Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Matthew Maury, a "traitor"?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... Bobby wrote, in part, in response to Brandon s claim that his ... One of the more famous of Brandon s traitors , of course, was Matthew Fontaine Maury
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 5, 2005
      Copied from:

      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christians_and_War/

      Bobby wrote, in part, in response to Brandon's claim that his
      relative was a "traitor":

      > My grandfather, Lt. Gen. A. P. Hill,
      > was no traitor. He was killed in battle
      > in Petersburg Virgina, in the uniform
      > of his country, definding that country.

      To which the Brandon responded:

      > Not true: he was first commissioned an officer
      > of the United States Army and then abandoned
      > his commission to take up arms against that
      > country.
      >
      > Those are simply the facts. I have ancestors
      > who also took arms against their country. They
      > are no less my ancestors, and they were
      > no less wrong, no less disloyal.

      One of the more famous of Brandon's "traitors", of course, was
      Matthew Fontaine Maury (well-known amongst the churches of Christ for
      other reasons). He happens to have formed one of the primary
      purposes of my little list at:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

      It is reported that one of the reasons Maury didn't get the
      recognition he deserved was because he was considered a "traitor" by
      many.

      We have a resident Maury expert as a member of my little list, though
      he is sometimes slow to get involved.

      It might be nice to see the Brandon engage, or attempt to engage my
      Maury expert on my list. One doesn't have to be a member to post,
      though membership does get you into those wonderful photo pages, poll
      pages and files pages.

      Brandon, you are welcome to try and "rile" my Maury expert with your
      perspectives on Matthew Fontaine Maury, et al on my little list.
      I'll post a copy of this note over there and maybe see if we can't
      get up a little interest.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • mathewmaury
      ... As a rule, the Southern leaders were extremely patriotic and loyal to Liberty, Justice, and the American Way. The US Constitution allowed state secession.
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 5, 2005
        -- Brandon wrote:
        > Those are simply the facts. I have ancestors
        > who also took arms against their country. They
        > are no less my ancestors, and they were
        > no less wrong, no less disloyal.

        As a rule, the Southern leaders were extremely patriotic and
        loyal to Liberty, Justice, and the American Way. The US
        Constitution allowed state secession. When the federal
        powers under the Constitution continued to be abusive and
        usurpative, the Southern states optioned to declare their
        freedom and right to self rule just as the original thirteen
        states had done in revolutionary war times.

        The unnecessary War was forced by Lincoln against the wishes
        of the majority of the North or the South.

        Your link to Nelta's site is interesting. Government has
        the God-given authority to bear the sword to protect good
        people. But it also has the authority to wage only 'Just
        War'. Very few of U.S. wars meet that standard. The
        Revolutionary War and the Southern Defensive War are
        examples of 'Just War'.

        America has a history of warmongering. Obvious examples of
        unjust war are the Mexican War, the Spanish American War and
        many of the Indian Wars.
      • mathewmaury
        If it seems foreign to you that there are some rights which transcend our American Government, you may be interested in today s article by Walter E. Williams
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 5, 2005
          If it seems foreign to you that there are some rights which
          transcend our American Government, you may be interested in
          today's article by Walter E. Williams entitled:

          Are we a republic or a democracy?

          The link is at:
          http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20050105.shtml

          He writes better than I. Although he does not mention the
          Civil War era, his article discusses ideas that have been
          trampled on since the days of tyrant Lincoln.
        • Nelta Brock
          snip ... You and all others on Robert s would be welcome on Christians_and_War-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Government has ... Yes God gave the secular
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 5, 2005
            snip

            > Your link to Nelta's site is interesting. >

            You and all others on Robert's would be welcome on
            Christians_and_War-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Government has
            > the God-given authority to bear the sword to protect good
            > people. >

            Yes God gave the secular governements the right to do whatever it took
            to take care of the evil-doers. However, He did not give Christians
            the right to do so. Christians have a highter calling. They are to
            be lights to the world....that light being Jesus who lives in the
            Christians.

            But it also has the authority to wage only 'Just
            > War'. Very few of U.S. wars meet that standard. The
            > Revolutionary War and the Southern Defensive War are
            > examples of 'Just War'.>

            Actually, the secular governements can fight any war they see fit.
            That is THEIR business, not the business of the Christians.

            Nelta
          • cassondrawrites@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/6/2005 7:26:46 AM US Eastern Standard Time, nib@hal-pc.org writes: Yes God gave the secular governements the right to do whatever it took
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 6, 2005
              In a message dated 1/6/2005 7:26:46 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
              nib@... writes:
              Yes God gave the secular governements the right to do whatever it took
              to take care of the evil-doers. However, He did not give Christians
              the right to do so. Christians have a highter calling. They are to
              be lights to the world....that light being Jesus who lives in the
              Christians.

              That is an interesting argument. However, it would necessarily require that
              secular government and the armed forces consist entirely of wicked men. Aside
              from the disturbing consequences of that bizarre notion, the entire principle
              is ultimately self-defeating. Christians desire to spread the light of the
              gospel to as many souls as possible. If they succeed, then there will be
              no-one left who is now permitted to operate the secular government and protect the
              state. Thus, the more Christian the state, the more doomed it is to fail.
              This makes it in the best interests of the state to limit or prohibit Christian
              activity, so that the state might prosper. The Bible promotes the Christian
              as the ideal citizen, one who is to live at peace with his fellow man as much
              as lies within him and who is a strength to his government rather than a
              weakness. This protects the Christian from undue persecution. However, the
              conclusions of your argument practically require persecution from any reasonable
              government.

              Cassondra


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • rlbaty50
              ... I think that is the position that Nelta has basically confirmed on her own list in recent days. Well, maybe she would allow for a Christian to be mailman
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 6, 2005
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, cassondrawrites@a... wrote, in
                part, regarding Nelta's position:

                > (I)t would necessarily require that
                > secular government and the armed forces
                > consist entirely of wicked men.

                I think that is the position that Nelta has basically confirmed on
                her own list in recent days.

                Well, maybe she would allow for a Christian to be mailman or an IRS
                Appeals Officer, but policeman, soldiers and others. . .only wicked
                folks (i.e., non-Christians) should be involved in such things.

                I don't think she's made an "argument" as you indicated. I just think
                she's voiced her faulty opinion.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.