Lincoln’s Unconstitutional War

So you claim to be a Christian and do not condemn slavery? How can that be?

Turning slaves "loose" was also a violation of the 5th Amendment in taking "property" from citizens without compensation. At the time, slaves were legal property. I'm not saying it was right, just the law at the time.
The right way was and is to make appropriate changes in the law, not try to have the federal government dominate the states.
The feds were also violating the 10th amendment, which is what started the war. The tenth amendment says the federal government only has the authority to do what is specifically given authority to do by the states. ALL other rights are reserved to the individual. The feds are still doing this....care for a tea bag?

the post civil war era showed why southerners sold and used slaves. John Wilkes Boothe explicitly said that this country belongs to the White man only. And thus began oppressive terrorism by many who defended slavery. So go ahead and compare the slavery implemented by the South and that which was part of the OT.

Let me ask you, would you support a law that would allow slavery for today?

To the extent that Lincoln is the father of big government that continues to issue "top-down" regulations--to the detriment of the common good, I definitely agree! As a recovering educator, I can testify that in many imporant matters, for example learning of life skills, LOCAL IS BEST!

Thanks all for comments. Can we discuss these issues without the caricatures associated with them?

1.What is the doctrine of slavery in the Bible?
2.How was slavery regulated in the Southern States?
3.Was the war necessary?
4.What was the effect of the Second Awakening on the war?

C5, please reread the article carefully. No where do I defend the abuses of unlawful slavery as practiced by some, neither do I condemn slavery when it is practiced lawfully.

I repeat that we could learn much from the Mosaic civil law. Bond servitude is better than the practices that support a welfare state, because men remain productive and there is a means of working off the debt. The principle of gleaning is infinitely better than paying folks for doing nothing. Men are not made to be unproductive. This is bondage greater than slavery because it is voluntary servitude that ruins a man at his core.

Please what slavery was about, especially in the South. Remember that the Constitution had White Supremacist elements in it. So hiding behind the Constitution as to what was legal or not does not good.

And reread my post. I was addressing the motive behind what could be legal slavery. And once that slavery was dissolved, the need to dominate and control was expressed differently.

Ok, let’s see what you do with slavery in the bible and your doctrine of sola scriptura.

I think there is a stark difference between slavery as practiced in the Old Testament and slavery as practiced in the Old South. I think the treatment of slaves in the Old South, by many (though I admit not all) slaveholders, was a violation of the Biblical instructions, particularly in the New Testament, concerning treatment of fellow human beings, particularly Christians.

I would note that the Civil War started when Southern troops fired on an installation of the federal government, so I'm not sure the charge of unconstitutionality will apply very well. I doubt the framers really entertained the notion that people who refuse to discuss matters in Congress and resort to force of arms when the population of the country began to swing against their sinful institution.

And, yes, I use "sinful" deliberately.

Thanks for weighing in.

We agree that involuntary servitude is a sinful violation of another man’s liberty. What we object to is that the voluntary servitude condoned in the Bible is used by the forces of darkness to attack the moral authority of the Scriptures to the point that we have surrendered the issue.

I must respectfully disagree on the validity of the war. When the sovereign states agreed on a federation of states into a union under the Constitution, the right of succession was understood and written into various state constitutions. But this was really what the war was about, which is the point of the article.

Slavery and the War between the States simplifies the issue somewhat.
Lincoln did the wrong thing for the right reason.
States sovereignty was the bulwark which was to stand against the ability of a Central government to place the States (and their populations) in servitude to the central government.
With the 10th Amendment still in effect, the current over taxation of a small minority of the population to support the majority of the population would never have occurred.

And BTW the current taxation plan is racist at its roots, since most of the taxpayers are caucasian (higher tax brackets) and most of the tax users are non-caucasians (lower tax brackets)

Gov Rick Perry has the right idea, but not likely to succeed.

End Racism Today, End Taxation by decree.

I've also heard it called the War of Northern Agression.

Have you read much on Stonewall Jackson? Siding with his native Virginia, he gave a speech once to some of his students at VMI. He said, "the time has not yet come to fight, but it will. My advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard".

On slavery: "he found the institution of slavery a responsible and troublesome on, and I have heard him say that he would prefer to see the Negroes free, but he believed that the Bible taught that slavery was sanctioned by the Creator himself, who maketh men to differ and instituted laws for the bound and the free. He therefore accepted slavery, as it existed in the Southern States, not as a thing desirable in itself but as allowed by Providence for ends which it was not his business to determine..."-Anna Jackson, wife.

He was a very devout Presbyterian, starting Sunday School classes for blacks in a white church-even teaching them to read and write which was unheard of in that time. "Old Blue Light" his troops called him.
His battlefield exploits are legendary. It is said that Patton and even Rommel studied his tactics. Many believe that had his strategic advice been followed, things may have turned out differently for the South. He was much feared in the North. Many also believe Gettysburg would have turned out differently if he hadn't been killed a few months before.

According to some biographies, his dying words were, "Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees".

Let’s discuss…your views are welcome, and we don’t have to agree.

Was the Civil War a providential war? Fought according to a Higher Law? Was the end of slavery in America and the country's reunification Immutably Decreed? Lincoln's death just at the war's end when the slaves were freed and reunion achieved is proof enough for me that it was. Lincoln's mission was complete and it was time for him to leave dying on Good Friday, not a mere coincidence, as he was our national savior restoring this nation to unity under God and freeing it from the sin of slavery. Next to Exodus and the Gospels I don't know of a more awe inspiring tale.

Thanks for your comments on Stonewall.

I’ve not read as much on him as on Lee. Dabney’s biography of Jackson beckons to me from the shelves of things to read, but as yet I have not gotten to it.

I know of his faith and his character. We agree on his importance in the war. Lee accepted his death as part of the wise providence of God, as he accepted the defeat of his army.

The quote from Jackson that stuck me was his confidence in the sovereign God. Speaking of his life being in the hands of Almighty God, ‘I am as safe on the battlefield as I am in my bed asleep’.

Like I said to Klem, your views are welcome and we don’t have to agree. It sounds as if you are closed to debate on this subject. Have I read you wrong?

You believe that God wanted this nation divided, half slave, half free; and that Lincoln in going to war against the South was violating a higher law than the constitution. I say that the day of his death was a divinely given sign vindicating his presidency, his decison to go to war and free the slaves. One day soon I will post some very remakable things about Lincoln's death that no one has seen.

You should read the book; the tale is inspiring. You'll find Stonewall a simple man, most humble, a bit odd, yet ruthless in character when he believed he was in the right. One of his maxims:

"Resolve to perform what you aught; perform without fail what you resolve."

His sister in law, Margaret Preston declared, "...we used to tell him that he had too daring a confidence in the infallibility of his own convictions".

Dying was no threat to him, for he knew the day was appointed no matter where he was or what he was doing. His faith was seemingly unshakeable. This is why he was utterly fearless in battle, earning his nickname from (according to some) General Bee (who was attempting to rally his command) at the Battle of First Manassas-"There stands Jackson like a stone wall".

I wonder how he understood the scripture:

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

I posted also his view on slavery. What some fail to realize is that the majority of southerners didn't own slaves. I have read the slaveholders (including free blacks) represented around 25% in 1860. Generally they fought because they felt the "north" was trespassing on their property and impugning their sovereignity.
As a general rule, this is why the southern leadership had little stomach to invade the north. Stonewall advocated it at opportune times, as a means to secure the right of self determination of the southern states and end the war quickly. They disregarded the timing of his advice, then when they did invade, they ineffectually carried it out after his death. There were times on his battlefields when nothing stood between him and a short march to the Capitol.

What I believe on this issue cannot accurately be discerned from what I have written; that is apparent. Do you want to discuss or continue telling me what I believe?

I'd be very happy to learn your views and discuss this with you.

Thanks for your latest response.

Chiefest has touched on it with Jackson, and I with Lee. Consider that these were honorable men and humble Christians. There is more to this issue than slavery. I agree that the slave trade was wrong, but I disagree that war was the inevitable means of ending the practice. Peaceful reform is always better than war. What happened in England, I believe would have happened here given more time.

I fear that the moral crusaders from the Second Awakening may have stirred up the war sentiments. (This is a premise that I am still working on, so don’t take this as a statement of belief.)

Also, I hold that the Biblical practice of voluntary servitude regulated by law is not sin, but God’s most wise provision SINCE the fall of men into sin. I think it wrong to lump the sinful practice of slave trade with that given in the Mosaic Law.

The Reformed Confessions teach that the Mosaic economy (the ceremonial and civil laws given to OT Israel) have passed away with the coming of Messiah, but that there are principles of ‘general equity’ to be learned from the civil law that is good for all nations.

For example, restitution and gleaning are general principles for dealing with crime and the poor. I believe that voluntary servitude falls in this category. God is wiser than man. We had best be careful before agreeing that the Bible is wrong on its view of slavery.

Your candid responses are welcome.

Much can be said about the Civil War. I am not in the camp that believes the North was the good side and the South was inherently misguided. Only about a quarter of the population owned slaves in the south and Lincoln did exceed many of his constitutional powers when he suspended habeus corpus and used the war to strengthen the fereral government to excessive new heights. But ending slavery was a good thing for the country. Few can deny that. It goes against the very nature of a free society to treat human beings as property.

I also believe a war didn't have to be waged to end slavery. Many countries in Europe did it without a war. Lincoln or some other president could have easily bought every slave and freed them, saving a lot of lives. But that still wouldn't have stopped the trade. It's simple economics. Slavery is profitable. That's why it has persisted throughout the ages until the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

It's also worth noting that Jesus and Paul never said much about slavery, but in the context of their environment slavery was a part of life. They had every chance to condemn it, but they didn't. And on the whole, the Old Testament says it's okay in numerous passages like Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21, Leviticus 25:44-46, and many others.

It seems in the grand scheme of things that it would be hypocritical for a religion espousing salvation for all, but still condoning slavery. By nearly all standards, slavery is a reprehensible act worthy of the greatest condemnation. Lincoln is worthy of admiration for working to end it even if his tactics were questionable. Christian or not, there is no way to defend slavery in a free society.

It's also worth noting that there were men who justified slavery with Christianity. Jefferson Davis was one of them.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

- excerpt from "Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches. J. J. Little & Ives Company, 1923, Page 286.

I agree with you about Jackson and Lee: two good virtuous Christian men, and great intrepid warriors. And I agree that in time the South would have grown out of the institution of slavery as Britain had done. And that is the course history would likely have taken if the South had not ceded from the Union.

I Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

"The church of Christ is one, whether we be bond or free, and these bondmen remain slaves. The question of poverty over against riches, of slavery over against freedom, of power and authority over against submission does not affect the unity of the church one whit. The scriptures do not advocate equality, do not advocate the abolition of slavery, the wiping out of all lines of demarcation between the various classes of people. In fact, this is exactly the wonderful characteristic of the unity of the church, that it is precisely this distinction between the bond and the free which serves to emphasize and focus attention upon the glorious unity of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Pastor Herman Veldman, Integration and Segregation, The Standard Bearer, V61 Issue 9, 2-01-1985).

"The world seeks unity only in the way of equality. The world's solution of its problems, we have noted, is that of socialism. The world thinks that men can live with each other only upon the basis of equality, when the poor have acquired the wealth of the rich, when the slave is on equal footing with his master, when the child shares the authority within the home with his parent, when there is no longer any distinction between bond or free, when equality reigns supreme. But the church of God and of Christ is that unique institution where the bond and the free come together; the poor and the rich, the high and the lowly, the male and the female, the employer and his employee remain as they are, but are united into one grand, glorious body." (Pastor Herman Veldman, Integration and Segregation, The Standard Bearer, V61 Issue 9, 2-01-1985).

Philippians 4:11: "For I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content."

Gary Gordon