Secession is the only hope for peace in USA.
- Thread starter Quantrill
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
that would be UG that said that phrase, not me. but this is a Christian forum and you want to dissolve the US and form your own state free from the tyranny of the votes and voices of your 'liberal atheist democrat' citizen-neighbors. it's kind of a natural assumption that you would be advocating theocracy since that's the form of government in the Bible.
you could clear this up;
what kind of government do you actually personally want in your own ideal personal segregated fascist semi-autonomous city-state, once you've seceded from the greater US and kicked out or otherwise silenced all dissenters from your semi-sovereign territory?
you could clear this up;
what kind of government do you actually personally want in your own ideal personal segregated fascist semi-autonomous city-state, once you've seceded from the greater US and kicked out or otherwise silenced all dissenters from your semi-sovereign territory?
yeah that's what i said, post #321 & #341
by *the law* of the land you want to secede from. which is why Lincoln said the principle idea of it is the essence of anarchy: to secede is to escape from the law, not to abide under it. in the case of this thread, you apparently don't like living in a republic where people who you disagree with over worldly politics get to also have their own democratically elected representatives, so your proposed solution is to dissolve that republic and form some other government of your own where such opposition can be suppressed or otherwise eliminated through exile. that's anarchic in the sense that it's contrary to the existing law, particularly the laws concerning representative governance - which is also fascist because ultimately you want to live in a semi-autonomous microcosm where opposing voices are suppressed or expelled to their own semi-autonomous cells.
by *the law* of the land you want to secede from. which is why Lincoln said the principle idea of it is the essence of anarchy: to secede is to escape from the law, not to abide under it. in the case of this thread, you apparently don't like living in a republic where people who you disagree with over worldly politics get to also have their own democratically elected representatives, so your proposed solution is to dissolve that republic and form some other government of your own where such opposition can be suppressed or otherwise eliminated through exile. that's anarchic in the sense that it's contrary to the existing law, particularly the laws concerning representative governance - which is also fascist because ultimately you want to live in a semi-autonomous microcosm where opposing voices are suppressed or expelled to their own semi-autonomous cells.
Lincoln was wrong. Secession in 1861 was perfectly legal. It was anarchy to Lincoln because the South was seceding from him and the North.
Not so. Secession occurs because one party is not given the protections it should be given under the law. It is not to escape from the Law. Concerning the law, the South was seceding because people in the North refused to honor the Constitution. Which happened to be the law. People in the North called the Constitution a covenant with hell. Who are the traitors now? People in the North claimed they come under a higher law than the Constitution. What now?
No, that is not my solution. That is your lie. Again you argue with yourself. Not me.
Quantrill
Not so. Secession occurs because one party is not given the protections it should be given under the law. It is not to escape from the Law. Concerning the law, the South was seceding because people in the North refused to honor the Constitution. Which happened to be the law. People in the North called the Constitution a covenant with hell. Who are the traitors now? People in the North claimed they come under a higher law than the Constitution. What now?
No, that is not my solution. That is your lie. Again you argue with yourself. Not me.
Quantrill
im not an historian, but I don't think William Lloyd Garrisons opinions represented the majority of people in New England. after all, the 13th amendment exists - the constitution is a mutable document and was designed to be so. what the nation wound up doing was work within the framework of the government law to effect change - while the secessionist decided to opt itself out of these laws by dissolution of their union under them, making laws for themselves outside of the influence of opposition to their desires.
You're not a historian? That's an understatement.
Garrison's views represented a whole lot of norththern thinking. Just as the 'higher law' belief was prevalent. Just like a liberal social Christianity was prevalent.
The 13th amendment, along with the 14th and 15th was after the war. They are known as the reconstruction amendments. So, your timing with those and the South's secession is several years off. Thus you are in error again. The South was not avoiding these amendments. These amendments played no role in the South seceding.
About the only thing you are correct on is that you are not a historian. But you don't have to be. But you should present the history truthfully. Which doesn't happen unless you do a little work. Which you have shown, you are opposed to.
Quantrill
Garrison's views represented a whole lot of norththern thinking. Just as the 'higher law' belief was prevalent. Just like a liberal social Christianity was prevalent.
The 13th amendment, along with the 14th and 15th was after the war. They are known as the reconstruction amendments. So, your timing with those and the South's secession is several years off. Thus you are in error again. The South was not avoiding these amendments. These amendments played no role in the South seceding.
About the only thing you are correct on is that you are not a historian. But you don't have to be. But you should present the history truthfully. Which doesn't happen unless you do a little work. Which you have shown, you are opposed to.
Quantrill
It would take a constitutional amendment to accomplish what you are proposing so therefore this will never happen.
The US is a republic and not a democracy. Each state already has the right to decide how it is to be governed. Yes, the US has usurped the existing state governments with a lot of laws that the states themselves should decide. There is no question about that. Yes, the Supreme Court can rule that a law or practice by states or the country as a whole is unconstitutional. No question about that either.
If each state had the power to decide what the law is in all circumstances there would now be restrictions on interstate travel and commerce, not to mention that each state would now have the right to decide what laws to recognize from the other states such as marriage, education, business regulations and banking. This country is indeed divided on certain issues but under your system that you are proposing you would now have 50 states entirely deciding their own laws irregardless or the existing law of other states. Instead of the country being divided there would now be division in 50 states and this country would no longer exist in a practical sense.
One day Jesus will take the government upon his shoulder but until then it is best to live the best Christian life that you can, change what you can about laws that conflict with Christian values and love your neighbor as yourself. That's really what it should be about anyway.
The US is a republic and not a democracy. Each state already has the right to decide how it is to be governed. Yes, the US has usurped the existing state governments with a lot of laws that the states themselves should decide. There is no question about that. Yes, the Supreme Court can rule that a law or practice by states or the country as a whole is unconstitutional. No question about that either.
If each state had the power to decide what the law is in all circumstances there would now be restrictions on interstate travel and commerce, not to mention that each state would now have the right to decide what laws to recognize from the other states such as marriage, education, business regulations and banking. This country is indeed divided on certain issues but under your system that you are proposing you would now have 50 states entirely deciding their own laws irregardless or the existing law of other states. Instead of the country being divided there would now be division in 50 states and this country would no longer exist in a practical sense.
One day Jesus will take the government upon his shoulder but until then it is best to live the best Christian life that you can, change what you can about laws that conflict with Christian values and love your neighbor as yourself. That's really what it should be about anyway.
-
1
- Show all
Regarding history, it is only the events what others have recorded in the past, some truthfully, some embellished, and most with a biased slant of the person or persons that documented it. Anyone that considers the past is, in a sense, a historian. The only history that was faithfully recorded is in the bible, other that that source it should be taken with a grain of salt and wisdom should be applied to discern what really happened and what is a fabrication.
-
1
- Show all
why should I give so much of my brief and miserable earthly life's energy to devote to vain worldly politics?
this is not my home.
but you haven't been much of an historian yourself; if garrisons views were the majority or even common in New England the constitution would have been discarded, not ammended. that was my point in mentioning the 13th.
this is not my home.
but you haven't been much of an historian yourself; if garrisons views were the majority or even common in New England the constitution would have been discarded, not ammended. that was my point in mentioning the 13th.
I never said the US is a democracy.
Well, yes, and I have said that it would take the politicians to develop the frame work on what was needed to accomplish this. And I already addressed commerce, trade, military, foreign affairs etc. This would be left to the Fed. govt.
And yes, again, you live the best Christian life you can and do what you can do to change laws that you believe need changing. And at present, this is what my suggestion of secession is doing. We have a problem of division in this country which is unsolvable. So someone somewhere better be thinking about how to still exist as a nation without a civil war. I believe my suggestion would do that.
Quantrill
Quantrill
Well, yes, and I have said that it would take the politicians to develop the frame work on what was needed to accomplish this. And I already addressed commerce, trade, military, foreign affairs etc. This would be left to the Fed. govt.
And yes, again, you live the best Christian life you can and do what you can do to change laws that you believe need changing. And at present, this is what my suggestion of secession is doing. We have a problem of division in this country which is unsolvable. So someone somewhere better be thinking about how to still exist as a nation without a civil war. I believe my suggestion would do that.
Quantrill
Quantrill
J
Mr Quantrill,
I can understand how you can want to secede, but it’s not a good idea in my opinion. We need to stand united, don’t you think?
What I feel bad about is when folks are rubbing their victory in. There’s no need to, we know that the South lost, but let us all, as Americans, show each other that we now are brothers and sisters, not enemies.
That goes for all of us. Both sides of the aisle.
I can understand how you can want to secede, but it’s not a good idea in my opinion. We need to stand united, don’t you think?
What I feel bad about is when folks are rubbing their victory in. There’s no need to, we know that the South lost, but let us all, as Americans, show each other that we now are brothers and sisters, not enemies.
That goes for all of us. Both sides of the aisle.
-
1
- Show all