[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Historical Title: Lincoln Starts a War
Lincoln Starts a War by nolu chan There can be no doubt that Lincoln waited for the Senate to adjourn and began a war as soon as it was out of session. He did not call them back into session until July 4, 1861 when the war was a fait accompli. He then delivered a message to the special session of congress where he lied his ass off. Within 8 days of taking office, orders of March 12, 1861 issued from the Lincoln administration to reinforce Fort Pickens and thereby violate the armistice that was in effect. These orders to Army Captain Vogdes were delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861 and then delivered by USS Crusader on March 31, 1861. Capt. Vogdes delivered them to Navy Captain Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders. There is an interesting sequence of events.
SOURCES:Courtesy of Cornell University Library, Making of America Digital Collection. [1] Title: Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion; Series I - Volume 4: Operations in the Gulf of Mexico (November 15, 1860 - June 7, 1861); Operations on the Atlantic Coast (January 1, 1861 - May 13, 1861); Operations on the Potamac and Rappahannock Rivers (January 5, 1861 - December 7, 1861) [2] Title: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies; Series 1 - Volume 1 [3] A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
BREAKING THE ARMISTICE -- MARCH 12, 1861One Month Before Events at Fort Sumter
Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol 1, Chap. 4, p. 360 [2]
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Delivery of these orders was delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861. They were delivered via USS Crusader to Capt. Vogdes, off Pensacola, on March 31, 1861, and by Capt. Vogdes to Navy Capt. Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders issued by General Scott, asserting it would violate a binding agreement and "would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war."
THE SENATE ADJOURNEDMarch 28, 1861
SENATE JOURNAL, March 25, 1861 [3]
Resolved, That the President be requested, if, in his opinion, not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the dispatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department during the time he has been in command at Fort Sumter.
SENATE JOURNAL, March 27, 1861
The following message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Nicolay, his Secretary:
END of the Senate Journal for March 28, 1861:
Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make.
THE NEXT DAY LINCOLN GOT BUSY INITIATING WAR.
Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and commenced to initiate a war.
Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 227
Order from the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Navy, regarding cooperation with the War Department for active service.
The memorandum attached called for: From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores. From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 107-8
April 1, 1861 by General Scott
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 232
Letter from Secretary of War to G. V. Fox, esq., assigning him to command expedition for the relief of Fort Sumter.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 232-3
Instructions from Lieutenant-General Scott, U. S. Army, to Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, U. S. Army, regarding expedition for reenforcement of Fort Sumter.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110
April 1, 1861
Capt Adams report (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109-10) [1] Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:
The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110-11 The Secretary of the Navy issued a CLASSIFIED response to Capt. Adams:
April 6, 1861 April 11, 1861 - USS Supply -- Ships Log (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 210)
"April 11th at 9 P.M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens."
Lincoln relieved Captain Mercer of command of the USS Powhatan. This was coordinated with Secretary of State Seward. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles was not informed. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109
Order of the President of the United States to Captain Mereer, U. S. Navy, detaching him from the command of U S. S. Powhatan.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 108
April 1, 1861
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 108
April 1, 1861
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109
April 1, 1861
April 5, 1861 - Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles sends orders to Captain Mercer of the USS Powhatan, not knowing about the secret orders of Seward/Lincoln. Lincoln relieved Captain Mercer four days before, on April Fool's Day. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 235
Confidential instructions from the Secretary of the Navy to Captain Mercer, U. S. Navy, commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, regarding expedition to Fort Sumter.
April 6, 1861 - Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed, pursuant to secret orders of Seward/Lincoln. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles found out and had a fit. The Powhatan was the flagship for the Navy operation going to Fort Sumter. Seward/Lincoln took the flagship, and the troops intended to reinforce Fort Sumter, and sent them off on an Atlantic cruise, eventually showing up near Pensacola, Florida.
Seward sent a telegram to Porter: Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112
"Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer. Seward."
A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message.
Lt. Porter responded to Seward: Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112
"I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them."
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112
Before leaving, Lt. Porter instructed the Navy Yard officials,
"Detain all letters for five days."
Storms and boiler problems delayed Powhatan, but she arrived disguised and flying English colors. When the Powhatan, sort of detached from the Navy and under the State Department, arrived off Florida, it was stopped dead in its tracks by the U.S. Navy which stood in her way and refused to permit her to proceed. Lt. Porter filed this report, April 21, 1861:
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 122
Report of Lieutenant Porter, U. S. Navy, commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, of the arrival of that vessel off Pensacola, and giving reasons for not having entered that harbor.
Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol 1, Chap 4, page 368-70 [2]
APRIL 3, 1861.
Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 1, page 368
U. S. TRANSPORT ATLANTIC,
See also the ship's log of the USS Supply. The link goes to the official records. The Union forces started landing near Fort Pickens during the night of April 11, 1861 before shots were fired at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. USS SUPPLY -- SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861 (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 210 [1]
April 7. -- Came to anchor in the harbor of Pensacola.
Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 1, page 191 [2]
CHAP. I.] CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.—UNION. 191
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 90
Order from Lieutenant-General Scott, U. S. Army, to Captain Vodges,
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 107-8 [1]
Order of General Scott, U. S. Army, to Colonel Brown, U. S. Army, appointed to command Department of Florida, regarding reenforcement of Fort Pickens.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109-110 [1]
Report of Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, transmitting communication from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, regarding cooperation for the protection of Fort Pickens.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Volume 4, page 117
Letter from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Fla., to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding violation of armistice.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Volume 4, page 117
Letter from Brigadier-General Bragg, C. S. Army, commanding Confederate troops near Pensacola, to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding violation of armistice. - - - - - Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-29) not displayed.
[Pinguinite #24] Sending them somewhere/anywhere was certainly his desire for at least part of his career. Yes, the last part, up until approximately April 12, 1865. Shortly before that Lincoln met with General Benjamin Butler about what to do with the freed slaves. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 577-79:
In the spring of 1863, I had another conversation with President Lincoln upon the subject of the employment of negroes. The question was, whether all the negro troops then enlisted and organized should be collected together and made a part of the Army of the Potomac and thus reinforce it. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903: In April 1865, Lincoln to General Butler:
But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves. Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln, Collected and Edited by Allen Thorndike Rice, Published by North American Review, 1888, Reminiscence of Benjamim F. Butler, Reminiscence of Benjamim F. Butler, pp. 150-154:
Lincoln was very much disturbed after the surrender of Lee, and he had been to Richmond, upon the question of what would be the results of peace in the Southern States as affected by the contiguity of the white and black races. Shortly before the time, as I remember it, when Mr. Seward was thrown from his carriage and severely injured, being then in Washington, the President sent for the writer, and said, " General Butler, I am troubled about the negroes. We are soon to have peace. We have got some one hundred and odd thousand negroes who have been trained to arms. When peace shall come I fear lest these colored men shall organize themselves in the South, especially in the States where the negroes are in preponderance in numbers, into guerrilla parties, and we shall have down there a warfare between the whites and the negroes. In the course of the reconstruction of the Government it will become a question of how the negro is to be disposed of. Would it not be possible to export them to some place, say Liberia, or South America, and organize them into communities to support themselves? Now, General, I wish you would examine the practicability of such exportation. Your organization of the flotilla which carried your army from Yorktown and Fort Monroe to City Point, and its success show that you understand such matters. Will you give this your attention, and, at as early a day as possible, report to me your views upon the subject." I replied, "Willingly," and bowed and retired. After some few days of examination, with the aid of statistics and calculations, of this topic, I repaired to the President's office in the morning, and said to him, "I have come to report to you on the question you have submitted to me, Mr. President, about the exportation of the negroes." He exhibited great interest, and said, "Well, what do you think of it ?" I said: "Mr. President, I assume that if the negro is to be sent away on shipboard you do not propose to enact the horrors of the middle passage, but would give the negroes the airspace that the law provides for emigrants." He said, "Certainly." "Well, then, here are some calculations which will show you that if you undertake to export all of the negroes—and I do not see how you can take one portion differently from another—negro children will be born faster than your whole naval and merchant vessels, if substantially all of them were devoted to that use, can carry them from the country; especially as I believe that their increase will be much greater in a state of freedom than of slavery, because the commingling of the two races does not tend to productiveness." He examined my tables carefully for some considerable time, and then he looked up sadly and said: "Your deductions seem to be correct, General. But what can we do? "I replied:" If I understand you, Mr. President, your theory is this: That the negro soldiers we have enlisted will not return to the peaceful pursuits of laboring men, but will become a class of guerrillas and criminals. Now, while I do not see, under the Constitution, even with all the aid of Congress, how you can export a class of people who are citizens against their will, yet the Commander-in-Chief can dispose of soldiers quite arbitrarily. Now, then, we have large quantities of clothing to clothe them, large quantities of provision with which to supply them, and arms and everything necessary for them, even to spades and shovels, mules and wagons. Our war has shown that an army organization is the very best for digging up the soil and making in-trenchments. Witness the very many miles of intrenchments that our soldiers have dug out. I know of a concession of the United States of Colombia for a tract of thirty miles wide across the Isthmus of Panama for opening a ship canal. The enlistments of the negroes have all of them from two to three years to run. Why not send them all down there to dig the canal? They will withstand the climate, and the work can be done with less cost to the United States in that way than in any other. If you choose, I will take command of the expedition. We will take our arms with us, and I need not suggest to you that we will need nobody sent down to guard us from the interference of any nation. We will proceed to cultivate the land and supply ourselves with all the fresh food that can be raised in the tropics, which will be all that will be needed, and your stores of provisions and supplies of clothing will furnish all the rest. Shall I work out the details of such an expedition for you, Mr. President?" He reflected for some time, and then said: "There is meat in that suggestion, General Butler; there is meat in that suggestion. Go and talk to Seward, and see what foreign complication there will be about it. Then think it over, get your figures made, and come to me again as soon as you can. If the plan has no other merit, it will rid the country of the colored soldiers." "Oh," said I, "it will do more than that. After we get down there we shall make a humble petition for you to send our wives and children to us, which you can't well refuse, and then you will have a United States colony in that region which will hold its own against all comers, and be contented and happy." Yes, yes," said he, "that's it; go and see Seward."
#31. To: nolu chan (#0) The best way to end slavery would have been for all to those northern high and mighty people just to pay a marginal price for all of of them and bring them to to the north. Everyone knows how much they they really loved black people, right? The cotton industry would have gone on (sharecropping).
#32. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#2) Gotta let those eggs hatch if you want a chicken. I hate eggs but love chicken.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#9) That the country that permitted it was horribly traumatized is justice. According to you barbarian, Jesus must have been horrible because he didn't end slavery when he was on the earth. He didn't even talk about it as far as I can tell.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Jesus didn't have slaves.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#14) Americans had no right, under God, to HAVE slavery. Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave.' " 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Leviticus 25:44-46King James Version (KJV) 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. Exodus 21:20-21 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. Ephesians 6:5-9King James Version (KJV) 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. Colossians 3:22-25King James Version (KJV) 22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. 25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. 1 Timothy 6:1-5King James Version (KJV) 6 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
#36. To: nolu chan (#19) As I recall, three Amendments were added, and the 14th Amendment was unable to get the support of 3/4ths of the Union states, so the Southern representatives were expelled from Congress and the Southern states were coerced to ratify the amendment that the Union states would not, as a condition of re-entry into Congress. We've talked about this before. Long story short you said the 14th is lawful, and that my position that it wasn't ratified correctly was horse shit. :) Granted it was a different argument as to why it wasn't legitimate that I was making.
#37. To: nolu chan (#19) Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion? Vic said he would vote for pro abortion Hillary over Ted Cruz if he got the nomination. Mammon is more important then innocent life is what it boiled down to. Even though his conclusion of the economy was incorrect.
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#20) It's a thought. God said he would save the city if only one good person was in it. You would murder tens of millions for the crimes of far less number of people. Truly barbaric, sick and unchristian.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#22) The better answer would be for the nation to stop murdering babies. That is why you said you would vote for Hillary. Such a hypocrite.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#34) Jesus didn't have slaves. No, but the Romans who crucified him did. We can presume he was familiar with the issue.
#41. To: nolu chan (#30) Excellent research and thread by the way.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#36)
As I recall, three Amendments were added, and the 14th Amendment was unable to get the support of 3/4ths of the Union states, so the Southern representatives were expelled from Congress and the Southern states were coerced to ratify the amendment that the Union states would not, as a condition of re-entry into Congress. I do not recall the precise conversation, but I think there is a misunderstanding of the legal effect of something I may have said. No amendment, certified as ratified, can be judicially challenged or held to be unlawful. I have frequently assailed the method by which ratifications were obtained for the 14th Amendment. That does not make the amendment unlawful. The certification of ratification by the Secretary is absolutely conclusive and is not subject to challenge in any court. As a political question, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. No matter what evidence of questionable acts or wrongdoing can be found, there is absolutely no recourse. The 14th is part of the Constitution unless repealed. LaVergne v Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, 3rd Cir 12-1171 (20 Sep 2012)
LaVergne’s claims also fail on other grounds, including lack of justiciability. LaVergne’s constitutional challenge to § 2a is primarily based on his argument that the apportionment method violates Article the First. He alleges that this proposed constitutional amendment was ratified by the states in November 1791 or June 1792. Putting aside the considerable factual and historical problems with his argument, “[t]he issue of whether a constitutional amendment has been properly ratified is a political question.” United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 1990 WL 186103 (table), at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939)). In Coleman, the Supreme Court held that “the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.” 307 U.S. at 450. See also Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 39 (1849) (holding that “the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision”); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 463 n.6 (7th Cir. 1986) (holding that the issue of “the validity of an amendment’s ratification [is] a non-justiciable political question” and citing, among other cases, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922), and Coleman, 307 U.S. at 450). US v McDonald, 9th Cir 88-5239, 919 F.2d 146 (26 Nov 1990)
Because the ratification of a constitutional amendment is a political question, the Secretary of State's certification that the required number of states have ratified an amendment is binding on the courts. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922) (Secretary of State's certification that the Nineteenth Amendment had been ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures was conclusive upon the courts); United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986) (Secretary of State's certification that the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified was conclusive upon the courts), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987). United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986)
Stahl argues that the sixteenth amendment was never ratified by the requisite number of states because of clerical errors in the ratifying resolutions of the various state legislatures and other errors in the ratification process. He further argues that Secretary of State Knox committed fraud by certifying the adoption of the amendment despite these alleged errors. Secretary of State Knox certified that the sixteenth amendment had been ratified by the legislatures of thirty-eight states, two more than the thirty-six then required for ratification. His certification of the adoption of the amendment was made pursuant to Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which provided: Luther v Borden, 48 US 1, 39 (1849)
In forming the constitutions of the different States, after the Declaration of Independence, and in the various changes and alterations which have since been made, the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#35) So, Americans were Hebrews, and the Americans were respecting God's Law of slavery in the Torah, were they? No. If you're going to invoke God's law of slavery from Mt. Sinai, you had better be ready to FOLLOW it, ALL of it. God forbade the Hebrews from having their co-religionists as slaves. God required the freedom of slaves at the Jubilee. God did not permit the Hebrews to have sex with their slaves. They had to marry them, which ended their slavery. Uh oh. If you're going to invoke God, have a care for what you're invoking, because God's law of slavery was utterly disregarded by American slavers, in virtually every respect.
#44. To: nolu chan (#42) The certification of ratification by the Secretary is absolutely conclusive and is not subject to challenge in any court. As a political question, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. No matter what evidence of questionable acts or wrongdoing can be found, there is absolutely no recourse. Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine.
#45. To: rlk (#40) No, but the Romans who crucified him did. We can presume he was familiar with the issue. Yes, and the Roman Empire was also destroyed. Jesus had a very simple answer: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He didn't make distinctions among the others.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#38) God said he would save the city if only one good person was in it. You would murder tens of millions for the crimes of far less number of people. Truly barbaric, sick and unchristian. So you think the United States was sick, barbaric and unchristian for the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc., etc. Good to know.
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#43) If you're going to invoke God's law of slavery from Mt. Sinai, you had better be ready to FOLLOW it, ALL of it. God forbade the Hebrews from having their co-religionists as slaves. God required the freedom of slaves at the Jubilee. God did not permit the Hebrews to have sex with their slaves. They had to marry them, which ended their slavery. Uh oh. I quoted scripture. You didn't. As I have noticed on several occasions your intrepretations are often incorrect. Go ahead and show me from scripture where it says what you say. Your point was that any nation that practiced slavery should be destroyed by God. You hinted that any nation that supports abortion should be nuked. I know Chan said it first but your answer basically conodned it. Or would at least consider it. Since you said many times that you would vote for pro abortion Hillary over pro life Ted Cruz. Shouln't you also be judged and killed by God? Since in your heart you are ok with abortion in certain circumstances. Like instead of christian Ted Cruz becoming President. You would support a thief who murders children. You are a true hypocrite.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#44) Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine. I'm not all negative on you. You are correct here imo.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#47) Shouln't you also be judged and killed by God? We're ALL going to be killed by God - me, you, Nolu - everybody. As fas as quoting Scripture goes, you put down some lines, which didn't prove the point you were trying to make. I've played that game with you before - spent a whole afternoon lining up the poverty laws from Scripture. I posted it. It's somewhere on this board somewhere. I quoted Scripture exhaustively, in context. You ignored it completely, as if it never happened, and went right on saying exactly what you said before. Could I go in and pull out of Torah the specific provisions in which God prohibits the enslavement of fellow religionists? Sure. Could I lay out the law by which masters could not have sex with their slaves without marriage? Sure. It's all there. The law of slavery that God gave the Hebrews was a machine that was designed to induce conversion among captives, for conversion brought liberation and a share in Israel. God's law of slavery wasn't about slavery, it was about protecting lives from being killed, and giving them the chance to see the light and convert to the worship of God, at which point slavery ended. There was a purpose to it, and that purpose was not to make Israelites rich, but to be a vehicle for the conversion of slaves to God. American slavery had nothing in common with Israelite slavery. The Americans did not care about God's law of slavery. They had their own, and it was a vehicle of profit and oppression, not conversion. I could spend my afternoon putting together all of those verses comprehensively, and post it. I'm not going to, because past experience has shown you will ignore it, because it doesn't fit your politics.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine. It would be as likely as the Supreme Court overturning the 13th Amendment and bringing back slavery. But if that is all you've got, I guess you have to go with it. Your argument, such as it is, depends on overturning a judicial precedent that has been repeatedly upheld for nearly two centuries. And, I wish you well in overturning the Separation of Powers. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/369/186.html
U.S. Supreme Court
#51. To: nolu chan (#50) The Supreme Court violated this doctrine when it imposed abortion and gay marriage - eminently political questions that had been decided by legislatures - on vague constitutional grounds and "emanations of penumbrae". Same thing with the Dred Scott decision, that effectively wiped out the Missouri Compromise. Of course, the Court did not ADMIT that it was answering political questions. They've always put on a fine fan dance to make their decisions seem logically justified and, indeed, inevitable. In any case, it's the system we've got, and it's not changing anytime soon. So it's very important that we control the people who get put up there, stack it with people who will decide things rightly and overturn the established precedents that are not right, in our opinion.
#52. To: rlk (#40) We can presume he was familiar with the issue. The Bible is clear on the issue, slaves obey your masters, but there was a mechanism for freeing slaves, no one remained in bondage forever unless they wanted it, so in fact it wasn't an issue in Judea, it was a fact of life. A very unpleasant fact but a fact nevertheless. The new world took slavery to a new level, creating a population of permanent slaves and importing them in large numbers
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51) Have no fear and few hopes. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed slavery in the territories where it had been prohibited. That effectively repealed a major portion of the Missouri Compromise. As for the case of Etheldred Scott, that case should have been thrown out of court as a contrived, moot case. If that wasn't bad enough, there was a clearly falsified but agreed upon statement of "facts," and it involved Scott's constitutional attorney, George Tichnor Curtis arguing to his younger brother, Justice Benjamin Curtis. And the real owner of Etheldred was a Massachusetts abolitionist congressman via his wife. Shortly after the case, the youngest justice, Curtis, was off the bench. Oh, those were the days.
#54. To: paraclete (#52) Further, Israelites could not enslave Israelites at all. They could put then under indenture, but they have to pay them, and the indenture ended in the seventh year. Biblical slavery looked nothing like American slavery.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#54) (Edited) Biblical slavery looked nothing like American slavery. Nor Roman slavery, some slaves did very well in Rome and even bought their freedom. There is a lesson here, don't be a harsh taskmaster and your slaves will love you, be a harsh taskmaster and your slaves will revolt
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#49) We're ALL going to be killed by God - me, you, Nolu - everybody. Now here is what God said. Not your misinformed crap. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#49) I've played that game with you before - spent a whole afternoon lining up the poverty laws from Scripture. I posted it. It's somewhere on this board somewhere. I quoted Scripture exhaustively, in context. You ignored it completely, as if it never happened, and went right on saying exactly what you said before. Not true. If it was you would gave linked it.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#56) ow here is what God said. Not your misinformed crap. So, your Scripture tells you that you're not going to die, and because it is written, and you read it that way, you believe yourself to be immortal. And you call me delusional!
#59. To: A K A Stone (#57) Not true. If it was you would gave linked it. The thread was called "The Economics of God", and it was first posted on August 11, 2015. I walked the extra mile with you, used your preferred translation. You were inveterately hostile and remain so. It was a great deal of work putting those posts together, collecting the quotes in order, laying them end to end. I did the work, and you just ignored it and attacked it and me. So I resolved never to do that again for you. You insult me at every turn, and when I try to meet you halfway, or in that particular thread even all the way - it is completely unavailing. Experience has taught me that you are not an honest judge, and that I will get no justice in your court. So I no longer even try to come there. At one point I directly quoted Jesus to make a point - and you called me a liar because you didn't agree with the point. When I pointed out that it was Jesus saying that, not me, you simply ignored that post and attacked something else. I appreciate the forum you have put up here, this Liberty's Flame. I enjoy posting on it. I recognize that it is your site, and that you can do with it as you please. I find that you are reasonable in running this site. And that's about as far as we walk down the path with each other. Since you've called me a liar over and over again, you've made it abundantly clear that in your view I'm evil. I obviously don't share your view in that regard. There's nothing more to be said about it, and nothing to be done. I've simply given up. That's all.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#58) So, your Scripture tells you that you're not going to die, and because it is written, and you read it that way, you believe yourself to be immortal. Of course the flesh dies. Your soul is immortal. The devil comes to kill God to give life. The wages of sin are death. We kill ourselves through sin. Of our own free will. You have much to learn.
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#59) I walked the extra mile with you, used your preferred translation. You were inveterately hostile and remain so. Not against you. Just the crap you believe in your ignorance. I actually like you. You give your opinions. You give them in detail. I don't disagree with everything you say just the things I mention.
#62. To: Vicomte13 (#59) It was a great deal of work putting those posts together, collecting the quotes in order, laying them end to end. I did the work, and you just ignored it and attacked it and me. Actually you had very few quotes from the Bible and mostly your opinions that didn't line up with scripture. You do that all the time. Get on your high horse and ignore what others say and just go with what the ones who call the Pope holy father, which God forbade in the Bible. I even showed you where if you don't work you don't eat. You ignored it. You're viewpoint is that of a socialist, then you try to make the Bible fit with your socialist ideology.
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#59) Since you've called me a liar over and over again, you've made it abundantly clear that in your view I'm evil. I don't think you are evil I think you are wrong. If you don't like to hear opinions that differ from yours then you should stay off the internet. Not just here. Have a good day.
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#59) At one point I directly quoted Jesus to make a point - and you called me a liar because you didn't agree with the point. That is not true. I notice you didn't mention what a link or even what you or me allegedly said. No context. Go ahead and show me please. You can't.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#60) The flesh dies because God withdraws his breath from it. Scripture tells you that. God gives us breath, we live. God withdraws his breath, we die. What he is withdrawing, in truth, is our spirit out of our flesh, for breath is spirit (same word in both Hebrew and Greek). Not a sparrow falls without the Father's permission, for it is the Father who withdraws the breath from each living thing, even as he gave it the breath to begin. Again, this is Scripture. People do stupid things or, under the influence of Satan, evil things, and they are physically at risk and face death, but it is God who decides whether or not he actually withdraws their breath and they die. God decides it every time. He may decide to let the blow the Devil causes to be delivered be the killing blow, but he may decide to turn the blow aside and not let it kill. It is all ultimately in God's hands. I've been saved from physical death by a divine miracle, so I have no doubt whatever that what I write here is true. It follows Scripture and personal experience.
#66. To: A K A Stone (#64) hat is not true. I notice you didn't mention what a link or even what you or me allegedly said. No context. It's true. You said it. I guess to prove that I'll have to go back and point cite the message. I will do so when I have the time.
#67. To: A K A Stone (#62) You're viewpoint is that of a socialist, then you try to make the Bible fit with your socialist ideology. Not true.
#68. To: Vicomte13 (#67) Not true. Ok. But that is what it sounds like to me at times.
#69. To: nolu chan (#30) Outstanding post as usual.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|