thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
That is the The Battle of Lone Jack and it took place in the town by that name (which is still there) in Missouri.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Most Evil Person in American History
- Thread starter saturneptune
- Start date
- Status
1) The South seceded before Lincoln took office. Strike one
2) The South fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Strike two.
3) 3 million slaves were being beaten, chained, abused and murdered by slave "owners", and it is that monstrosity that caused the civil war. Strike three
All the deniers can do is claim this or that was just as bad, i.e. Cholera, or Yankee Slave Ship owners and operators. But they cannot refute the fact, so they seek to change the subject, i.e. Van ignores the facts and whines. ROFLOL
I suppose that ignoring the aggressive actions of the Yankee toward the outstandingly fine southern gentlemen is historically typical of those who want to place blame on the Civil War upon the south.
The war didn't just suddenly break out at Fort Sumter.
The war didn't just suddenly start with election of Lincoln.
The war didn't just suddenly begin with the harsh treatment of slaves.
Rather, the conflict may have turned more ugly and focused at that time, but it was a pot well boiling nearly over from the time of the articles of confederation (the original organizational attempts of what was later to be called the United states).
The Northern aggression towards the South has always presented a conflict.
Despite repeatedly having to be rescued by the sacrifice of the finest of South, the North has rarely shown anything but animosity toward the Southern way of living - even to this day.
Historically, it is well documented that the North was opposed to the ways of the South, and were the aggressors.
When they couldn't use politics because of the passage of such laws called Popular Sovereignty (the right of each state to choose), the Yankees would perpetrate fraud and incite to riot. One poster has was already shown a link which gives actual newspaper accounts of the 1855 Kansas/Missouri conflicts.
When local blood was not enough, the Yankees forced the issue even more by claiming the preservation of the Union was superior to the rights of any state.
States rights was the main issue of the war - slavery was secondary, the sorry Yankee didn't have to puff the issue up, but let it alone. Rather, they constantly picked on the sore until it didn't just ooze, but became an arterial bleed.
The right to associate or disassociate from the Union was the main issue of the war - Lincoln's election was secondary. Lincoln could have left the South alone. Move the capitol to New York City or Philadelphia, and left the South to reap what reward from God He ordained (be it good or evil).
The right to own and dispose of property as one chooses was the main issue of the war - not the treatment of slaves. If the treatment was the issue, why did the Yankee states have laws determining captured slaves must be returned to the owners? Why did the slave have to get clear into Canada to actually be free?
The issue was not Fort Sumter, Lincoln, or treatment of slaves.
Each of those were a pigment of a larger picture of Northern aggression and Northern attitudes. The same attitudes that continue in many Yankee hearts to this day.
The South still refers to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, and it was.
What land was the war fought on?
With the exception of the invasion by Lee's army of Northern Virginia in the last year of the war, EVERY battle took place in the South because of Yankee invasion.
Yankees have ALWAYS wanted to dominate the South - it comes from the mindset that they are right and should impose their standards upon those who don't think the way they do. It was that way from the landing of the Puritans.
The Yankees could have just as easily let the fine Godly gentle folks of the South alone, and let God deal with them as He designed.
The war didn't just suddenly break out at Fort Sumter.
The war didn't just suddenly start with election of Lincoln.
The war didn't just suddenly begin with the harsh treatment of slaves.
Rather, the conflict may have turned more ugly and focused at that time, but it was a pot well boiling nearly over from the time of the articles of confederation (the original organizational attempts of what was later to be called the United states).
The Northern aggression towards the South has always presented a conflict.
Despite repeatedly having to be rescued by the sacrifice of the finest of South, the North has rarely shown anything but animosity toward the Southern way of living - even to this day.
Historically, it is well documented that the North was opposed to the ways of the South, and were the aggressors.
When they couldn't use politics because of the passage of such laws called Popular Sovereignty (the right of each state to choose), the Yankees would perpetrate fraud and incite to riot. One poster has was already shown a link which gives actual newspaper accounts of the 1855 Kansas/Missouri conflicts.
When local blood was not enough, the Yankees forced the issue even more by claiming the preservation of the Union was superior to the rights of any state.
States rights was the main issue of the war - slavery was secondary, the sorry Yankee didn't have to puff the issue up, but let it alone. Rather, they constantly picked on the sore until it didn't just ooze, but became an arterial bleed.
The right to associate or disassociate from the Union was the main issue of the war - Lincoln's election was secondary. Lincoln could have left the South alone. Move the capitol to New York City or Philadelphia, and left the South to reap what reward from God He ordained (be it good or evil).
The right to own and dispose of property as one chooses was the main issue of the war - not the treatment of slaves. If the treatment was the issue, why did the Yankee states have laws determining captured slaves must be returned to the owners? Why did the slave have to get clear into Canada to actually be free?
The issue was not Fort Sumter, Lincoln, or treatment of slaves.
Each of those were a pigment of a larger picture of Northern aggression and Northern attitudes. The same attitudes that continue in many Yankee hearts to this day.
The South still refers to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, and it was.
What land was the war fought on?
With the exception of the invasion by Lee's army of Northern Virginia in the last year of the war, EVERY battle took place in the South because of Yankee invasion.
Yankees have ALWAYS wanted to dominate the South - it comes from the mindset that they are right and should impose their standards upon those who don't think the way they do. It was that way from the landing of the Puritans.
The Yankees could have just as easily let the fine Godly gentle folks of the South alone, and let God deal with them as He designed.
1) SC secceded AFTER Lincol won the election - Ball 1
2) Ft Sumter was fired upon AFTER the US refused to leave the soil of a foreign nation - Ball 2
3) 3 Million ? still waiting on vaild link Ball 3
4) The United States - "Do as I say, not as I do" Ball 4
I keep forgetting this thing about slavery is completly off OP of this thread.
I have so new questions - so go to this link to answer?
Last edited by a moderator:
THIS IS THE ORGINAL QUESTION -
NOTE - Slaver owners in general were not leaders.
In fact, I was going to list Hitler - (of course) until I re-read the OP which stated a Leader of the UNTIED STATES.
So - lets get back on OP (and I am just as guilty) - and if you start to wander - just start a new thread - as I did!
It has been stated - on this thread:
Lincoln - disregared the Constitution
Teddy R - started the Progressive movement.
FDR - also disregared the Constitution
Could it be if Lincoln had not done so - then Teddy or FDR would not have - or maybe not as effective?
Then of course LBJ began the War on Poverty (WOP) - 50 years ago - how much have we spent on that? Some 20 trillion or so -
(Vietnam war was less then 1 trillion)
all the WOP has done was made more people dependent on the govt, higher taxes for those working and made responsibility a dirty word for those who have made welfare a carrer. In addition - those who do work are made to feel guilty because they do not do enough to help those "in need" or is that "in greed"
My answere - each of those "leaders" just fed on the previous one. Each one got a little bit more....
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Scripture says it well:
2 Thessalonians 3:8-10
8. Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9. Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
1 Timothy 5:8. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
The amount spent on the WoF is equivalent to the national debt!
Who are the most evil leaders in American history? The southern leaders who took us into the civil war over slavery rank up there among the most evil.
1) Deniers claim that slavery were not the cause, but the VP of the Confederacy said it was.
2) The South fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, but the commander had said he would abandon the Fort on April 15. Thus the South started the hostilities.
3) There were no "fine southern gentlemen" who owned or managed slaves. A gentleman treats others as he would want to be treated. Only cruel, vicious, sadistic monsters chained, beat, abused and murdered slaves.
1) Deniers claim that slavery were not the cause, but the VP of the Confederacy said it was.
2) The South fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, but the commander had said he would abandon the Fort on April 15. Thus the South started the hostilities.
3) There were no "fine southern gentlemen" who owned or managed slaves. A gentleman treats others as he would want to be treated. Only cruel, vicious, sadistic monsters chained, beat, abused and murdered slaves.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I would give Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, and BHO each a 10 just to show I am an equal opportunity guy. However, iffen I am really pushed hard I might give Abraham Lincoln a 10+++ and Barak a 10++! Actually Wilson despised the Constitution so perhaps he deserves a 10+++ also!
I declare Salty you put a person between a rock and a hard place with that kinda question!!:BangHead::tonofbricks:
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Salty, the South had leaders who took us into war.
The point is that anyone and everyone who desired to preserve slavery was evil, and thus far you seem to deny that fact.
If you think the southern leaders who took us into war, where hundreds of thousands of Americans died, in order to preserve slavery were not evil, make that statement and support it.
Trying to show how bad others were will not get it done, two wrongs do not make a right.
I would say John Wesley did damage to peoples spirituality, Id say Shelby Spong & Finney
As bad as Wesley was --Charles Finney was far worse.
So-called "spiritual" leaders such as Harry Fosdick (1878-1969),Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) and James Pike (1913-1969) were certainly up to no good.
The Jesus Seminar thingie is not something I am that familiar with. One of its leaders was Robert Funk (1926-2005). John D. Crossan (1934-) and Marcus Borg (1942-) are the other leaders of the movement.
Evil leaders are not all in politics.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Better to have them in politics, since politicians are generally suspect, than to have them masquerading as Christians!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Your rationale, which has morphed into your mantra, is so asinine it is beyond stupid. It is a fact that the South did not invade the North until September 1862 when Lee went into Maryland, more than a year after the war started. Lincoln took the country to war that resulted in the deaths of as many as 800,000 people!
From Union Strategy For Winning The Civil War
A third "strategy," one almost indistinguishable in its practical effect from that of Welles, was based on the assumption that only an overwhelming display of superior force demonstrated by an invasion of the South at every vulnerable point could force the Confederacy back into the Union.
/snip/
As the third strategy became clearly the strategy that Lincoln was determined to pursue--aggressive penetration of the South--the inevitable next question was how was that strategy to be best effected.
[http://www.civilwarhome.com/unionstrategy.htm]
/snip/
As the third strategy became clearly the strategy that Lincoln was determined to pursue--aggressive penetration of the South--the inevitable next question was how was that strategy to be best effected.
[http://www.civilwarhome.com/unionstrategy.htm]
Amen:wavey:
So is it you are unwilling or unable to give us the specific names?
...The point is that anyone and everyone who desired to preserve slavery was evil, and thus far you seem to deny that fact. ...[/QUOTE]
Does this includue Abe Lincoln as well as other Yankees who owned slaves?
While we are at it - just what did the Constitution of the CSA say about slaves?
Hi Salty, why do you not answer my questions?
Rather than shuck and jive, why not make an affirmative statement.
The fact that you refuse to condemn the southern leaders who took us into war to preserve slavery says it all.
Slavery caused the civil war.
The south not only seceded before Lincoln took office, the south fired on Fort Sumter, starting the hostilities.
Rather than shuck and jive, why not make an affirmative statement.
The fact that you refuse to condemn the southern leaders who took us into war to preserve slavery says it all.
Slavery caused the civil war.
The south not only seceded before Lincoln took office, the south fired on Fort Sumter, starting the hostilities.
poncho
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Down through the decades, Americans have wondered about Yankee brutality in that war. Lee invaded the North, but that sublime Christian hero forbade any forays against civilians. Military genius Stonewall Jackson stood like a stone wall and routed the Yankees at Manassas, but when Barbara Frietchie insisted on flying the Yankee flag in Frederick, Maryland, rather than the Stars and Bars, that sublime Christian hero commanded, according to John Greenleaf Whittier, “‘Who touches a hair of yon gray head/Dies like a dog! March on!’ he said.” [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]But the Yankees, invading the South, were monsters, killing, raping and destroying civilian property. In one Georgia town, some 400 women were penned in the town square in the July heat for almost a week without access to female facilities. It got worse when the Yankee slime got into the liquor. Some two thousand Southern women and children were shipped north to labor as slaves. Didn’t you learn that in school? [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Sherman’s scorched earth March to the Sea was a horror the later Nazis could not equal. Why? Because the Yankees hated Negro slavery so much? There can be no doubt that the already strong Communist influence in the North, combined with that of the maniacal abolitionists, was at least one of the main reasons. Slavery was a tardy excuse, an afterthought they introduced to gain propaganda traction. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In retrospect, it appears that because nothing like this had ever happened here, Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a “Civil” War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals. Instead they went home, in the mistaken belief that the defeated Yankees would leave them alone. Lee did come to understand – too late. He said after the war that had he known at the beginning what he had since found out, he would have fought to the last man. [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]What was the South fighting? Alexander Hamilton was the nation’s first big government politician. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and a national bank. Vice President Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel. The problem was that Burr didn’t kill him soon enough. Henry Clay inherited and expanded Hamilton’s ideas in something called the “American System,” which advocated big government subsidies for favored industries and high, ruinous tariffs, what we today call “socialism for the rich.” Clay inspired smooth talking railroad lawyer Abraham Lincoln, who inherited the Red escapees from the Revolution of 1848 and became our first Communist President. [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]All of this comes again to mind with the recent publication of Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln’s Marxists (iUniverse, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007) by Southern historians Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. You must read this book, because it irrefutably nails down everything I have said above and then some. Let’s browse through Red Republicans, and, as we do so, remember that the reason most Americans have never heard of all this is that the winner writes the history. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]But the Yankees, invading the South, were monsters, killing, raping and destroying civilian property. In one Georgia town, some 400 women were penned in the town square in the July heat for almost a week without access to female facilities. It got worse when the Yankee slime got into the liquor. Some two thousand Southern women and children were shipped north to labor as slaves. Didn’t you learn that in school? [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Sherman’s scorched earth March to the Sea was a horror the later Nazis could not equal. Why? Because the Yankees hated Negro slavery so much? There can be no doubt that the already strong Communist influence in the North, combined with that of the maniacal abolitionists, was at least one of the main reasons. Slavery was a tardy excuse, an afterthought they introduced to gain propaganda traction. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In retrospect, it appears that because nothing like this had ever happened here, Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a “Civil” War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals. Instead they went home, in the mistaken belief that the defeated Yankees would leave them alone. Lee did come to understand – too late. He said after the war that had he known at the beginning what he had since found out, he would have fought to the last man. [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]What was the South fighting? Alexander Hamilton was the nation’s first big government politician. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and a national bank. Vice President Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel. The problem was that Burr didn’t kill him soon enough. Henry Clay inherited and expanded Hamilton’s ideas in something called the “American System,” which advocated big government subsidies for favored industries and high, ruinous tariffs, what we today call “socialism for the rich.” Clay inspired smooth talking railroad lawyer Abraham Lincoln, who inherited the Red escapees from the Revolution of 1848 and became our first Communist President. [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]All of this comes again to mind with the recent publication of Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln’s Marxists (iUniverse, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007) by Southern historians Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. You must read this book, because it irrefutably nails down everything I have said above and then some. Let’s browse through Red Republicans, and, as we do so, remember that the reason most Americans have never heard of all this is that the winner writes the history. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm[/FONT]
1) It was the south who seceded before Lincoln took office.
2) It was the south who seceded to preserve slavery.
3) It was the south who fired on Fort Sumter.
4) It was the south that held 3 million slaves. Those slaves were beaten, abused, chained, and murdered. Note the effort in almost every post to change the subject to Communism, or Progressives, or Unconstitutional actions, but not one of these "good ol boys" admit that slavery caused the civil war. Like those who deny the Holocaust, the crimes against humanity are hidden from "their" good ol boy history.
2) It was the south who seceded to preserve slavery.
3) It was the south who fired on Fort Sumter.
4) It was the south that held 3 million slaves. Those slaves were beaten, abused, chained, and murdered. Note the effort in almost every post to change the subject to Communism, or Progressives, or Unconstitutional actions, but not one of these "good ol boys" admit that slavery caused the civil war. Like those who deny the Holocaust, the crimes against humanity are hidden from "their" good ol boy history.
It was the south that held 3 million slaves. Those slaves were beaten, abused, chained, and murdered.
This statement is baloney, and your constant repetition of the baloney that is this statement, and your absolute refusal to even try to prove it, do not come close to making it not baloney.
And baloney it is.
Given your maniacal switching from 10 million to 3 million, perhaps you should just claim there was 6.5 million slaves, give or take 3.5 million.
:laugh:
This statement is baloney, and your constant repetition of the baloney that is this statement, and your absolute refusal to even try to prove it, do not come close to making it not baloney.
And baloney it is.
Given your maniacal switching from 10 million to 3 million, perhaps you should just claim there was 6.5 million slaves, give or take 3.5 million.
:laugh:
- Status