Mennonites and War

[barnhart]

I think my example is full complexity that give me pause when it comes to issuing statements of blame in war. There were mennonites who were union sympathetic because they favored abolition but I don't think that salved many wounds when the union matched in to burn their stuff and shoot their livestock. I'm not sure making official statements would have been that beneficial when the time came to pick up the pieces a live with your neighbors.

[joshuabgood]

I think my example is full complexity that give me pause when it comes to issuing statements of blame in war. There were mennonites who were union sympathetic because they favored abolition but I don't think that salved many wounds when the union matched in to burn their stuff and shoot their livestock. I'm not sure making official statements would have been that beneficial when the time came to pick up the pieces a live with your neighbors.

It also was a really bad look when most of them in Lancaster County voted for Thaddeus Stevens (also partly due to the morals of abolitionism), and then Stevens, a war hawk, was big time in support of the Civil War and against any "copperhead" deals to end the fighting. And then to add insult to injury, the Mennonites used their voting bloc leverage to get Stevens to lobby successfully in Congress, and with Lincoln's support, for commutation fees and substitutions for the Mennonites who were rich enough to afford them.

The Democratic Newspapers in PA were rife with bitter editorials against the Mennonites who voted for the party that sent drafted their sons and sent them to die, but meanwhile got political favors so their sons could avoid that fate.

(All the above is documented quite well in Nolt's Mennonite Amish and the Civil War.)

[ken_sylvania]

I think my example is full complexity that give me pause when it comes to issuing statements of blame in war. There were mennonites who were union sympathetic because they favored abolition but I don't think that salved many wounds when the union matched in to burn their stuff and shoot their livestock. I'm not sure making official statements would have been that beneficial when the time came to pick up the pieces a live with your neighbors.

It also was a really bad look when most of them in Lancaster County voted for Thaddeus Stevens (also partly due to the morals of abolitionism), and then Stevens, a war hawk, was big time in support of the Civil War and against any "copperhead" deals to end the fighting. And then to add insult to injury, the Mennonites used their voting bloc leverage to get Stevens to lobby successfully in Congress, and with Lincoln's support, for commutation fees and substitutions for the Mennonites who were rich enough to afford them.

The Democratic Newspapers in PA were rife with bitter editorials against the Mennonites who voted for the party that sent drafted their sons and sent them to die, but meanwhile got political favors so their sons could avoid that fate.

(All the above is documented quite well in Nolt's Mennonite Amish and the Civil War.)

It seems that whole situation served as a wake up call to the Mennonites about the dangers of political involvement at the polls.

[Soloist]

I’ve heard more than one CAM Billboards speaker mentioned how not voting opens doors that would be closed if they did vote.

[Ken]

I’ve heard more than one CAM Billboards speaker mentioned how not voting opens doors that would be closed if they did vote.

How so?

What does paying money to Lamar or Clear Channel to have billboard messages posted along highways have to do with whether or not one votes?

[joshuabgood]

I’ve heard more than one CAM Billboards speaker mentioned how not voting opens doors that would be closed if they did vote.

How so?

What does paying money to Clear Channel to have billboard messages posted along highways have to do with whether or not one votes?

You can't be accused of belonging to a political faction.

[Ken]

I’ve heard more than one CAM Billboards speaker mentioned how not voting opens doors that would be closed if they did vote.

How so?

What does paying money to Clear Channel to have billboard messages posted along highways have to do with whether or not one votes?

You can't be accused of belonging to a political faction.

Is that something the billboard companies were doing? Discriminating against clients based on politics?

[ken_sylvania]

I’ve heard more than one CAM Billboards speaker mentioned how not voting opens doors that would be closed if they did vote.

How so?

What does paying money to Lamar or Clear Channel to have billboard messages posted along highways have to do with whether or not one votes?

Soloist is saying that the team that answers the calls from the billboard advertisements is saying when callers find out they don't vote they're more willing to hear what they have to say.

[Neto]

I don't like the equal blame approach either. So would you call for my great, great grandfather to organize an official church response naming the aggressor?

I think it would be Biblically ok for they/him to stand up in church and tell the people the truth of what happened...and lament and pray about the resulting conflict.

For ex. I see no problem with Anabaptist / Two Kingdom theology, etc etc for Bishop ? in First Menno Church somewhere? - in 1860 to tell the congregation in public!, "This week, the Confederate States fired on and captured Fort Sumter from Federal forces and now the two sides are at war and we pray for God's help in this time of national conflict... and that both sides resolve this another way and make restitution to each other..."

No side chosen, but still the truth is told and everyone knows who started it, who is the first aggressor... who might need to first ask forgiveness for starting, who maybe needs to initiate restitution, etc?
....

"Who started it? "

There are different interpretations of those initial events, other questions that need to be answered before those statements can be unquestionable accepted as truth.
Did the US constitution grant the right of cessation before that date?
If so, did the statements made by those states wishing to secede follow the correct procedures?
If they did, then which country had armed forces within the other's boundaries?
Is that not considered an invasion?

I'm not arguing the status of the two sides in "The War Between the States", just using that example as an illustration of how conclusions may sometimes be taken that are actually influenced by elements other than fully factual information.

Not to 'stoke this fire', but apparently there is no solid answer to the first question I posed above, so all of the rest is open to conjecture as well.

The US supreme court declared secession illegal in 1869, after their military victory over the Confederacy. I haven't read this book, but it might be of interest to students of American constitutional history.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/20171 ... sion-legal

Basically it comes down to the fact that the US Constitution was silent on this matter. So one reasoned approach is to say that since the States voluntarily entered the Union, and those agreements did not mention any prohibition of voluntarily leaving the Union, it follows that that 'right' was preserved up until the Union victory was solidified by the Supreme Court of the Union declared it unconstitutional. So it is clear that it is NOW unconstitutional.

[Soloist]

Basically it comes down to the fact that the US Constitution was silent on this matter. So one reasoned approach is to say that since the States voluntarily entered the Union, and those agreements did not mention any prohibition of voluntarily leaving the Union, it follows that that 'right' was preserved up until the Union victory was solidified by the Supreme Court of the Union declared it unconstitutional. So it is clear that it is NOW unconstitutional.

Yeah and following the original concept, I would’ve said the states back in the 13 colony time represented more of like a Greek confederacy of states. Work together to defeat a larger foe… not necessarily the same nation outside of the common name of Greek.
Clearly that changed when the union won, but whether or not it’s legal or not doesn’t really matter because might makes right.
If the confederacy had won, I doubt that legal action would exist.
I think declaring who shot first is terribly misleading when it comes to military action.