ring leaders to bring about more hate.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Lets all do mental gymnastics now and pretend it wasnt about slavery.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It's a symbol of SOUTHERN pride, not WHITE southern pride.

And the states rights that were fought over, was the right to leave the union. The "right" to own slaves was not legally being questioned.

Lincoln knew he couldnt and wouldnt outlaw slavery. Thats why he and others wanted to make sure new states werent slave states. The slave states were scared of the fact that the new states were going to be anti slave states and that the slaves states would be out numbered and not have an equal say in things. Again, slavery was at the heart of everything. The succession and the war.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Lets all do mental gymnastics now and pretend it wasnt about slavery.

If the Duggar boy had been your 14 year old son, how would you have wanted your friends, family and church to treat him? Huh?


Until you answer that question that you RAN from for several weeks, we don't want to hear one thing you have to say about the Confederate flag.