Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.

Or just make a mess.

Or just make a mess.

Results were great, at the end of it all.

What armistice did Lincoln supposedly violate? I have never heard such a thing and a brief search of the National Archives makes no mention of an armistice.....and since the definition of an armistice is to stop fighting for a period of time, and at the point you are discussing no fighting had occured, could you be more specific about this?

The was written by Lincoln's Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, and gives a pretty good overview of what went on with Florida. Secession was declared January 10, 1861.

At PDF page 2, document page 93, Welles recounts events that occurred under the Buchanan administration. Note that presidential transition at that time occurred of March 4.

https://www.scribd.com/document/332111969/WELLES-Gideon-Fort-Pickens-1871

See also:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/civilwar/misc/barrancas.aspx

Barrancas: First Shots Fired in the Rebellion
By Walter Giersbach

[excerpt]

At the time of the Secession, Fort Pickens had not been occupied since the Mexican War. Lt. Slemmer, responsible for the U.S. forces at Fort Barrancas, decided that in spite of its dilapidated condition, Pickens was more defensible than any of the other posts in the area. His decision was accelerated around midnight of Jan. 8 when his troops repelled a group of men intending to take the fort. In consolidating his position, Lt. Slemmer destroyed over 20,000 pounds of powder at Fort McRee, spiked the guns at Barrancas, and evacuated his 80 troops to Fort Pickens. Because of his tactical thinking, Fort Pickens remained in Union hands throughout the Civil War.[5]

A native Pennsylvanian, Adam J. Slemmer was graduated from West Point in 1850 as brevet second lieutenant 1st Artillery. He was promoted to first lieutenant in 1854. Lt. Slemmer was in charge of the small artillery garrison quartered at Fort Barrancas when the Secession crisis occurred. With an under-manned garrison far from Washington, Lt. Slemmer considered his situation at Fort Barrancas to be untenable. The naval establishment, consisting of a minimal sea force and the Navy Yard, was under Commodore James Armstrong. Both Slemmer and Armstrong had been told that an attempt to seize the military works would be made as soon as the Florida politicians should declare that State's secession—and secession was imminent. Federal posts in Florida and Alabama had already been seized, and hostile troops were gathering at Pensacola.

Lt. Slemmer decided to concentrate his forces to defend only one fort, and moved his four score troops on Jan. 10 to the greater security of Fort Pickens, then unoccupied. That was the date in which the Florida Convention passed the Ordinance of Secession. On the same morning, about 500 insurgents of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi appeared at the gate of the Navy Yard and demanded its surrender. Commodore Armstrong was powerless, for three-fourths of the 60 officers under his command were disloyal.

Commander Ebenezer Farrand was among the insurgents who demanded the surrender, and Flag-Officer Renshaw immediately ordered the National standard to be pulled down. The post, with ordnance stores valued at $156,000, passed into the hands of the authorities of Florida. The insurgents took possession of Forts Barrancas and McRee.

Two days later, on Jan. 12, Florida and Alabama troops took the mainland bases and demanded that Lt. Slemmer surrender Fort Pickens. That night, a deputation went to the fort, consisting of Captain Randolph, Major Marks and Lieutenant Rutledge. They demanded the peaceable surrender of Pickens to the governors of Alabama and Florida, but Slemmer declined to recognize the authority of those officials. Lt. Slemmer held his position until an informal agreement, or "truce," was established between President Buchanan's Administration and Florida. The terms were that Southern troops would not attack Pickens so long as Union troops remained aboard nearby ships and did not reinforce the fort.

The two vessels in the harbor, the Supply and Wyandotte, steamed out under the truce, but remained in the possession of the United States officers. The 80 men under Slemmer at Fort Pickens remained defiant. The following night, a small party of armed men from the mainland reconnoitered on the island and a few shots were fired from the fort.

On Jan. 15, Col. W. H. Chase, a U.S. Army officer of Massachusetts who had worked on building the forts and was thoroughly familiar with Pensacola Bay's defenses, visited Fort Pickens in company with Capt. Farrand. Chase was in charge of all insurgents in that region and Farrand had been second in command at the Navy Yard. Chase obtained an interview with Slemmer and tried to persuade him to "avoid bloodshed" by quietly surrendering the fort. Col. Chase said in conclusion, "Consider this well, and take care that you will so act as to have no fearful recollections of a tragedy that you might have avoided; but rather to make the present moment one of the most glorious, because Christian-like, of your life." Slemmer, it can be said, did make that a "glorious moment of his life" by refusing to give up the fort.

Nothing remained to the State forces except to make an assault. But the Florida senators in Washington and other representatives, including Senator Jefferson Davis, telegraphed advising that no blood should be shed.[6]

On Jan. 18, another demand was made for the surrender of the fort, and this too was refused. A siege of that stronghold was begun.

In the meantime, the government in Washington was sending reinforcements to Forts Taylor and Jefferson. On Jan. 21, Capt. Israel Vogdes, with a company of artillerymen, was ordered to sail on the sloop-of-war Brooklyn to reinforce Fort Pickens. On being informed of the overt act violating the truce, Senator Mallory telegraphed to a Mr. Slidell that it would doubtless provoke an attack upon the fort by the force of 1,700 men assembled under Col. Chase. Slidell urged that President Buchanan be informed that Fort Pickens would not be molested if reinforcements were not sent. Capt. Vogdes was then instructed not to land his men unless hostilities were begun. Lt. Slemmer, deprived of the promised aid of the naval establishment, was now left to his own resources. The fort was one of the strongest on the Gulf Coast. There were 54 guns in position and provisions for five months, but the garrison consisted of only 81 officers and men.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42569813/ns/us_news-life/t/back-sc-fla-claims-first-shot-civil-war

January 8, 1861 - Fort Barrancas and the First Shots of the War

This is part of a month-long series on the military aspects of Florida's secession from the Union, which took place 150 years ago this month.

January 8, 1861

Contrary to popular debate, the first shots of the War Between the States were fired neither at Fort Sumter or on the relief ship Star of the West. In reality, the first real shooting of the war took place at the sally port (gate) of Fort Barrancas on Pensacola Bay on January 8, 1861, 150 years ago today.

Barrancas Post, a sprawling military complex adjacent to the brick fort that is preserved today, provided quarters for the only U.S. troops assigned to Pensacola Bay in January of 1861. The soldiers were from Company G, 1st U.S. Artillery, and were commanded by Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer, who was fiercely devoted to the Union cause. The total strength of his force was only 46 men.

[...]

Results were great, at the end of it all.

If you enjoy dead and maimed people.

I will read more tomorrow.....

f you enjoy dead and maimed people.

I don't, but that was the price of secession to protect a slave culture. Slavery killed and maimed generation after generation. That the slaveholders got killed and maimed is justice. That the country that permitted it was horribly traumatized is justice. That the wealth built up through slave agriculture was destroyed is justice. And killing all those folks served another purpose: it reduced the voting bloc that would stand against the reforms that came afterwards. Without a civil war to wipe out about a half-million pro- slavery voting males, it would have been much harder to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery and grant citizenship to the slaves. The pro-slavery population would have been as numerous as the Jim Crow advocates were, and as tenacious, and the anti- slavery forces would have made all sorts of corrupt bargains with them, and avoided a fight - which would have left millions in chains longer. Of course a society that holds millions in chains deserves to be destroyed with hideous slaughter. The Germans deserved to be firebombed. The Japanese deserved to be nuked. And the Southern slavers deserved to be burnt out and blown to pieces on the battlefield. Get rid of hundreds of thousands of them and it's a lot easier to quickly change the polity that remains. The result of the Civil War was spectacularly good, far, far better than anything that Lincoln would have himself dreamed of at the start. Precisely BECAUSE the South fought so hard and so well, the opportunity was had to utterly destroy the whole slave culture and wreck the entire economy, and kill huge numbers of pro-slavery men, removing them from the voting rolls and making it easier to change everything afterwards.

The Germans learned the wrong message from the Franco-Prussian war, and didn't learn from World War I. Militarism - the hope of conquest - had to be beaten out of them with millions and millions dead, the wholesale destruction of their homes and monuments, and the tread of foreign troops in occupation over them, forcing them to their knees, forcing them to carry bodies out of concentration camps and bury them - humiliating them and grinding their arrogant faces in the dirt. Only then could the FULL trauma of war be visited upon them and all fight permanently beaten out of that people. It worked. Germany, and Japan are the most pacifist countries in the world.

Likewise in America, the very success of Southern arms for the first two and a half years of war was necessary to set the stage for the wholesale destruction of the South in a fight to death, and only that wholesale destruction and the anger and vengeance that came from it could enrage the North enough to utterly strip the rebels of the vote and citizen rights, give the blacks the vote, and change the whole structure of the country forever. Without First and Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, the Peninsula, and victory after victory, the final devastating assault would never have been so complete, and the eradication of slavery so quick, so absolute, and so pitiless on the "properly rights" of the slavers. The dead and the maimed in that war had it coming. There was no other way that was as good or as complete.

- - - - -

From Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield. With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. I, The Henry Bill Publishing Company, 1884, pp. 603-605.

Opinion of Judge Black, November 20, 1860

The Tenth chapter of this volume having been given to the press in advance of formal publication, many inquiries have been received in regard to the text of Judge Black's opinion of November 20, 1860, referred to on pp. 231, 232. The opinion was submitted to the President by Judge Black as Attorney-General. So much of the opinion as includes the points which are specially controverted and criticised is here given — about one-half of the entire document. It is as follows:—

. . . "I come now to the point in your letter which is probably of the greatest practical importance. By the Act of 1807 you may employ such parts of the land and naval forces as you may judge necessary for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, in all cases where it is lawful to use the militia for the same purpose. By the Act of 1795 the militia may be called forth 'whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of Judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.' This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force, and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.

"The laws referred to in the Act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges, and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the Federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws, the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws; and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other, except in cases of extreme necessity arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.

"But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their places? Of course, the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulty would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are therefore obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it. In that event troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.

"The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property and aid the Courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to those ends.

"If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend on the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of the State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in Convention assembled, must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event, I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden — that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Gevernment continue to exist, until a new code of things shall be established either by law or force.

"Whether Congress has the constitutionsal right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes:

To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.

To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.

To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.

All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.

"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?

"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot by denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.

"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.

"I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

"J. S. BLACK."

If you enjoy dead and maimed people.

I don't...

Yeah, I see what mean:

Of course a society that holds millions in chains deserves to be destroyed with hideous slaughter. The Germans deserved to be firebombed. The Japanese deserved to be nuked. And the Southern slavers deserved to be burnt out and blown to pieces on the battlefield. ...

The Germans learned the wrong message from the Franco-Prussian war, and didn't learn from World War I. Militarism - the hope of conquest - had to be beaten out of them with millions and millions dead, the wholesale destruction of their homes and monuments, and the tread of foreign troops in occupation over them, forcing them to their knees, ...

Likewise in America, the very success of Southern arms for the first two and a half years of war was necessary to set the stage for the wholesale destruction of the South in a fight to death, and only that wholesale destruction and the anger and vengeance that came from it could enrage the North enough to utterly strip the rebels of the vote and citizen rights, give the blacks the vote, and change the whole structure of the country forever.

You sound like you constantly have a refrain from Alice's Restaurant Massacree running through your mind:

We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. And we was fined fifty dollars and had to pick up the garbage in the snow, but that's not what I came to tell you about.

Came to talk about the draft.

They got a building down in New York City, it's called Whitehall Street, where you walk in, you get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected. I went down to get my physical examination one day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning. 'Cause I wanted to look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted to feel like the all-, I wanted to be the all American kid from New York, and I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all kinds o' mean nasty ugly things. And I walked in and sat down and they gave me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the psychiatrist, room 604."

And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, kill, kill, kill." And I started jumpin' up and down yelling, "Kill! Kill!" and he started jumpin' up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "Kill! Kill!" And the Sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

All in the cause of a good, and moral, and utmost Christian reason, of course.

- - - - - - - - - -

but that was the price of secession to protect a slave culture.

Actually, slavery was constitutional, and every single state of the Union agreed to it when they signed up of their own free will. They did not have to sign up, and they could have left.

The dead and the maimed in that war had it coming.

Well, you said it again. I will remind you again that most of the dead and maimed were Union casualties. As Yogi Berra would say, you can look it up.

If you say they had it coming, who am I to argue?

Actually, slavery was constitutional, and every single state of the Union agreed to it when they signed up of their own free will. They did not have to sign up, and they could have left.

Which is why the United States deserved about a million deaths, total, on BOTH sides.

The North had the burden of the attack, in an era when defensive weapons had the advantage, so they suffered more combat casualties.

But the North had more numbers, so as a proportion of the male population, the Southern military deaths were a greater percentage of the population of the Confederacy than the Northern losses were of the North.

Southern civilian deaths, from disease and starvation, were much higher because of the destruction of the Southern economy and cities and property, There was none of that in the North.

The North had indeed connived at slavery, as you pointed out. So it was also due to pay the price in blood also.

Because America built slavery into its Constitution, it was an evil country that had to be destroyed. The Constitution failed and the country came apart. The issue of slavery was resolved by breaking the Constitution and stripping the conquered pro-slavery side of the vote until the Constitution was changed, after the fact, to contain the new reality, imposed by force.

Because the Constitution was wrong and the country was evil, might had to make right.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He hath trampled out the vintage where the grapes of wrath were stored. He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword. His Truth is marching on.

Which is why the United States deserved about a million deaths, total, on BOTH sides.

Yes, they all had it coming.

The dead and the maimed in that war had it coming.

The poor Irish immigrants who got off the boat with no money and took a bonus to sign up with one side or the other, they had it coming.

The only ones who did not have it coming were those with the means to hire a substitute and avoid the draft. Like Robert Lincoln.

Because America built slavery into its Constitution, it was an evil country that had to be destroyed.

Well, at least we have progressed to the point of admitting that the holy mission of Lincoln and the Radicals was to destroy the country, not save the Union as it existed pursuant to the agreed upon Constitution.

The country was evil, the Constitution was evil, and a sixth of the population was held in chains, from generation to generation on account of it.

THAT country had to be destroyed, THAT Constitution, torn apart. Ending slavery was more important then preserving the peace, wealth or rule of law of the nation. It was more important than preserving the lives of the rest of the Americans, who were content to let a sixth of their number be in chains.

I don't care about Lincoln's MOTIVES. He too was a pawn, or perhaps a bishop, on a chessboard where good and evil, God and Satan, battled it out. The American Constitution and political system stood on the side of Satan, and the people who supported it, and who believed that slavery was just a political issue, and ultimately nobody's business, were pawns of Satan. Because they would not let go of their belief in their slavery system, they were active agents of evil, and they all deserved to die as the penalty for that.

America as it existed WAS destroyed, forever, thank God! The Constitution was shredded and had to be rewritten to completely extirpate the notion that men could own men, and that states had any say at all in that matter. Human liberty is more important than the rule of law, when the law is evil. and far more important than the dignity of any constitution.

The Irish immigrants chose to come here, to a nation at war. They could have gone to Canada. They could have gone to Argentina. They could have tried to make the best of it in Ireland. They CHOSE to come here. And then, on arrival, some CHOSE to be hired to go off to war and kill. Soldiers die. They signed up to die. Did they know what they were fighting for? Were they fighting for a "cause" (both sides had Irish soldiers) or were they fighting for money, mercenaries. They didn't HAVE to fight, they CHOSE to fight.

When you choose to pick up a gun and march out to kill other men for hire, you expose yourself to death and crippling. It was their choice. They were not rounded up and drafted.

The Union that existed under the agreed Constitution was evil and not worth preserving. It's too bad the slavers were so evil that they refused to let go of the evil and chose instead to bring justice down upon their head and their people. It's too bad the Northerners were weak and vacillating and did not care about slavery, as opposed to strongly saying: the time of slavery is over, end it or we will march down there and burn you out to end it. It's too bad that those things were not the motivations of war, but that instead the country sleepwalked into a war over slavery, pretending that it was about petty political things, and refusing the admit what it really WAS about until the issue was so deeply engaged that there was no way out.

It would have been nice to have been able to end the old evil and revise the country peacefully, without war. But the people who derived an advantage from enslaving other people were too hellbent on the practice to allow that - and indeed had worked slavery into the very legal fabric of the nation. And the people on the other side were, for the most part, just not willing to fight to end the enslavement of others. So the country rotted at the head, divided, and fought a bitter war. The country didn't survive it intact. The Constitution didn't. The nature of the people didn't. Everything changed. That was what it took to rip the threads of slavery out of the legal and social fabric.

It would have been better - less hard on life and property - to have done that peacefully. But it was more important that it be done than that the country should survive as it was, or the Constitution be respected, or those Americans who were not slaves be allowed to continue to live their lives in peace and security. In the end, it was better to kill a million whites and destroy the country than to leave slavery be.

It happened the way it had to.

I would hope that the lesson to be drawn is that the Constitution is NOT the ultimate law. There is a law of good and evil above that, and that if good is not respected and evil is embedded because of the Constitution itself, that the Constitution has to go down. This is not an incentive to revolution, but rather, an incentive for people to not accept evil in the belief that the Constitution will be able to simply allow the evil to be unchecked and unchallenged - the belief that as long as you get your evil enacted into law, you're good to go and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The rule of law cannot itself hold when the law is devoted to evil. That's the lesson of the Civil War. America got what it deserved. We should accept that, sorrowfully, and see to it that we don't make the same mistake again.

Why would an agreement, which is most certainly under the table not being known to the general public and most certainly not to Congress, be considered even remotely binding on the next administration? It is 'binding', if even that, only so long as the Buchanan administration is in power and imposes no restrictions on the Lincoln administration. Lincoln had every right to resupply and reinforce any military installation in the hands of the Federal government such as Fort Pickens.

Nothing one administration does on it's own is binding on a subsequent administration.

When it comes in treaties and international agreements (to the extent this armistice qualifies), the only enforcement mechanism in place is the political will of both parties. Two international entities could make an agreement one day and the next, one of them could completely violate it and it is not any crime at all. The only consequence would be the opposing party exacting retribution in whatever way it has the practical means to do so. Absent any such ability, there's no penalty, legal or otherwise, for the offending party.

Certainly the CW was a tragedy. If the south had been permitted to peaceably secede, it's possible though perhaps unlikely reunification might have happened at some point, maybe 25-60 years later. Obviously social sentiment for southern independence and identity exists even today, but if there had been no civil war, perhaps that sentiment never would have taken root in the south, as it doesn't really exist anywhere else in the USA, except for Texas to a small degree. Germany reuinited, though admittedly the East/West split of Germany was not internally instigated by the German people, but by their conquerors.

Nothing one administration does on it's own is binding on a subsequent administration.

This is true, but consider the Executive Agreement that Obama entered into with the head of Iran. It will not be binding on Trump, but it will be considered in effect until Trump decides to withdraw from it. So with Buchanan and Lincoln. You generally give notification of withdrawal from an agreement before violating it with an act of war.

If the south had been permitted to peaceably secede, it's possible though perhaps unlikely reunification might have happened at some point, maybe 25-60 years later.

Or, if the North wanted to dissociate from the degenrate slavers, the could have outlawed slavery in the North and themselves seceded. Slavery was not legally extinguished in the North until after the war with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Slaves were expensive. It was only about 6% of the southerners who owned slaves. They were just labor competition for southern whites. Slavery would not have survived the industrial revolution. The cotton gin was there already. Steam driven tractors were coming. Up in Massachusetts, they proved hat labor was cheaper if paid little, worked to the bone, and disposed of when no longer productive. Slavery died for economic reasons. But what to do with millions of freed slaves?

The southerners were not ready free slaves and say howdy neighbor. The territories were envisioned to be all White and the slaves could not be exported there. And when Lincoln spoke of freeing the slaves, he indicated that the northern states would not have to accept them. There's a pressure cooker building.

Lincoln was an officer in the African Colonization Society which wanted to send Blacks back to Africa. He never quite worked out the logistics. He tried to offload them wherever he could.

The country was evil, the Constitution was evil, and a sixth of the population was held in chains, from generation to generation on account of it.

THAT country had to be destroyed, THAT Constitution, torn apart.

Oh, we are a country of New England moralism, and whatever those nutbags say relieves them of all duties to the Constitution and takes away all rights of anyone who disagrees, and they exercised their unilateral, God-given right to destroy the country. Got it. The great moralism did not stop Providence from being headquarters for the slave trade. There was money to be made.

Indeed there was moral outrage. Just ask Prudence Crandall, see below.

The Constitution was shredded and had to be rewritten to completely extirpate the notion that men could own men, and that states had any say at all in that matter.

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.

There is nothing like those good old New England values at work, bringing democracy to the land. The should have just stuck to burning witches at the stake.

I would hope that the lesson to be drawn is that the Constitution is NOT the ultimate law.

It is on planet Earth in the United States.

Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion?

It's too bad the Northerners were weak and vacillating and did not care about slavery, as opposed to strongly saying: the time of slavery is over, end it or we will march down there and burn you out to end it.

Oh, not to worry. Northerners were strong and did not let a little old Supreme Court opinion stop them when they were riled to action.

"In the Northern states, we are not slaves to individuals, not personal slaves, yet in many respects we are the slaves of the community."
-- Frederick Douglass, 1848

Aimed against an attempt to educate Black children in Connecticut, a law was enacted to shut down the school of Prudence Crandall.

"Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened, That no person shall set up or establish in this state any school, academy, or literary institution, for the instruction or education of coloured persons, who are not inhabitants of this state, nor instruct or teach in any school, academy, or other literary institution whatever in this state, or harbour or board, for the purpose of attending or being taught or instructed in any such school, academy, or literary institution, any coloured person who is not an inhabitant of any town in this state, without the consent in writing, first obtained of a majority of the civil authority, and also of the select-men of the town in which such school, academy, or literary institution is situated; and each and every person who shall knowingly do any act forbidden as aforesaid, or shall be aiding or assisting therein, shall, for the first offence, forfeit and pay to the treasurer of this state, a fine of one hundred dollars, and for the second offence, shall forfeit and pay a fine of two hundred dollars, and so double for every offence of which he or she shall be convicted. And all informing officers are required to make due presentment of all breaches of this act. Provided, That nothing in this act shall extend to any district school established in any school society under the laws of this state, or to any school established by any school society under the laws of this state, or to any incorporated academy or incorporated school for instruction in this state."

In the case of State of Connecticut v. Crandall, at Brooklyn, October term, 1833, before David Daggett, Ch. J., the court instructed the jury as follows:

"This is an information filed by the attorney for the state, for an alleged violation of a statute law, passed by the General Assembly, at their last session, relating to inhabitants; the preamble to the act, embracing the reasons for the law.

"It is alleged in this information, that since the 22d day of August last, to wit, on the 24th day of September, 1833, the defendant has, wilfully and knowingly, harboured and boarded coloured persons not inhabitants of the state, for the purposes mentioned in said act, without having obtained in writing, the consent of the civil authority and the selectment of Canterbury where the school had been set up. As to the facts in this case, there seems to be but little controversy. It has scarcely been denied, that coloured persons have been harboured and boarded, by the defendant, for the objects alleged, within the time set forth in this information. You, gentlemen of the jury, have heard the evidence, and as it is your exclusive business to pass upon these facts, you will say whether or not they are true.

"If these facts are not proved to your satisfaction, then you may dismiss the cause; for in that event, you have no further duty to perform. If, however, you find the facts true, then another duty equally important, devolves upon the jury. It is an undeniable proposition, that the jury are judges of both law and fact, in all cases of this nature. It is, however, equally true, that the court is to state its opinion to the jury, upon all questions of law, arising in the trial of a criminal cause, and to submit to their consideration, both law and fact, without any direction how to find their verdict.

"The counsel for the defendant, have rested her defence upon a provision of the constitution of the United States, claiming that the statute law of this state, upon which this information is founded, is inconsistent with that provision, and, therefore, void. This is the great question involved in this case: and it is about to be submitted to your consideration.

"It is admitted, that there are no provisions in the constitution of this state, which conflict with this act. It may be remarked here, that the constitution of the United States, is above all other law, -- it is emphatically the supreme law of the land, and the judges are so to declare it. From the highest court to the lowest, even that of a justice of the peace, all laws, whether made by Congress or state legislatures, are subject to examination, and when brought to the test of the constitution, may be declared utterly void. But in order to do this, the court should first find the law contrary, and plainly contrary, to the constitution. Although this may be done, and done too, by the humblest court, yet it never should be done but upon a full conviction that the law in question is unconstitutional.

"Many things said upon this trial, may be laid out of the case. The consideration of slavery, with all its evils and degrading consequences, may be dismissed with the consideration that it is a degrading evil. The benefits, blessings and advantages of instruction and education, may also cease to claim your attention, except you may well consider that education is a 'fundamental privilege,' for this is the basis of all free government.

"Having read this law, the question comes to us with peculiar force, does it clearly violate the constitution of the United States? The section claimed to have been violated, reads as follows, to wit: Art. 4. sec. 2. 'The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' It has been urged, that this section was made to direct, exclusively, the action of the general government, and therefore, can never be applied to state laws. This is not the opinion of the court. The plain and obvious meaning of this provision, is to secure to the citizens of all the states, the same privileges as are secured to our own, by our own state laws. Should a citizen of Connecticut purchase a farm in Massachusetts, and the legislature of Massachusetts tax the owner of that farm, four times as much as they would tax a citizen of Massachusetts, because the one resided in Connecticut and the other in Massachusetts; or should a law be passed, by either of those states, that no citizen of the other, should reside or trade in that other, this would, undoubtedly, be an unconstitutional law, and should be so declared.

"The second section was provided as a substitute for the 4th article of the Confederation. That article has also been read, and by comparing them, you can perceive the object intended by the substitute.

"The act in question provides, that coloured persons, who are not inhabitants of this State, shall not be harboured and boarded for the purposes therein mentioned, within this state, without the consent of the civil authority and select-men of the town. We are, then, brought to the great question, are they citizens within the provisions of this section of the constitution? The law extends to all persons of colour not inhabitants of this state, whether they live in the state of New-York, or in the West-Indies, or in any other foreign country.

"In deciding this question, I am happy that my opinion can be revised, by the supreme court of this state and of the United States, should you return a verdict against the defendant.

"The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the constitution of the United States, which I have just read. Let me begin, by putting this plain question. Are Slaves citizens? At the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state was a slave state. Massachusetts had begun the work of emancipation within her own borders. And Connecticut, as early as 1784, had also enacted laws making all those free at the age of 25, who might be born within the State, after that time. We all know, that slavery is recognized in that constitution; and it is the duty of this court to take that constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it. Although the term 'slavery' cannot be found written out in the constitution, yet no one can mistake the object of the 3d section of the 4th article: 'No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered, upon claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.'

"The 2d section of the 1st article, reads as follows: -- 'Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.' The 'other persons' are slaves, and they became the basis of representation, by adding them to the white population in that proportion. Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the constitution.

"A citizen means a freeman. By referring to Dr. Webster, one of the most learned men of this or any other country, we have the following definition of the term -- 'Citizen: 1. A native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides. 2. A townsman, a man of trade, not a gentleman. 3. An inhabitant; a dweller in any city, town or country. 4. In the United States, it means a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, and of purchasing and holding real estate.'

"Are Indians citizens? It is admitted in the argument, that they are not; but it is said, they belong to distinct tribes. This cannot be true; because all Indians do not belong to a tribe. It may be now added, that by the declared law of New-York, Indians are not citizens; and the learned Chancellor Kent, says 'they never can be made citizens.' Indians were literally natives of our soil; they were born here; and yet they are not citizens.

"The Mohegans were once a mighty tribe, powerful and valiant; and who among us ever saw one of them performing military duty, or exercising, with the white men, the privilege of the elective franchise, or holding an office? And what is the reason? I answer, they are not citizens, according to the acceptation of the term in the United States.

"Are free blacks citizens? It has been ingeniously said, that vessels may be owned and navigated, by free blacks, and the American flag will protect them; but you will remember, that the statute which makes that provision, is an act of Congress, and not the constitution. Admit, if you please, that Mr. Cuffee, a respectable merchant, has owned vessels, and sailed them under the American flag; yet this does not prove him to be such citizen as the constitution contemplates. But that question stands undecided, by any legal tribunal within my knowledge. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to determine that question.

"It has been also urged, that as coloured persons may commit treason, they must be considered citizens. Every person born in the United States, as well as every person who may reside here, owes allegiance, of some sort, to the government, because the government affords him protection. Treason against this government, consists in levying war against the government of the United States, or aiding its enemy in time of war. Treason may be committed, by persons who are not entitled to the elective franchise. For if they reside under the protection of the government, it would be treason to levy war against that government, as much as if they were citizens.

"I think Chancellor Kent, whose authority it gives me pleasure to quote, determines this question, by fair implication. Had this authority considered free blacks citizens, he had an ample opportunity to say so. But what he has said excludes that idea: In most of the United States, there is a distinction in respect to political privileges, between free white persons and free coloured persons of African blood; and in no part of the country do the latter, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites, in the exercise of civil and political rights. The African race are essentially a degraded caste, of inferior rank and condition in society. Marriages are forbidden between them and whites, in some of the states, and when not absolutely contrary to law, they are revolting, and regarded as an offence against public decorum. By the revised statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, marriages between whites and negroes, or mulattos, are declared void, and the persons so married are liable to be whipped, fined and imprisoned. By an old statute of Massachusetts, of 1705, such marriages were declared void, and are so still. A similar statute provision exists in Virginia and North-Carolina. Such connexions in France and Germany, constitute the degraded state of concubinage, which is known in the civil law. But they are not legal marriages, because the parties want that equality of state or condition, which is essential to the contract.' 2 Kent's Comm. 258.

"I go further back still. When the constitution of the United States was adopted, every state, (Massachusetts excepted,) tolerated slavery. And in some of the states, down to a late period, severe laws have been kept in force regarding slaves. With respect to New-York, at that time, her laws and penalties were severe indeed; and it was not until July, 4th, 1827, that this great state was ranked among the free states.

"To my mind, it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rule of construction, to say, that slaves, free blacks, or Indians, were citizens, within the meaning of that term, as used in the constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say, they are not citizens.

"I have thus shown you that this law is not contrary to the 2d section of the 4th art. of the constitution of the United States; for that embraces only citizens.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/crandall/CRfacts1.htm

On July 26, 1834, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors dismissed the case against Crandall on a technical issue. The lower court decision that African Americans were not protected as citizens, however, remained standing. Although Crandall had won a technical legal victory and was free to return to her school, the townspeople of Canterbury would not accept the Supreme Court's decision. On the night of September 9, 1834, an angry mob broke in and ransacked the school building. With clubs and iron bars, the mob terrorized the students and broke more than 90 windows. What the Black Law and local ostracism had not been able to accomplish, this mob achieved. Fearing for the girls' safety, Crandall closed the school the following morning.

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/educator-and-abolitionist-prudence-crandall

From Rhode Island, after being educated at a Society of Friends school in Plainfield, Connecticut, Crandall established her own private school for girls at Canterbury. The school was a great success until she decided to admit a Black girl. Crandall, a committed Quaker refused to change her policy of educating Black and white children. The result, White parents began taking their children away from the school. In March 1833 with the support of William Lloyd Garrison and the Anti-Slavery Society, Crandall opened a school for Black girls in Canterbury.

Local people were furious at this and many tried to prevent the school from receiving essential materials. The school persisted and began to attract girls from Boston and Philadelphia. The local authorities then began using a vagrancy law that meant the girls could be given ten lashes for attending the school. In 1834 Connecticut passed a law making it illegal to provide a free education for Black students. Crandall refused to obey the law and was imprisoned, but won the case on appeal. When news of the court decision reached Canterbury, a white mob attacked the school forcing Crandall to close her school down.

Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion?

It's a thought.

Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion?

It's a thought.

Yes, because killing 100 million or so random people is the answer.

Yes, because killing 100 million or so random people is the answer.

The better answer would be for the nation to stop murdering babies.

Slavery would not have survived the industrial revolution. The cotton gin was there already. Steam driven tractors were coming. Up in Massachusetts, they proved hat labor was cheaper if paid little, worked to the bone, and disposed of when no longer productive. Slavery died for economic reasons.

Quite true. Slavery would have been outlawed in the south in it's own time, without need of any war. The only thing war gained slaves was a quicker end to it. Though some may argue on the "justice delayed is justice denied" theme that ending it 25-50 years sooner would be worth a war, it being perhaps as much as 2 generations sooner. But of course the war was only partly related to slavery and more about the industrial vs agrarian economic differences between north and south.

It might also have been the case that slaves often preferred the security of slavery, in spite of whatever labor was required of them where they had homes & plenty to eat in those cases were they had compassionate & wealthy owners (however non-PC it may be to say such a thing). Losing that and then having to face the competition & decision making of everyday life would have been quite a shocking transition to make for anyone who had grown up as a relatively well cared for slave, and of course being black in a white world would only make it harder. Of course I would not expect that to be true for most slaves.

I believe I read once the importation of slaves was prohibited in the Confederate Constitution so the mindset of immorality of slavery was certainly a growing concept even in the south. Then again, maybe the import ban was more for economic or political reasons and not so much moral.

And when Lincoln spoke of freeing the slaves, he indicated that the northern states would not have to accept them. There's a pressure cooker building.

Lincoln was an officer in the African Colonization Society which wanted to send Blacks back to Africa. He never quite worked out the logistics. He tried to offload them wherever he could.

Lincoln would have qualified as a white supremist by today's standards, though I'd bet most whites of the day would have also. He did not favor integration, and I think there are enough speeches of his to back that up. Sending them somewhere/anywhere was certainly his desire for at least part of his career. Hell, he's even on record as stating he'd just as easily keep slavery as abolish it, whichever would keep the union together. Apparently what you found was that Lincoln actually started the war to serve that end. If he'd put the country through the hell of war to preserve the union, how bad would it have been to just say, "okay, you guys can keep your slaves" and be a happy united country again?

Seems to me that is a convincing argument that the war was not/could not have been about slavery. The south must have had much deeper differences with the north than slavery alone.

The better answer would be for the nation to stop murdering babies.

It's not the best ideal answer that counts. Instead it's the best practical answer. War/nuking is one practical answer (though even nukes would not kill all women or men, so it's arguable even that would fail to achieve the desired goal of ending abortion). So can you not come up with one at least a little bit better?

So can you not come up with one at least a little bit better?

Yes. I didn't propose nuking the cities to end abortion. Nolu chan did.

Which do we want to talk about? Slavery? Abortion? Paying taxes to the British crown rather than killing people to avoid taxes?

Instead it's the best practical answer.

The best practical answer to slavery is what happened: Civil War that ended it swiftly.

The best practical answer to abortion is a Supreme Court decision that finds that abortion is neither a privacy right issue nor a states rights issue, but a constitutional issue: the unborn are persons, and it is unconstitutional everywhere to kill anybody without trial - and as the unborn are innocent, they cannot be tried - therefore, abortion is strictly unconstitutional as a matter of civil rights, and not a question open to state interpretation.

Then prosecute people who continue to commit abortion as murderers.

That's the solution to abortion: a swift, universal ban, following by the willing to enforce the ban with police and prison.

The solution to slavery was to end it fast, and require the slaveowners to compensate the slaves for their labor, with transfer payments from the nation as well.

That didn't happen. Nobody wanted that. So we had a war instead. That was the second best solution.

[Pinguinite #23] I believe I read once the importation of slaves was prohibited in the Confederate Constitution so the mindset of immorality of slavery was certainly a growing concept even in the south. Then again, maybe the import ban was more for economic or political reasons and not so much moral.

The number of Blacks was multiplying as the need for slave labor was about to diminish drastically due to technology. Some southern states had been resisting further importation whle they were still colonies.

http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0019

Virginia acted to end the importation of slaves into the state as early as 1777, and the bill was passed in October 1778. As a colony, they had become unwilling participants at the mandate of the crown.

In their Constitution of 1830, they railed against the king, including a complaint that "by prompting our negroes to rise up in arms among us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he had refused us permssion to exclude by law...."

The Confederate Constitution, March 11, 1861, Section 9, Clause 1:

Sec. 9. (1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

[Pinguinite #24] Lincoln would have qualified as a white supremist by today's standards, though I'd bet most whites of the day would have also.

True, north and south. The evidence for it is overwhelming. But then the standard reason given for the war, supposedly being to free the slaves, posits a war between two groups of white racists to free the slaves, where one side held Blacks enslaved, and the other nearly enslaved them with Black laws. Illinois, the home of the free and the Land o' Lincoln instituted 99-year indentured servitude. Not to be confused with slavery because after 99 years servitude they were free.

The history I was taught in school was pure nonsense. It included that the guy who assassinated Lincoln was a lone nut. At no time at school was I ever taught that four people were hanged and four more imprisoned for conspiracy. That was probably the most corrupt trial in history. One more conspiracy trial failed to obtain a conviction.

[Pinguinite #24] If he'd put the country through the hell of war to preserve the union, how bad would it have been to just say, "okay, you guys can keep your slaves" and be a happy united country again?

Give the owners compensation and let all the freed slaves go to New England where they would be welcomed. /s

Compensated emancipation and letting them go to the territories might have been tried. The the D.C. slaves were freed during the war, the owners were compensated. Compensation would have been cheaper than the war and would not have killed anyone.

However, Lincoln and the radicals saw the territories as an all-White paradise with no Black labor in sight.

Lincoln was not bashful about saying what he wanted:

"In our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom" [the Declaration of Independence]
Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:276

"Thenceforward, for sixty-one years, and until in 1848, the last scrap of this territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended---the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave amongst them."
Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:249

"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people."
Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:268

"Have we no interest in the free Territories of the United States---that they should be kept open for the homes of free white people?"
Lincoln, August 27, 1856, Kalamazoo, Michigan, CW 2:363

"Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n------."
Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:78 [Lincoln uses the N-word without elision]

"Is it not rather our duty [as White men] to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?"
Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:79

[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.

We then talked of a favourite project he had of getting rid of the negroes by colonization, and he asked me what I thought of it. I told him that it was simply impossible; that the negroes would not go away, for they loved their homes as much as the rest of us, and all efforts at colonization would not make a substantial impression upon the number of negroes in the country.

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."

I left the office, called upon the Secretary of State, who received me kindly, and explained in a few words what the President wanted. He said: "Yes, General, I know that the President is greatly worried upon this subject. He has spoken to me of it frequently, and yours may be a solution of it; but today is my mail day. I am very much driven with what must be done to-day; but I dine, as you know, at six o'clock. Come and take a family dinner with me, and afterward, over an indifferent cigar, we will talk this matter over fully."

But that evening Secretary Seward, in his drive before dinner, was thrown from his carriage and severely injured, his jaw being broken, and he was confined to his bed until the assassination of Lincoln, and the attempted murder of himself by one of the confederates of Booth, so that the subject could never be again mentioned to Mr. Lincoln.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jesus didn't have slaves.

No, but the Romans who crucified him did. We can presume he was familiar with the issue.

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. :)

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).

In the case of the Fourteenth Amendment, Secretary of State William J. Seward certified that the required number of states ratified the Amendment on July 28, 1868. 15 Stat. 708 (1867-69). In accordance with the authority cited above, we are bound by Secretary Seward's finding. The fact that the appellant is alleging fraud in the ratification process does not alter our conclusion. Stahl, 702 F.2d at 1440.

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:

Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.

Act of April 20, 1818, ch. 80, Sec. 2, Rev.Stat. Sec. 205 (2d ed. 1878) (amended version codified at 5 U.S.C. § 160 (1940) (repealed Oct. 31, 1951); current version, as amended, at 1 U.S.C. § 106b (Supp. II 1984)).

Secretary of State Knox's certification of the adoption of the sixteenth amendment is conclusive upon the courts. United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137, 42 S. Ct. 217, 218, 66 L. Ed. 505 (1922). In Leser suit was brought to strike the names of two women from the list of qualified voters in Maryland on the ground that the constitution of Maryland limited suffrage to men. Maryland had refused to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. The necessary minimum of thirty-six states had ratified the amendment. The Secretary of State of the United States had certified its adoption. It was contended, however, that the ratifying resolutions of Tennessee and West Virginia, two of the states that had ratified the amendment, were inoperative because the resolutions of those states had been adopted in violation of their rules of legislative procedure. In answer to that contention the Court ruled:

The proclamation by the Secretary certified that from official documents on file in the Department of State it appeared that the proposed Amendment was ratified by the legislatures of thirty-six States, and that it "has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States." As the legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so was conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
369 U.S. 186

* * *

We have said that "In determining whether a question falls within [the political question] category, the approriateness under our system of government of attributing finality to the action of the political departments and also the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination are dominant considerations." Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 454 -455. The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers. Much confusion results from the capacity of the "political question" label to obscure the need for [369 U.S. 186, 211] case-by-case inquiry. Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. To demonstrate this requires no less than to analyze representative cases and to infer from them the analytical threads that make up the political question doctrine. We shall then show that none of those threads catches this case.

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

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.

Biblical slavery looked nothing like American slavery.

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

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.

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.

ow 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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

hat 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.

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.

You're viewpoint is that of a socialist, then you try to make the Bible fit with your socialist ideology.

Not true.

Not true.

Ok. But that is what it sounds like to me at times.