GarthP2000

Tell me something then. This professor of yours who was so *adamant* that the war was "not about slavery period", has anyone asked him about all the slavery-related issues that directly contributed to the events leading up to and including the war? Has anyone ever asked him just why it was that the South seceded that got Lincoln to take action? Oh, I just thought of something. What about Fort Sumter, and the South's attack on that? In this professor's opinion, does that count as a directly contributing factor as to why the North responded militarily? One thing I noticed with all the Confederate apologists here on the board, is that they make no mention of Fort Sumter as the direct cause for Lincoln's military response. :unsure: I wonder why that is? So, technically, it was the South that started the war, ... not the North, as it was the South that attacked federally owned land that that base was upon. It would be like Cuba attacking Guatanemo Bay (sp?). Ooopsie!

Duly noted. ... never mind that slavery was legal ONLY in 'the nation that he invaded'. Whatever slavery was being practiced in the North was ALREADY under the legal coverage that the proclamation simply and legally extended to the South (that 'nation that was invaded', of course), and all that needed to be done was to have the law ENFORCED. Your move. Oh and P.S., how could the Confederacy be considered a 'foreign nation', if the U.S. didn't officially recognize it as such? NOW it's your move. ;)

Hmmmm, your comparison of Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions vis-a-vis the Homeland Security Dept. in this respect is flawed. Why? Dubya is doing nothing to eliminate slavery. Also linking of Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions to the need to eliminate slavery is also likely flawed. I suggest that next time you want to come up with a challenging counterpoint, do so with logic that withstands scrutiny. This one of yours was so easy to shoot down, I could do it in my sleep. ... Not only that but your counterpoint was as kneejerk as your illustration shows. <_<

Belle, Actually, I posted to make a specific point. Just because it might not agree with what you believe is a rather pi**-poor reason to simply accuse me of "Do you just look for reasons to pick a fight?". I was about to post further as to elaborate on my previous post, but I think Linda nailed it on the head better than I did. Now I wonder, ..... is she now looking for reasons to pick a fight? Hhmmmm? Frankly I've noticed that a good number of anti-cult people act with just as much of a 'mark and avoid' mentality as the 'cultists' do, particularly when their Cult Definitions are being scrutinized and challenged. That's my observation anyway.

Actually Waterbuffalo, England was involved in an active trade with the South, mainly for its cotton. When the North put up a blockade around the South to cut it off from trade with other countries, England and the Confederacy valiantly tried using blockade runners to get through the blockade, and sometimes they were successful. As an aside note: The Civil War provided the catalyst for Canada to declare its independence, as they didn't want the North to invade it in case they declared war on Great Britain for their support of the South. ... just a freebie. Doesn't cost ya extra. :)

Its amazing how some people treat the so-called 'importance' of some religious doctrine (often to the extent of treating non-believers of said doctrine as anathema) that, in reality, does _absolutely nothing_ of substance for humanity; morally, ethically, compassion-wise, or anything else of any real importance to the human race. And this goes in not only the trinitarian direction, but the unitarian (the biblical-related variety) direction as well, for those who seem to think that believing that Jesus Christ is not God is s-o-o important in life. But it's like you said, JumpinJive. On it goes .......... <_<

Reading the posts re: states rights here, I cannot avoid the impression that some of those posting in support of said states rights are including the right to own slaves (ie., owning human beings, ok?) as part and parcel of the states rights package, or at least are implying that the issue of states rights ought to take precedent over the need for the abolishment of slavery (ie., owning human beings, ok?). As tho' the federal government had no right to come in and tell the states that they had no right to own human beings as slaves. Tell me I'm wrong please, ..... and demonstrate why. Damn right, the federal government had the right to put the kabosh on the ((cough)) 'states right' (((gag))) of owning slaves, Lincoln's abuses of the Constitution notwithstanding. It should be anyone's right to do this. Because owning slaves, ie., human beings, is _nobody's_ right, ... federal, state, or local. P.S., LCM's claims as regards the Civil War, and the causes thereof, are clearly the result of some serious brain damage. But then again, we all know that.

Can you imagine this 'witnessing tactic' that TWI (or any other evangelical-based church or group) can put into use to increase membership? Evangelism Linebacker? :unsure:

Great! Responding to the abuses of TWI with the abuses of anti-cult fanatics. Much like responding to Communism with the likes of Joe McCarthy. <_< Keep in mind Bliss, that a good number of those who viewed TWI as a cult did so because of the 'heretical' nature of TWI's teachings, including the biggie, the non-trinitarian doctrine. All of which had nothing to do with TWIs abuses. This I know for sure. BTW, I wonder how many experts that questioned/challenged the 'mind control theory' did the History Channel interview as well? :unsure:

Vyctorya911, No sir, that is not true. Slavery was not being wound down, even by the time the war came. Remember, cotton was king, as it were, and was THE main income producer in the south. And while owning slaves was indeed expensive, w/o the slaves to pick the cotton, it would have even been more expensive for the plantation owners, and even for many of the other cotton farmers. The southern leaders knew this, and fought tooth and nail to not only keep the institution going, but to expand it to as many new states as they could. Why else was there the continuous fight to include more slave states when territories became states, as the Missouri Compromise and other agreements like it clearly illustrates? And I noted that in my post. But slavery was the big issue of the day for at least 50-60 years prior to the Civil War. There is WAY too much documented historical proof showing this to say otherwise. Your loyalty to your 'homeland' has no bearing upon historical facts, none whatsoever. And when people use their loyalty to change/dismiss those facts, that is loyalty misapplied. It would be like anyone of us denying the fact of the near extermination of the American Indians done to them by the white man throughout American history because we needed to 'defend our homeland'. Agreed. And I also covered that in my previous post. I never did say that the south was the only one responsible. But that does nothing to eradicate the slavery issue, and its relation to the war. Not one bit. Oh, and it wasn't the 'north' who started slavery, as it were, as the colonies were pretty much bringing in the slaves on their own. Ie., it wasn't where the north brought in slaves at one time, and the south brought them in at a different time. But the northern states did eradicate slavery well before the south did. And keep in mind that your sources aren't exactly objective, independent sources either. Not when their goal, their agenda, is to 'defend the south', as it were. (Altho' the Slavenorth site does provide some interesting info as to the race related issues that people in the north still had to deal with.) So next time you give your sources, make sure that it isn't from some advocacy site please, but from real historians. One thing this all shows is that the North wasn't the only one 'sanitizing' their side, and condemning the other. <_< By the way, the reason the South got serious about seceding from the union (despite whatever talk was going on before then), was when the election of 1860 came around, they clearly stated that if Lincoln got elected, they were "outta here" secession wise. That was because they feared (and rightly so) that Lincoln would take strong steps against slavery, and allow no more slave states into the union, and very possibly work to eradicate slavery in total. Lincoln was elected, and South Carolina started the secession ball rolling by saying "Adios!"

Actually, while slavery wasn't the ONLY issue governing the cause of the Civil War, it was the main one; the 'states rights' argument often being used as a prop by the southern states to continue the institution of slavery. Yes, Virginia, that's the facts. And if you don't believe that, here's a question for you to consider. If slavery wasn't the big issue that the south had against the north, then why was it that the south wanted to secede from the union if Lincoln got elected, hmmm? I'll wait after others post back before I give you the answer, if you don't know it already. The debate about slavery was one of THE big issues going back and forth all over the country ever since just shortly after the Revolutionary War. Incidents like the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the debate as to which states were admitted to the union as either free states or slave states, the riots in Nebraska-Kansas territories during the 1850s, etc. And yet there are those who want to downplay the slavery issue (as much as they can) to near non-existence when it comes to its relevance to the Civil War. The story that really makes me guffaw is the one where some folks say that the south was winding down slavery and fixing to end it because it was supposedly 'cost prohibitive' to them by the time the war started. <_< ... Yeah, right! Sell me another bottle o' snake oil. Ahh no, the move by the government to end slavery was in response to the increasing number of groups, organizations (many of them religious), and individuals to do away with slavery in all of the states, and that on moral and ethical grounds. No doubt the government often used the campaign against slavery to its own ends, including using it to fire people up to increase the support for the war effort. But that doesn't eliminate the genuine motivations that powered the campaign against slavery that has been going on for decades previous to the Civil War. And yes, it was the federal government's right to tell the states that they had to eliminate the ownership of human beings. Well, D-U-H-H! That can't be that hard to figure out! Just because there were southerners who got ape-.... over the 'gummint' telling them that doesn't change the need to eliminate slavery any.

So there are some people who do see themselves as independent from God. ..... What's it to you? That there are those who do this is an offense to you? ... Ticks you off? ... Gets you righteously indignant? ..... Get over yourself. There is a helluva lot more to 'the state of governments and humankind' than people simply deciding to 'live independent from God'. Hell, in the past 2-300 years, when people stared daring to question what they were taught as 'God's Laws' via science, philosophy, democracy, etc., there were those in ecclesiastical authority who whined about those people becoming 'independent of God' too. ... and as a result of such questioning and independence, science and medicine has flourished, countries with representative forms of government (like our country) abounded, and real progress was made, ... even given the corruption that kept up with it. I don't know about you, but I like that kind of independence, thank you very much!

((Meanwhile, during the intermission, I go to the fridge to get another bag o' chips and a 6 pack of beer. I then come back, recline on my E-Z-Boy, and snarf upon my munchies while I wait for Part II of this psychodrama to continue.)) Like I said, this is better than your garden variety reality show. Anywho, please continue .....

I *love* threads like this; I really do! I too have tossed into the trash can this concept of us humans being nothing more than sinful, wretches, born in unrighteousness and bound for destruction, who just _cannot_ make a righteous or moral decision by ourselves. Particularly when it is cloaked in the dishonest guises of 'grace' and 'He saved us, and we cannot save ourselves'. Looks so loving and so wonderful, ... yet only after you embrace this theology do the fangs of guilt and fear come out, and they let you know that "Hey! Who are YOU to question GOD?! He saved YOU, and if you dare to openly challenge/scrutinize it, He will be **wroth** with thee!" and so forth and so on. And even if those who are more moderate don't behave that way, you read enough scripture, and that is what comes out one way or another. That's what grace is all about?!? :o But, in any event, please continue ..... :B)

Heh! If this doesn't turn out to be a reality show, at least it can be a Law & Order episode.

Now see, THIS is the kind of reality show that I would watch. Nothing else even holds a candle to this kind of entertainment. Nothing. :biglaugh:

Ahh but Jonny, can you imagine the Aztec human sacrifices being carried out by ..... ..... a board meeting?!?!? ----->> :evildenk: :evildenk: ... Ohh, the horror! (((sob)))

Is that a TrueType Font, or Adobe style font?

Nicely done!

A rather small question here, and it doesn't matter either way. What does this have to do with TWI? Just curious. .... Carry on.

That was one of the best parts, dude! :biglaugh:

... Hey! What can we say. ... God specializes in disasters. Maybe diseases isn't in His job description.

Jerry, It sounds like justice to you that we all get the punishment for one man's sin? Or is it one of those "Cuz God says so" type of 'reasoning' ((gag)) that supposedly makes it so?

So THAT explains it all!. ..... GOD IS A CORPORATION!!! :ph34r: Looking forward to seeing the whole series.

I think that we are all born ..... human. Period.