Snidely Wiplash...now there was an evil guy...especially to little Nell. Thank heavens for Dudley Doright!
-
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
Snidely Wiplash...now there was an evil guy...especially to little Nell. Thank heavens for Dudley Doright!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I never said slavery was moral. I don't believe anyone on this thread has said that slavery was moral. We have murdered ~55 million babies in this country and you support those who advocate for abortion! ABORTION, which is condemned in Scripture, is certainly much more immoral than slavery which is not!
There were 3 million slaves. 800,000 to 850,000 people were killed in the War of Northern Aggression which Lincoln caused. Was that moral?
What do you mean Lincoln caused it?
WW II was caused by invasion by Germany and Japan
The American Revolution and CSA War for Independence were were caused because a foreign power refused to recognize local independent rule
Lincoln refused to recognize the indepence of a foreign nation.
Those who believe Lincon was right about saving the Union must all believe that ALL divorce is wrong - and that the USA must do anything possible to prohibit divorce
And the shuck and jive continues unabated. Did TND or Salty say the slavery practiced in the south was sinful? Nope. They therefore enable OR to continue his assault on the truth.
The Civil War was caused by slavery, with the north trying to end it and the south trying to preserve it. "Preserve the Union" was simply a Trojan horse for ending slavery.
The deniers blame Lincoln, greedy northerners, yankee ship owners, anyone and everyone but those cupable, the southern leaders who took us into war.
1) They seceded to preserve slavery
2) They fired on Fort Sumter, rather than wait for its abandonment.
3) They kept 3 million slaves in sinful, abusive, vulgar conditions and treated them like animals.
No matter how much lipstick the good ol boys smear on slavery, it reeks of evil behavior.
The Civil War was caused by slavery, with the north trying to end it and the south trying to preserve it. "Preserve the Union" was simply a Trojan horse for ending slavery.
The deniers blame Lincoln, greedy northerners, yankee ship owners, anyone and everyone but those cupable, the southern leaders who took us into war.
1) They seceded to preserve slavery
2) They fired on Fort Sumter, rather than wait for its abandonment.
3) They kept 3 million slaves in sinful, abusive, vulgar conditions and treated them like animals.
No matter how much lipstick the good ol boys smear on slavery, it reeks of evil behavior.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Here we are talking about humorous things and you inject tragedy!:tear::BangHead::smilewinkgrin::laugh:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
He invaded the South. A sovereign nation, such as the Confederate States of America, has the right to protect itself against invasion!
I am from the South and do know a bit about history.
The Confederacy was not a sovereign nation. It had not proven itself. It was not recognized by any other country. They hoped and prayed that England and France would recognize them. But it never came about. If Lee had won at Gettysburg it is highly probable that one or both would have recognized the Confederacy. John Slidell did negotiate a loan of $15,000,000 from French Capitalists, but not from the French government. Various European governments send observers to the Confederacy, but there was no formal recognition. In December 1864 the Confederacy and Davis were becoming desperate. Davis considered sacrificing slavery to help entice England and France into helping the Confederacy. He did not make this public because of the backlash he would have received from slave holders in the South. He sent Duncan F. Kenner to Europe, but Kenner's trip did not succeed.
The US never declared war on the Confederacy. The Confederate Congress did declare war on itself by declaring war on the rest of the states. The US through a presidential proclamation issued April 15, 1861 calling for troops to recapture forts and suppress a rebellion. Note it was not a declaration of war.
Us refers to Americans, but you knew that. Hence, yet another bunny trail tossed in to muddy the water and hide the truth.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Are you implying that Yankees don't know anything about history? Van proves you are correct about that!
You are mistaken but even if true it is irrelevant. The CSA had a Constitution, a legislature, and a president and "an enemy" as do most Sovereign States. The relevant truth is that the Confederate States of America was invaded by the North because of the illegal action of Lincoln!
Just goes to show that the current practice of this country going to war without a declaration has a precedent, Lincoln's illegal War of Aggression against the Confederate States of America.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Not at all. But Southerners tend to emphasis the Confederacy. Far too often we Southerners argue the way we wish it was or had been and do not fact the truth. It seems to me that what you are doing on this thread ... arguing what you wish and not what was true.
The Confederacy never won their sovereignty, was never recognized as a sovereign nation. There were a territory in rebellion. Live with it Old, hard as that might be, it is the truth.
A Constitution does not make a sovereign nation. A legislature does not make a sovereign nation. A president does not make a sovereign nation. Your argument would mean that the Taliban would make any territory they are in a sovereign nation if they had a constitution, a president and a legislature. Just isn't true. [/quote]
The South was invaded to bring a territory in rebellion back into a peaceful relationship with the rest of the nation.
To be a sovereign nation you have to reach a point where you are recognized as such by other nations. The Confederacy, though they dearly hoped and prayed for recognition, never achieved it.
The Confederacy never achieved the ability to enter into relations with other states as no other state recognized them as a sovereign nation. Heaven knows they tried. The only foreign aid to the Confederacy came from French capitalists, not form the French government ... nor any other government.
War does not have to be declared when bringing a territory in rebellion out of that rebellion.
And the insults from Old Regular continue unabated. This is all the "good ol boys" have, denial and disparagement.
Did they admit that slavery as practiced in the South was sinful? Nope
Did they admit that the South seceded before Lincoln took office, making the south the initiators of dissolution of the Union? Nope
Did they admit that the South fired on Fort Sumter, imitating hostilities. Nope
Have they displayed any level of knowledge concerning the causes of the Civil War, except to deny it was all about slavery? Nope
Did they explain how Lincoln's predecessor fed the South's belligerent
and provocative behavior through appeasement? Nope
Just as Iraq invaded Kuwait because it misread the will of the U.S. government, the South seceded and initiated hostilities because it misread the will of the North to shed its blood for black Americans.
And so, even to this day, still do not get it. Go figure.
Did they admit that slavery as practiced in the South was sinful? Nope
Did they admit that the South seceded before Lincoln took office, making the south the initiators of dissolution of the Union? Nope
Did they admit that the South fired on Fort Sumter, imitating hostilities. Nope
Have they displayed any level of knowledge concerning the causes of the Civil War, except to deny it was all about slavery? Nope
Did they explain how Lincoln's predecessor fed the South's belligerent
and provocative behavior through appeasement? Nope
Just as Iraq invaded Kuwait because it misread the will of the U.S. government, the South seceded and initiated hostilities because it misread the will of the North to shed its blood for black Americans.
And so, even to this day, still do not get it. Go figure.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
That claim is debatable at best, and incorrect at worst. There is no evidence that secession was illegal or prohibited by the Constitution, and in fact there is almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that secession was a legal, constitutionally sanctioned act. The U.S. government, in fact, agreed to Texas' demand that the provision in the state constitution be honored should they decide to secede and become a republic again. Then the government reneged on that compromise in 1869 and sued Texas for damages in its secessionist action. The Union lost.
Historian Kenneth M. Stampp, in his book The Imperiled Union, maintains that it is impossible to say that secession was illegal because of the ambiguity of the original Constitution as to state sovereignty and the right of secession. He points out that "the case for state sovereignty and the constitutional right of secession had flourished for forty years before a comparable case for a perpetual Union had been devised," and even then its logic was "far from perfect because the Constitution and the debates over ratification were fraught with ambiguity."
It appears that the original intent of an unquestioned right of secession was established by the Founders, took root and "flourished for forty years," then later a "perpetual Union" counter-argument developed out of political necessity when Northern states began realizing their wealth and power was dependent on the Union and its exploitation of the South.
In general NO - but recently Liberals have complained that Bush went to War without a Declaration of War.
BUT if Lincoln had requested a Declaration of War against the CSA - that would be the Union recognizing the CSA as a sovereign nation.
The ONLY two differenes between the rebellion of 1776 and 1860 was the distance bewteen the goverments and the fact that the US won the war in the 18th century and the CSA lost in the 19th.
One question - when did the United States become a sovereign nation - was it 1776 (Declaration of Independence) or 1783 (surrender of England) ?
But exactly what is a sovereign nation?
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
CTB, Reading your nonsense reminds me of a passage of Scripture:
Matthew 23:15. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Actually under the 10th amendment the states never lost their sovereignty, that is until Lincoln started an illegal war that killed 800,000-850,000 people, more Yankees than Southerners. But the North made up for that in the Reconstruction.
That comparison, the Taliban to the Confederacy shows just how much you have been brainwashed. Like many bleeding-heart-liberals you even support abortion which is decimating the black community.
The Southern states had the right to secede and that is the truth.
Whether they were a sovereign Nation or not is irrelevant. The Confederacy was invaded and occupied by foreign troops! That is a historical fact. Your remarks about what constitutes a Sovereign Nation are simply semantics.
I believe Skan would say you are "question begin"!
:sleeping_2:
I am reminded of the Korean "conflict."
Seems the Yankees are continually being two faced.
They want to display the supposedly higher ground of "union" and yet would be incensed that anyone suggest that Korea be united under the northern government.
The North was held as aggressors in the Korean "conflict" and in the Vietnam war.
That the North is not held as the aggressors of the US civil war, is merely the validation that the winners live to write the history that is accepted - even though it may be a lie.
Seems the Yankees are continually being two faced.
They want to display the supposedly higher ground of "union" and yet would be incensed that anyone suggest that Korea be united under the northern government.
The North was held as aggressors in the Korean "conflict" and in the Vietnam war.
That the North is not held as the aggressors of the US civil war, is merely the validation that the winners live to write the history that is accepted - even though it may be a lie.
Van,
You have yet to prove by Scriptures that slavery and servitude (for the Scriptures treat servants as held to the owner as a slave is held) are moral evils; much less, proving by Scriptures that holding a slave is a sin.
Your whole argument is based upon this assumption.
Prove by Scriptures your view, or it remains a total fabrication of "feelings."
Where is YOUR proof, Van?
Don't "shuck and jive" as you have so liable others as doing on this issue.
You want so badly to claim, high moral ground, then prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Folks, let me be perfectly clear on this issue:
Slavery (servitude) is NOT evil. Others may decide the issue for them self. Others who have posted on this thread have taken the view that it is.
PROVE IT!
The Scriptures do not condemn slavery (servitude) as evil, and humankind have no right to condemn as evil what God does not. The sale of Joseph should be sufficient proof.
MOST CERTAINLY, the Scriptures declare what constitutes evil treatment of a slave (servant), and proper treatment and conditions of slavery (servitude) should be known by every person who employs or has charge over another.
Do not base your views upon "feelings." That is just so Hollywood.
Prove by Scriptures, and have foundation for what is Scriptural principle and Scripture conviction.
You have yet to prove by Scriptures that slavery and servitude (for the Scriptures treat servants as held to the owner as a slave is held) are moral evils; much less, proving by Scriptures that holding a slave is a sin.
Your whole argument is based upon this assumption.
Prove by Scriptures your view, or it remains a total fabrication of "feelings."
Where is YOUR proof, Van?
Don't "shuck and jive" as you have so liable others as doing on this issue.
You want so badly to claim, high moral ground, then prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Folks, let me be perfectly clear on this issue:
Slavery (servitude) is NOT evil. Others may decide the issue for them self. Others who have posted on this thread have taken the view that it is.
PROVE IT!
The Scriptures do not condemn slavery (servitude) as evil, and humankind have no right to condemn as evil what God does not. The sale of Joseph should be sufficient proof.
MOST CERTAINLY, the Scriptures declare what constitutes evil treatment of a slave (servant), and proper treatment and conditions of slavery (servitude) should be known by every person who employs or has charge over another.
Do not base your views upon "feelings." That is just so Hollywood.
Prove by Scriptures, and have foundation for what is Scriptural principle and Scripture conviction.
- Status