Featured Most Evil Person in American History

Not when the EP was put into force.

Did you look at the graphic I posted earlier?

 

Actually the South did have better Generals and better fighting men. They just did not have the manufacturing capability, Navy, and weapons to compete with the North. Even Rhett Butler recognized this.

 

Van ...

Your insistence on making your claims without providing any documentation for your claims grows old, but the title on your last post is beyond the pale.

No one on this thread is pro-slavery. Your emotionalism on this subject is unusual, but I'm not really surprised at it. The deep-seated feelings over the Civil War continue through the warp and woof of our modern American lives even 150 years after the fact.

But to classify your fellow board members as "pro-slavery"? You need to apologize.

 

I would suggest that Van is obliged to prove that slavery is a sin.

Given the Scriptures are clear in the treatment and terms of slaves and slavery, I really do not see his claim as valid.

That doesn't make me "pro-slavery" in the slightest.

 

To deny the South was pro-slavery is to deny the obvious. It is the south that claims slavery was not the cause of the civil way, vainly trying to avoid the blame for hundreds of thousands of needless death.

I have provided evidence that the South seceded because of fear the North would end slavery. You have denied that evidence was even presented. That makes you, sir, what you are.

 

There is no source in post 111. Maybe you do not know what a source is.

 

Deliberate misrepresentation of what has been stated. No one denies the South was pro-slavery. What we deny is that slavery was the single, driving issue that caused the CSA to secede.

Wrong. History proves it was not the sole cause, in fact wasn't the primary cause. "History," as I said earlier, is written by the victors. Historians in the North portrayed the North as a compassionate, noble nation wronged by the dastardly, slave-owning South that held no consideration of human morality and seceded only for the nefarious purpose of clinging to the right to own human flesh. That is a bald-faced lie that ignores the virtual economic enslavement the North attempted to impose on its brothers in the South.

Where!!!

Show me one post of yours -- they start with #25, in case you actually want to go to the trouble of looking -- that posts a link, a source for your misinformation, your incessant yammering on four talking points that never go beyond diatribe, or show me any post of yours that actually cites academic support for those talking points? All you've done is number the points in your post and accuse those who disagree with you of being pro-slavery, or insulting you. You've done nothing to prove your points. Repetitive tripe isn't proof.

No apology, then.

Figures.

 

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

…. It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”…

 

None of your questions address the issue in contention, that Slavery caused the Civil War. You are trying to concoct distracting strawman arguments to say the North was just as bad as the South. No, it was the South's refusal to end slavery that caused the civil war.

They seceded and they fired at Fort Sumter. Was every Northerner a saint? Nope.

 

It is undisputed that history shows the South seceded because they feared Lincoln would not allow any more slave states to enter the Union. This is clearly stated in the Texas secession statement.

It was not the northern nation that was wronged, it was the 3 million plus slaves who were wronged. Do not be fooled by the smoke screen of strawmen being burned to hide the obvious.

The economic enslavement of the slaves being imposed on fellow human beings by the South is not being ignored, for the men who fought and died cry out at Gettysburg, Arlington and the monument at the State Capital in Denver, where my great great grandfather's name is listed.

 

And the North used forced child labor.

No, they sure were not. How many kids died in labor shops, in fires, and being worked to death, compared to slave deaths ? Got any facts ?

 

I'm not sure he deals in facts. Mostly emotionalism, I think.

My great great great grandfather's name is listed on a county memorial in north Missouri as a Civil War veteran. He was a CSA major. The vast majority of the county was Northern in sympathy, but slaves were owned by many of the more well-to-do farmers. My family was not one of those, but Missouri was essentially a Southern sympathizing state that didn't secede. Missouri had a hard time deciding where its allegiance lay. On one side was Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson, a former "border ruffian" -- translation: he once rode with Quantrill -- who advocated secession; on the other was pro-Union congressman Francis P. Blair, who happened to be the brother of Lincoln's postmaster, Montgomery Blair. Many of the residents of Missouri were slave owners, but the overall makeup of the population was decidedly different from that of the states in the Deep South. A large number of German immigrants had settled throughout Missouri, with the greatest concentration around St. Louis, and they had little interest in or regard for most Southern traditions — especially slavery. But they did sympathize with the states' rights issues, and Missouri was a Northern target for tariffs, given it's fledgling agri-industry that was keeping Missouri goods and produce in-state because it could process the foods in Kansas City and St. Louis and sell locally. That irritated the North, and they punished The Show-Me state with higher taxes on its own goods and services. That was the primary reason Jackson was for secession.

That doesn't mean I think my great great great grandfather was right in taking up the South's cause, but I understand the frustration of the farmers at being taxed as though they were a foreign country. He certainly believed in the cause of the South, and it was not, from his writings, because of slavery. He was approached by men on horseback while helping his dad put up hay after returning wounded from the Battle of Pea Ridge. They asked him where his loyalties lay. He turned to them, said, "Well, I've said in the past ... " and reached for the neckerchief in his hip pocket to wipe the sweat from his brow. They shot him, allegedly thinking he was going for a gun.

There is hurt and pain remaining 150 years after this war. The South was the keeper of Andersonville, a horror that was not repeated for 80 years, and them amplified by the ovens and gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka. War is not pretty. War is seldom sane. But war is war. It happens. There comes a time to move on.

 

In fact, it was 1938 before any federal law regulated child labor.

 

Completely off topic.