This huge story is NOT being picked up by the major media. The following site is from the
OKLAHOMA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt
The following link is from RussiaToday.com
http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/26479
Just Google the title to this post and you'll find a well of information. Oh these days are like none though history...
All for souls,
wta
i dont get this... i never payed attention in Civics class :(.
What does this mean and why does it matter ?
Anyone who's from the southeast, and whose family tree goes back several generations in the southeast... knows exactly what this means. And I say "good for them!".
Krispy
It's an assertion of state's rights. Nothing more. They are not seceding.
I wasnt implying they were seceding. Thats your own misconception of southerners coming thru.
However, states rights was at the core of what caused the southern states to leave the union. And since the War of Northern Aggression states rights have been widdled away. More so in the last 30 years.
Its good to see OK take a stand. I wish NC would.
Krispy
KrispyKrittr wrote:
And since the War of Northern Aggression...
Now that's funny. Nothing at all to do with the South being backwards in those days eh?
Nope... everything to do with the Constitution of the United States. Ever heard of it? :-)
Krispy
They are claiming that the government is exercising its rights beyond what the constitution allows. The constitution is there to protect the peoples interests even against the government when it over steps its boundaries.
im still lost hahaha.
but my question is what does this have to do with Christianity ? (not that it matters if it doesnt) just still curious.
KrispyKrittr wrote:
Nope... everything to do with the Constitution of the United States. Ever heard of it? :-)
Yep. And the "good ole boys" were trouncing all over it, thus the civil war, in a nutshell.
Go Dixie! :-P
Yea, I'm with the one who is confused...
What does this mean? Is it basically stating that each state can be a nation of itself, so to speak?
Somebody help me understand this and stop bantering...
Ruach34 wrote:
Yea, I'm with the one who is confused...What does this mean? Is it basically stating that each state can be a nation of itself, so to speak?
It doesn't mean anything. It is on the same page as the Quenn of England knighting someone. Good for show.
Somebody help me understand this and stop bantering...
Sorry. :-)
However, states rights was at the core of what caused the southern states to leave the union. And since the War of Northern Aggression states rights have been widdled away. More so in the last 30 years.
Its good to see OK take a stand.
Nope... everything to do with the Constitution of the United States. Ever heard of it?
I agree with KrispyKrittr...and it is good to see OK take this stand!!
Yep. And the "good ole boys" were trouncing all over it, thus the civil war, in a nutshell.
You are one of those who believe slavery is what the Civil War was all about, right? Actually, states rights was the issue. Lincoln made slavery the issue when he (rightly) issued the Emancipation Proclamation... 2 years AFTER the Civil War started. It was a political move on his part because of so much opposition to the war in the north. He needed a rallying point, and issue northerners could get behind, and he found it in the slavery issue.
The south left the union because of the Federal Government overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries on MANY issues, not just slavery.
So don't get all smug and blame everything on "backwards southerners".
Ignorance of American History and Civics is going to kill this country.
It's amazing it takes Greg, a Canadian, to tell my fellow Americans what this thing in OK is about. How sad is that? Everyone is more concerned with who wins American Idol...
Krispy
KrispyKrittr wrote:Yep. And the "good ole boys" were trouncing all over it, thus the civil war, in a nutshell.
You are one of those who believe slavery is what the Civil War was all about, right? Actually, states rights was the issue. Lincoln made slavery the issue when he (rightly) issued the Emancipation Proclamation... 2 years AFTER the Civil War started. It was a political move on his part because of so much opposition to the war in the north. He needed a rallying point, and issue northerners could get behind, and he found it in the slavery issue.
The south left the union because of the Federal Government overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries on MANY issues, not just slavery.
So don't get all smug and blame everything on "backwards southerners".
Ignorance of American History and Civics is going to kill this country.
It's amazing it takes Greg, a Canadian, to tell my fellow Americans what this thing in OK is about. How sad is that? Everyone is more concerned with who wins American Idol...
Krispy
WAIT... Who's winning American Idol!?!?!
LOL... Just kidding. I agree with you Krispy. Throughout High School, I hated history. Now I wish I knew a little more then I know! Wanna teach me? Ha!
KrispyKrittr wrote:
So don't get all smug and blame everything on "backwards southerners".
Ignorance of American History and Civics is going to kill this country.
Krispy, I know that your still bent out of shape about the outcome of the war and everything, but take it easy buddy. :-)
You are assuming that I am talking about slavery in regards to the war. I never mentioned salvery, and I was even thinking about putting a disclaimer in my reply to note such. I didn't because I assumed everyone was aware of the true meaning/s behind the civil war. Apparently I was wrong. You have my appology.
Other then that, How bout them Packers?
I found The Truth Project helpful in thinking this through a bit and I recomend it. http://www.thetruthproject.org/
[b][u]From a biblical worldview
So blurring the boundaries, usurping authority matters greatly. When the State usurps the authority of the family, for example, people notice and some resist. When Labor seeks to have authority over (become) the State, people notice and some resist. When a wife seeks headship in a family, husbands notice and some resist.
I am encouraged by this news that someone has noticed the blurring/usurping of the federal government’s authority to dictate to States. Not because some State might divorce itself from the US, but because a real principle upon which to resist inroads of God-lessness in the US seems to have been re-discovered. I wonder what authority Oklahoma delegated to the US that, in their [u]careful oversight of that delegated authority[u]legislate
I understand Krispy's point and he's right about the technical aspects of state's rights and it being closer to constitutional fact. I'm removing my former post because I thought it was a bit harsh. I will say this however. Slavery may have not been the paramount issue in the natural but God still ended it so perhaps it was a paramount issue for Him. We all know that God also used a man named William Wilberforce to deal with the slave trade years before. Perhaps this back to back victory over slavery was no coincidence in terms of what God wanted despite the fallout of all issues involved.
P.S. to my previous:
To those of you that don't know history: If I control your understanding of history, I control your future. God is involved in history. the Bible is history. Seriously! Check out The Truth Project.
Edited: I understand wanting to "rush to the end". I am unclear where, in myself, that comes from. And lets remember gentelness.
Krispy is right. Slavery was not the exclusive reason for the war but I would like to add, that although slavery was not the singular cause of the Civil War it was at the heart of the sectional impasse between North and South in 1860 and had been a problem for many years before.
Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office. The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was "the cornerstone of the Confederacy" after Southern states seceded. After Southern defeat, Stephens said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights, and became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause.
All but one inter-regional crisis involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause and a twenty year extension of the African Slave Trade in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846), the Gag rule that prevented discussion in Congress of petitions for ending slavery from 1835–1844, the acquisition of Texas as a slave state in 1845 and Manifest Destiny as an argument for gaining new territories where slavery would become an issue after the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), which resulted in the Compromise of 1850.
Source [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War]here
Sorry for getting off subject. Go OK!
This discussion is locked.
