Featured Most Evil Person in American History

Is that relevant? The fact is that Lincoln banned slavery in the South and not in the North. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation ~2 years after he started the war, not out of compassion for the slaves but to aid in his intent to crush the South.

 

Your statement is true about banning slavery only in the South. But it is misleading as slavery had already been abolished in Northern states. There was no need for the Emancipation Proclamation to address slavery in northern states as slavery did not exist there when the EP was put into effect.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Slave_Free_1789-1861.gif

Watch the graphic as it changes with time.

 

The Emancipation Proclamation did not touch slavery in those states that allowed it that were not officially at war with the union-- which were West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky. and Missouri [and Delaware?]. It was hard for Lincoln to fire both barrels of his shotgun [preserve the union / end slavery] at once, so he fired the one he needed at the time.

Meanwhile, my theory, which I've stated before, is that if the south had triumphed in the war, by 1880-85 it would have faced its own war of secession, as Virginia and Florida, and maybe Tennessee and Texas began to develop more industry and people there became more repulsed by slavery-- essentially as had been the case with the northeast and midwest. Then, Brazil did without a civil war to end it, but did end slavery in the 1890's; but I think it would have lasted longer in the Confederacy, provided the Confederacy could be held together with 6 or 7 states.

 

I mentioned elsewhere in this thread that the invention of the cotton gin spurred the growth of slavery. If cotton could have been grown in the North there is no doubt they would have rivaled the South in the ownership of slaves. The ship owners were not deterred from the use of slave ships.

Following I show comments on the Emancipation Proclamation from the National Archives. The failure of Lincoln to expand the Proclamation shows [perhaps] the character of the man which history is only recently discussing!

I have stated on this thread that I do not believe that the Confederacy would have continued if they had remained free. States Rignt's would have trumped the Confederacy. But it really is a moot point given Lincoln's War of Aggression and the subsequent rape of the South.

 

1) The South seceded because they feared Lincoln would not allow any new states to be slave, thus tipping the power balance in Congress to the anti-slavery side.

2) The South fired on Fort Sumter, starting the hostilities that led to over 200,000 southerners dying for slavery needlessly, making the southern leaders among the most evil leaders in American history.

3) Lincoln's use of "preserve the Union" was a Trojan horse, for uniting the union on a non-slave holding basis.

None of this has been refuted.

All of the other reasons for the civil war are simply strawman arguments aimed to muddy the water. Lincoln did not start the war, the South seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. Lincoln did not fire on Fort Sumter, the South did, starting hostilities.

The civil war was caused by slavery. The states seceded because of a fear slavery would not be allowed to continue. Fort Sumter was fired upon, starting the hostilities. No evidence whatsoever has been offered by anyone to refute these truths.

 

You have not provided any truth. You have merely made claims with no substantiation. Therefore your claims are merely opinion and have not been presented as fact. Only and until you provide credible sources to back up your currently unsubstantiated claims they shall only remains your opinion. You all by yourself are not a credible source.

 

Why the South Really Seceded:

So what were the real reasons the South seceded? The following should be helpful to understand:

Anti-South Party. The GOP was anti-southern. For the first time in the nation’s history, a political party was based on location rather than just different views. The south was demonized. That meant that their future of political influence was questioned because they had slaves. The impacts here would be much, much more than just slavery, as explained above “vote yourself a farm, vote yourself a tariff”.

Anti-South Tariffs. In the 1830s, the US government passed tariff essentially forcing the South to buy products from the North. Meanwhile, the South had to compete against the global market. The tariff laws were written in such a way as to force the South to enrich the North. This was feared to get worse and worse, especially since Lincoln — a member of the new “anti-South” party — was elected.

No Nullification. Nullification and other “state sovereignty” rights were essentially run down, ignored, or made impossible — this means the original “government” the South was agreeing to essentially didn’t exist. The “strong central government” camp had become much more powerful than the state-sovereignty camp, at least in DC.

Capping Southern Influence. Refusing new slave states to be created was essentially a political move that destroyed Southern influence — southern influences were suddenly capped, while northern influences could continue to grow and get more and more of an influence in congress. The North was soon to completely overpower the North in the federal government, leaving the South in a position where they were essentially forced to do whatever the North wanted.

Structure of Government. The North repeatedly was trying to change the constitution to make the senate elected by popular vote rather than state legislatures. They succeeded after the war. This was a huge change in the structure of government — the state governments are now not represented by the federal government. This was an attack on states across the board. The South wanted state sovereignty, and the North wanted the federal government to more able to regulate the internal affairs of the states — and not just in slavery.

No Need for the North. The South rightly believed that there simply wasn’t a reason for the South to need the North. Since they were being politically isolated and economically exploited, they believed there was nothing keeping them to stay in the North. They also believed that leaving the Union at any time was their contractual right.

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/why-did-the-south-secede/

 

By the way there were some states like Georgia and Texas that made clear the issue for them was slavery.

 

You sound more and more like Bob Ryan trying to defend SDA and "investigative Judgment", repeating the same "mantra" over and over. Very sad!

 

More fiction

1)

The evidence continues to mount, the South seceded because of slavery, which includes those in the north wanting to end it, and those in the south wanting to continue it.

2) Yes, the North and South were economically at war, industrial north verse agricultural south. But embeded in this factor is the slave economy versus the free man economy.

3) States rights were simply a Trojan horse for the right to continue slavery.

4) As I said, the fear the North would add non-slave states would tip the balance against slavery was a key driver for war.

Thus underlying all the strawman arguments is the monstrosity of Slavery.

All these claims I have not provided evidence are fictions, just read the evidence provided by the pro-slave southern apologists.

 

So which posts are the one where you provided sources? I missed that.

 

See post 111, I provided a quote you posted. You can pretend you did not know the Texas secession statement said they feared no new slave states would be added to the union, but I referenced it.

You can deny it till the cows come home, but Slavery was the underlying cause of the Civil War, as shown by the evidence posted, such as yours above.

 

Sin caused the civil war.

The sin of the lusts and pride manifested as greed.

In the north, it was manifested greed over power.

The Yankees have never understood the southern living, and usually mock and scorn the south.

But, the north have just as much if not more sin over the slavery issue than the south.

The south never covered their sin, it was open for the world to see. Economics of the south placed priorities and demands that the world and worldly were all too ready to fulfill.

The Yankee ships were well designed, built, and equipped for the triangular trade route. The Yankee business owners and stock brokers were all to glad to fill the demands of the south.

The historical records show that prior to the EP, Lincoln's political adversaries had turned the tide of the population against him.

The war had lost its charm, and Lincoln desperately needed the northern press to publish good about the war and give a human feel righteous reason why so many were killed in it. The north was being beaten badly in nearly every battle, and the northern populace was calling for some kind of way to end the strife.

So, Lincoln used the EP. OF COURSE, it wasn't effective!

It had NO effect as to the northern states and their laws. In the south, it had no more effect than the US making some decree against North Korea's treatment of religious dissidents.

The slavery issue was a tool. A tool to gain power. A tool to satisfy greed. An unrighteous tool that has continued to be a distraction to the main cause of why the south rebelled.

Had the north been truthful about their OWN slavery issues, the northern states would not have had laws requiring slaves to be returned to the south.

Folks, the underground railroad ran all the way to Canada.

The north has no high ground stating they were trying to "free the slaves." That is merely propaganda and a way to hide their own greed.

The "black code" laws of the north were in force long before the war.

The sin of the civil war was manifested as GREED - expressions of the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life.

 

While I think this post understates the part the greed of slavery played I think generally it is an excellent presentation of the topic.

 

The problem with the "greed of slavery" is the attempt by some (not just the BB) to place slavery totally upon the south when the issue was just as bad in the north.

At times folks do not consider that the north did not "outlaw" slavery in the sense that if you got to New York you were free.

Rather, the north had their own brand of slavery.

A slave in the south who got to New York could be captured (as a slave) and returned to the south (as a slave).

The grandiose claims of the self righteous north about "anti slavery" was totally propaganda.

The topic is so turned on its head.

Kind of like the northern claim over the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

 

Fair enough. And fair play to Harriet Beecher Stowe for making that so clear in Uncle Tom's Cabin. In fact, she seems to blame the North's part in slavery even more than the South. I'll have to look for the quote.

Here's one

In concluding these little incidents of lawful trade, we must beg the world not to think that American legislators are entirely destitute of humanity, as might, perhaps, be unfairly inferred from the great efforts made in our national body to protect and perpetuate this species of traffic. Who does not know how our great men are outdoing themselves, in declaiming against the foreign slave-trade. There are a perfect host of Clarksons and Wilberforces* risen up among us on that subject, most edifying to hear and behold. Trading negroes from Africa, dear reader, is so horrid! It is not to be thought of! But trading them from Kentucky,--that's quite another

 

The pro-slavery folks deny slavery caused the War

True and the sin was slavery

The monstrosity of slavery included greed, and sexual abuse.

Nothing wrong with scorning slavery, with its beatings, abuse, and murder.

The north was non-slave, so it is the south that wins the prize.

The south is "covering their sin" to this day denying slavery was the cause of all those young men losing their lives.

More evidence that slavery caused the civil war.

The War had been caused already, so a non-germane strawman argument.

The main cause was slavery as the secession statements demonstrate.

Quite the opposite, the secession states said the north was not enforcing the fugitive slave return law.

The song sung by the Union soldiers said, let us die to make men free.

More non-germane strawman deflection. The north wanted to end slavery, the south wanted to continue slavery.

Like modern day liberals advocating the murder of unborn children, modern day arguments to justify the south's unwillingness to end slavery talk about everything except the monstrosity of slavery.

 

You better be on your guard RC. I'm looking to get out of New Jersey and Heaven forbid I should move next to you and take my 4 dogs 20 chickens 2 roosters & buy a horse or two ....put them in the back & work on cars & trucks in the garage. We also shoot gun's, so we are noisy....and I expect to learn the rudiments of still making......and I have a big garden where I put the chicken dung. So we here Yankees are messy & noisy & even smelly at times.....but we aren't yuppies.:laugh: