This is brilliant. It’s going on my wall and in my Bible. Also, been reading about the Southern Presbyterian church, antebellum and postbellum. Wow. I never knew that this theology played such a huge role in Confederate war rationale It certainly does though, now that I think about it, explain how the South thought they could take on 23 million northerners armed with an industrial complex that rivaled Great Britain’s (compared with only 9 million southerners, 4 million of which were slaves) and win. I mean, I knew that they were hoping England would get involved, but still…it sure does take a lot of faith to volunteer to go up against those odds.
I don’t want to get into a big North was right, South was right, or vice versa, debate here. I mean, in hindsight, to make the war about moral failings or theological perspectives is kind of a stretch…it was really about what all wars are usually about: who controls the money and the people. Both the North and South had their reasons for war that were not quite as valiant as each would like to believe. But that being said, I’ll admit that the claims that the South was a Christian Orthodox nation opposed to the Unitarian heretic Northerners requires, in my opinion, a huge suspension of disbelief.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Argo,
Would it not be fair to say that the Civil War did have a great deal to do with “who owns man?” As much as people deny it, the war was about slavery and like constitutional issues.
Oh, yes, of course. I think it would be foolish to deny that slavery was THE issue that forced the states to war with each other. And, that being said, it would also be foolish to deny the moral component of the war. There is simply no justification for the institution, and it’s blight upon our nation’s history certainly makes for effective fodder for those who feel the US was founded upon hypocritical ideas (me being one of those who can’t explain it away, and don’t want to…hypocrisy is hypocrisy; slavery made a mockery, in a sense, of the Declaration and the reasons for the Revolution).
However, that being said, I do feel that there is a temptation to over simplify the reasons for the Civil War. Though slavery was no mere tangential issue, the ability to define just “who was right” so to speak, is in fact much more complicated. Just because the South had slaves did not give the North a categorical blank check to use military force to compel southern states into a “union” that they wanted no part of…there are strong arguments that the South did, in fact, have a constitutional right to secede (though, obviously it’s debatable; it’s just not that simple). And to simplify the war by only seeing it in terms of a single moral issue I think is a poor exegesis of history. It certainly wouldn’t seem fair to cite the North as the arbiters of racial and social morality and harmony given the fact that there were laws which restricted the freedom of blacks for decades after the Civil War…indeed, the Boston Bus Riots took place in 1974; two years AFTER I was born. And again, those riots took place not only in the North, but the New England North. Also, when one reads a book like The Jungle, it’s hard to see the North as a shining jewel of compassion; northern industrialists treated their workers every bit as much animals as the south treated slaves; strictly speaking.
In addition to the obvious and huge negative economic impact that the South would have had on the North if secession was successful, it is also very debatable whether or not the North was right constitutionally to consolidate the power of the federal government. Certainly, in the decades following the Civil War we have seen the power of the state governments become largely tangential…which I submit was not the intention of the Founding Fathers.
Also, it is convenient to blame the disaster that was Reconstruction on the South, but keep in mind the North didn’t want the free blacks any more than the south did (which is a blight, again, on the whole country); and it is food for thought to realize that when you release 4 million uneducated people into the work force in a geographical area that has been decimated by war and has no economy, and offer little to no economic solution to this little problem (because you, with the exception of a few abolitionists, are just as racist), that it is really no surprise that their will be rampant violence towards and ostracizing of this new working class by the former majority…both groups of which had zero frame of reference to integrate peacefully. (Add to that the anger at actually losing the war.)
I’m NO advocate for slavery. It is a catastrophic and hellish institution. Am I glad it was eradicated in the fell swoop of the Civil War? You are darn right. But I do think that we need to be careful not to demagogue the issue, or claim that one side truly had moral superiority. Racism and slavery is to be blamed on the whole of the United States (many, many slave trading vessels sailed from New York and Boston), not only the South. Of course Southern Presbyterians of the time are as culpable as anyone else for twisting the reasons for the war to make it an Us vs.Them moral superiority spat. I don’t support their point of view, but I also don’t support the over simplified view that “the South had slaves, therefore they are entitled to no defense of their actions in service to the other massive issues: economic and constitutional.” Remember, 300,000 southerners died. Most never owned a single slave. So to saddle them with the moral failings of an entire nation which were perpetuated by an institution that was completely legal and practiced (I think) in every single state of the Union at the time of the Constitutional Convention, north and south, does not seem quite fair.
Not that I’m a Southern apologist…far from it. But what did the Northern army do after the Civil War? They went out west and wiped out the indians. So much for the morality card.
I’m NOT saying the South was right. I am also not saying that they were entirely wrong when you examine the War in its totality. I DO think the Southern Presbyterians were wrong in their biblical interpretations, which was the point of my last post.
Please understand that I don’t like to debate this issue. I don’t really want to be right about it. There is a real part of me that wishes the stain of slavery could simply be blamed on the racist South and be done with it. I’m not trying to be passive aggressive. I don’t want to be right on this issue…I don’t want that there should be any gray area with an issue like slavery. It is something that I do not find at all that fits anywhere with my fundamental beliefs about the natural rights of ALL men. I wish I could be wrong about this (allow me a moment of smugness…sigh). I don’t like to argue this angle; I don’t like the way it makes me look. And I don’t like the kind of questions it raises about how this nation was founded.
But, that being said, if I want my ideas to be consistent, it sometimes means that I must accept some things that are an affront to me. It means that I must concede certain things that I’d rather make an exception for. I think the Civil War falls into this category.
The (distasteful as it is) fact is that the South does have a legal and even a moral leg to stand on. The fact that the catalyst issue is slavery sometimes obscures this, but they do have a legitimate argument. They don’t always do a great job of articulating it, but that doesn’t change the facts.
At the time of this country’s inception, the institution of slavery was legal, accepted, and practiced in every state in the colonies, and subsequently the union. The morality of it was considered debatable at best, biblical interpretations vague and varied, and the legal consensus was always, even up to the very eve of the Civil War, that it was a state issue. Meaning that the decision to have slavery or not was an issue that all agreed would be mediated by the individual states…and this was agreed by all when they signed on to the pact that created the United States. Therefore, all states were complicit in the propagation of slavery in the US. Slavery was an issue, even THE issue, in the Civil War. But it’s existence needs to be blamed on the UNITED States, not just on the Confederate States.
So, constitutionally, the decision to abolish slavery was left up to the states.
What the federal government did (and when the North argues the slavery angle) was make a conscious decision to take a MORAL, not legal, stand on an issue that all understood Constitutionally to be the purview of the states, and unilaterally declared a right to pull a gun and blow away those who did not agree with the definition. Now, one can argue the constitutional right of secession…for that is the only issue the North can win the debate on…but to argue slavery means that one is complicit with and accepts that it is within the realm of federal government authority and rule on moral issues which are debatable and legal at the time the debates occur and then declare themselves the right, without any consideration for the accepted and understood rule of law, to kill in order to have that moral opinion made legally binding. Remember, the 13th Amendment was passed without the input of half the country. I’m glad it was passed, but it puts into perspective just how NOT clear the issue of slavery was back then.
This does and did set a tremendous precedent; and solidified the fundamentally unassailable power of the federal government to, at the end of the day, do what they please, and reserve themselves a right to pull a gun in service to their power.
Now, was it worth it? Well…I could easily say yes, for that is what an abomination slavery is. And if we want to argue that this was the one issue in which we’ll make an exception for government forced morality, I could easily get behind it. However, as dreadful as slavery is (and I’m a large part Irish, so I know all about a family history of oppression and servitude) was, I do think one would be hard pressed to declare the bible in favor of killing over it. Abolishing it YES, but war is another matter. I know…it’s easy for me to say. I’m white. And that would not be a wrong point of view. I get it.
All I’m saying is that it challenges our ideas as those who reject despotism. Certainly, we believe that no man can own another man. But in the context of 1861 the issue of the American Civil War is simply not as clear as we would like it to be. In order to be true to my ideas about the right of government to control definitions of morality, I feel like I at least need to wrestle with this part of history. If we are going to venture into the realm of developing a cohesive personal philosophy, it means looking hard at difficult issues that, frankly, we’d rather see as being much, much easier.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 11, 2012 at 8:47 PM
To “Roy Sevan” and, or Randy Seiver with documented IP addresses, I have been instructed to state the following to you: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT THIS BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE, AND HIS DOMAIN ADDRESS(paulspassingthoughts.com), OR ANY OTHER BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT PAUL DOHSE BY ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. DO NOT RESPOND(paulspassingthoughts.com) TO THIS STATEMENT FOR ANY REASON VIA THE AFOREMENTIONED.
Posted by Paul M. Dohse @ 8:45 pm Eastern Standard time on Saturday, August 11, 2012.
I suppose you are aware that Gen. Grant’s wife owned slaves. I guess the issue couldn’t have been slavery could it? The issue was State’s rights, a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. If we had that right, an Obama wouldn’t be ruining the country.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM
To “Roy Sevan” and, or Randy Seiver with documented IP addresses, I have been instructed to state the following to you: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT THIS BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE, AND HIS DOMAIN ADDRESS(paulspassingthoughts.com), OR ANY OTHER BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT PAUL DOHSE BY ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. DO NOT RESPOND(paulspassingthoughts.com) TO THIS STATEMENT FOR ANY REASON VIA THE AFOREMENTIONED.
Posted by Paul M. Dohse @ 8:45 pm Eastern Standard time on Saturday, August 11, 2012.
Though I think you are delusional, I have to agree with you on this one. Elders are not the final authority in matters of faith and practice. Jesus Christ is the only head of the church. Elders are only safe in enforcing the laws laid down in the Scriptures. By the way, I am not sure what your above statement is talking about, but you seem to be becoming a bit paranoid.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM
To “Roy Sevan” and, or Randy Seiver with documented IP addresses, I have been instructed to state the following to you: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT THIS BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE, AND HIS DOMAIN ADDRESS (paulspassingthoughts.com), OR ANY OTHER BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT PAUL DOHSE BY ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS STATEMENT FOR ANY REASON VIA THE AFOREMENTIONED.
Posted by Paul M. Dohse @ 8:45 pm Eastern Standard time on Saturday, August 11, 2012.
You have a public page. That means anyone can post on it. I have not slandered you at any time. Though I believe you are a delusional enemy of God and truth, unless Obama gets reelected, I still have the right to express my opinion. Whoever this Roy guy is, he and I still have that right. If you don’t like it, only open your page to those who agree with you. Otherwise, come to CR and get me. Good luck with that.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM
To “Roy Sevan” IP ADDRESS 201.191.191.252 and, Randy Seiver IP ADDRESS 201.191.191.252, I have been instructed to state the following to you: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT THIS BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE, AND HIS DOMAIN ADDRESS (paulspassingthoughts.com), OR ANY OTHER BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT PAUL DOHSE BY ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS STATEMENT FOR ANY REASON VIA THE AFOREMENTIONED.
Posted by Paul M. Dohse @ 8:45 pm Eastern Standard time on Saturday, August 11, 2012.
Or, in the case of slavery, it might just be that God’s sovereignty trumped the states rights? It might be that God could have cared less about our constitution and the southern states just didn’t get with God’s plan. Was this the reason so many went to their deaths from the North and the South?
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul,
This is brilliant. It’s going on my wall and in my Bible. Also, been reading about the Southern Presbyterian church, antebellum and postbellum. Wow. I never knew that this theology played such a huge role in Confederate war rationale It certainly does though, now that I think about it, explain how the South thought they could take on 23 million northerners armed with an industrial complex that rivaled Great Britain’s (compared with only 9 million southerners, 4 million of which were slaves) and win. I mean, I knew that they were hoping England would get involved, but still…it sure does take a lot of faith to volunteer to go up against those odds.
I don’t want to get into a big North was right, South was right, or vice versa, debate here. I mean, in hindsight, to make the war about moral failings or theological perspectives is kind of a stretch…it was really about what all wars are usually about: who controls the money and the people. Both the North and South had their reasons for war that were not quite as valiant as each would like to believe. But that being said, I’ll admit that the claims that the South was a Christian Orthodox nation opposed to the Unitarian heretic Northerners requires, in my opinion, a huge suspension of disbelief.
LikeLike
Argo,
Would it not be fair to say that the Civil War did have a great deal to do with “who owns man?” As much as people deny it, the war was about slavery and like constitutional issues.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Oh, yes, of course. I think it would be foolish to deny that slavery was THE issue that forced the states to war with each other. And, that being said, it would also be foolish to deny the moral component of the war. There is simply no justification for the institution, and it’s blight upon our nation’s history certainly makes for effective fodder for those who feel the US was founded upon hypocritical ideas (me being one of those who can’t explain it away, and don’t want to…hypocrisy is hypocrisy; slavery made a mockery, in a sense, of the Declaration and the reasons for the Revolution).
However, that being said, I do feel that there is a temptation to over simplify the reasons for the Civil War. Though slavery was no mere tangential issue, the ability to define just “who was right” so to speak, is in fact much more complicated. Just because the South had slaves did not give the North a categorical blank check to use military force to compel southern states into a “union” that they wanted no part of…there are strong arguments that the South did, in fact, have a constitutional right to secede (though, obviously it’s debatable; it’s just not that simple). And to simplify the war by only seeing it in terms of a single moral issue I think is a poor exegesis of history. It certainly wouldn’t seem fair to cite the North as the arbiters of racial and social morality and harmony given the fact that there were laws which restricted the freedom of blacks for decades after the Civil War…indeed, the Boston Bus Riots took place in 1974; two years AFTER I was born. And again, those riots took place not only in the North, but the New England North. Also, when one reads a book like The Jungle, it’s hard to see the North as a shining jewel of compassion; northern industrialists treated their workers every bit as much animals as the south treated slaves; strictly speaking.
In addition to the obvious and huge negative economic impact that the South would have had on the North if secession was successful, it is also very debatable whether or not the North was right constitutionally to consolidate the power of the federal government. Certainly, in the decades following the Civil War we have seen the power of the state governments become largely tangential…which I submit was not the intention of the Founding Fathers.
Also, it is convenient to blame the disaster that was Reconstruction on the South, but keep in mind the North didn’t want the free blacks any more than the south did (which is a blight, again, on the whole country); and it is food for thought to realize that when you release 4 million uneducated people into the work force in a geographical area that has been decimated by war and has no economy, and offer little to no economic solution to this little problem (because you, with the exception of a few abolitionists, are just as racist), that it is really no surprise that their will be rampant violence towards and ostracizing of this new working class by the former majority…both groups of which had zero frame of reference to integrate peacefully. (Add to that the anger at actually losing the war.)
I’m NO advocate for slavery. It is a catastrophic and hellish institution. Am I glad it was eradicated in the fell swoop of the Civil War? You are darn right. But I do think that we need to be careful not to demagogue the issue, or claim that one side truly had moral superiority. Racism and slavery is to be blamed on the whole of the United States (many, many slave trading vessels sailed from New York and Boston), not only the South. Of course Southern Presbyterians of the time are as culpable as anyone else for twisting the reasons for the war to make it an Us vs.Them moral superiority spat. I don’t support their point of view, but I also don’t support the over simplified view that “the South had slaves, therefore they are entitled to no defense of their actions in service to the other massive issues: economic and constitutional.” Remember, 300,000 southerners died. Most never owned a single slave. So to saddle them with the moral failings of an entire nation which were perpetuated by an institution that was completely legal and practiced (I think) in every single state of the Union at the time of the Constitutional Convention, north and south, does not seem quite fair.
Not that I’m a Southern apologist…far from it. But what did the Northern army do after the Civil War? They went out west and wiped out the indians. So much for the morality card.
I’m NOT saying the South was right. I am also not saying that they were entirely wrong when you examine the War in its totality. I DO think the Southern Presbyterians were wrong in their biblical interpretations, which was the point of my last post.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Please understand that I don’t like to debate this issue. I don’t really want to be right about it. There is a real part of me that wishes the stain of slavery could simply be blamed on the racist South and be done with it. I’m not trying to be passive aggressive. I don’t want to be right on this issue…I don’t want that there should be any gray area with an issue like slavery. It is something that I do not find at all that fits anywhere with my fundamental beliefs about the natural rights of ALL men. I wish I could be wrong about this (allow me a moment of smugness…sigh). I don’t like to argue this angle; I don’t like the way it makes me look. And I don’t like the kind of questions it raises about how this nation was founded.
But, that being said, if I want my ideas to be consistent, it sometimes means that I must accept some things that are an affront to me. It means that I must concede certain things that I’d rather make an exception for. I think the Civil War falls into this category.
The (distasteful as it is) fact is that the South does have a legal and even a moral leg to stand on. The fact that the catalyst issue is slavery sometimes obscures this, but they do have a legitimate argument. They don’t always do a great job of articulating it, but that doesn’t change the facts.
At the time of this country’s inception, the institution of slavery was legal, accepted, and practiced in every state in the colonies, and subsequently the union. The morality of it was considered debatable at best, biblical interpretations vague and varied, and the legal consensus was always, even up to the very eve of the Civil War, that it was a state issue. Meaning that the decision to have slavery or not was an issue that all agreed would be mediated by the individual states…and this was agreed by all when they signed on to the pact that created the United States. Therefore, all states were complicit in the propagation of slavery in the US. Slavery was an issue, even THE issue, in the Civil War. But it’s existence needs to be blamed on the UNITED States, not just on the Confederate States.
So, constitutionally, the decision to abolish slavery was left up to the states.
What the federal government did (and when the North argues the slavery angle) was make a conscious decision to take a MORAL, not legal, stand on an issue that all understood Constitutionally to be the purview of the states, and unilaterally declared a right to pull a gun and blow away those who did not agree with the definition. Now, one can argue the constitutional right of secession…for that is the only issue the North can win the debate on…but to argue slavery means that one is complicit with and accepts that it is within the realm of federal government authority and rule on moral issues which are debatable and legal at the time the debates occur and then declare themselves the right, without any consideration for the accepted and understood rule of law, to kill in order to have that moral opinion made legally binding. Remember, the 13th Amendment was passed without the input of half the country. I’m glad it was passed, but it puts into perspective just how NOT clear the issue of slavery was back then.
This does and did set a tremendous precedent; and solidified the fundamentally unassailable power of the federal government to, at the end of the day, do what they please, and reserve themselves a right to pull a gun in service to their power.
Now, was it worth it? Well…I could easily say yes, for that is what an abomination slavery is. And if we want to argue that this was the one issue in which we’ll make an exception for government forced morality, I could easily get behind it. However, as dreadful as slavery is (and I’m a large part Irish, so I know all about a family history of oppression and servitude) was, I do think one would be hard pressed to declare the bible in favor of killing over it. Abolishing it YES, but war is another matter. I know…it’s easy for me to say. I’m white. And that would not be a wrong point of view. I get it.
All I’m saying is that it challenges our ideas as those who reject despotism. Certainly, we believe that no man can own another man. But in the context of 1861 the issue of the American Civil War is simply not as clear as we would like it to be. In order to be true to my ideas about the right of government to control definitions of morality, I feel like I at least need to wrestle with this part of history. If we are going to venture into the realm of developing a cohesive personal philosophy, it means looking hard at difficult issues that, frankly, we’d rather see as being much, much easier.
LikeLike
Argo,
What a shame the south lost. If we had won, we would not be in the mess we are in today, what with water melons in the rose garden and all.
LikeLike
Argo,
When you are expressing yourself in words you are not “righting” you are writing. Just thought you would like to know.
LikeLike
To “Roy Sevan” and, or Randy Seiver with documented IP addresses, I have been instructed to state the following to you: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT THIS BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE, AND HIS DOMAIN ADDRESS(paulspassingthoughts.com), OR ANY OTHER BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT PAUL DOHSE BY ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. DO NOT RESPOND(paulspassingthoughts.com) TO THIS STATEMENT FOR ANY REASON VIA THE AFOREMENTIONED.
Posted by Paul M. Dohse @ 8:45 pm Eastern Standard time on Saturday, August 11, 2012.
LikeLike
Argo,
I suppose you are aware that Gen. Grant’s wife owned slaves. I guess the issue couldn’t have been slavery could it? The issue was State’s rights, a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. If we had that right, an Obama wouldn’t be ruining the country.
LikeLike
To “Roy Sevan” and, or Randy Seiver with documented IP addresses, I have been instructed to state the following to you: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT THIS BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE, AND HIS DOMAIN ADDRESS(paulspassingthoughts.com), OR ANY OTHER BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT PAUL DOHSE BY ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. DO NOT RESPOND(paulspassingthoughts.com) TO THIS STATEMENT FOR ANY REASON VIA THE AFOREMENTIONED.
Posted by Paul M. Dohse @ 8:45 pm Eastern Standard time on Saturday, August 11, 2012.
LikeLike
Paul,
Though I think you are delusional, I have to agree with you on this one. Elders are not the final authority in matters of faith and practice. Jesus Christ is the only head of the church. Elders are only safe in enforcing the laws laid down in the Scriptures. By the way, I am not sure what your above statement is talking about, but you seem to be becoming a bit paranoid.
LikeLike
To “Roy Sevan” and, or Randy Seiver with documented IP addresses, I have been instructed to state the following to you: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT THIS BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE, AND HIS DOMAIN ADDRESS (paulspassingthoughts.com), OR ANY OTHER BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT PAUL DOHSE BY ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS STATEMENT FOR ANY REASON VIA THE AFOREMENTIONED.
Posted by Paul M. Dohse @ 8:45 pm Eastern Standard time on Saturday, August 11, 2012.
LikeLike
You have a public page. That means anyone can post on it. I have not slandered you at any time. Though I believe you are a delusional enemy of God and truth, unless Obama gets reelected, I still have the right to express my opinion. Whoever this Roy guy is, he and I still have that right. If you don’t like it, only open your page to those who agree with you. Otherwise, come to CR and get me. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
To “Roy Sevan” IP ADDRESS 201.191.191.252 and, Randy Seiver IP ADDRESS 201.191.191.252, I have been instructed to state the following to you: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT THIS BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE, AND HIS DOMAIN ADDRESS (paulspassingthoughts.com), OR ANY OTHER BLOG AUTHORED BY PAUL DOHSE. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR ANY REASON, CONTACT PAUL DOHSE BY ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS STATEMENT FOR ANY REASON VIA THE AFOREMENTIONED.
Posted by Paul M. Dohse @ 8:45 pm Eastern Standard time on Saturday, August 11, 2012.
LikeLike
Roy –
Or, in the case of slavery, it might just be that God’s sovereignty trumped the states rights? It might be that God could have cared less about our constitution and the southern states just didn’t get with God’s plan. Was this the reason so many went to their deaths from the North and the South?
LikeLike
[…] via The Declaration Of Independence From Reformed Elders. […]
LikeLike