Most Evil Person in American History

[JohnDeereFan]

As it is he is a treasonous person and should be brought back to this country, tried, found guilty, and hung!

Why kill whistleblowers? Why not just have some sort of gulag or reeducation camp for them?

 

[OldRegular]

Why kill whistleblowers? Why not just have some sort of gulag or reeducation camp for them?

Whistleblowers don't flee to this countries enemies, traitors do!

 

[Van]

Evil leaders include those who led us into an un-winable war and then lacked the good grace to back out rapidly. So the Southern leaders in the War between the States (racking up over 200,000 killed) have got to rank up there near the top.

My personal pick, LBJ, only killed about 50,000 Americans, but as disclosed in "The Fog of War" they knew it was un-winable in the first six months, yet engaged in a war of attrition, trading the lives of our youth for political cover.

 

[OldRegular]

Evil leaders include those who led us into an un-winable war and then lacked the good grace to back out rapidly. So the Southern leaders in the War between the States (racking up over 200,000 killed) have got to rank up there near the top.

My personal pick, LBJ, only killed about 50,000 Americans, but as disclosed in "The Fog of War" they knew it was un-winable in the first six months, yet engaged in a war of attrition, trading the lives of our youth for political cover.

Actually the War of Northern Aggression was caused by the Northern Aggressors.

The Constitution does not forbid secession or empower some states to go to war with others to prevent secession. If the country keeps headed down the road to Marxism I predict that a huge number of red states will secede, probably led by Texas. Most of the red states have access to the ocean either directly or by way of rivers. I believe it is safe to say that most of the energy sources are in red states and most of agriculture is in red states. However, in the face of the growing threat from China this would not be smart.

In the 1990's Clinton bombed what was the former Yugoslavia to enforce the secession of certain states.

 

[Van]

Gee, I always thought the song got it right, as Jesus died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.

The wording of the song had change by the time LBJ led us into a war of aggression, hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today.

 

[OldRegular]

Gee, I always thought the song got it right, as Jesus died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.

Slavery was simply the emotional issue used by the elites among the Northern Aggressors to drum up support for the War of Northern Aggression. Same as "Remember the Maine" in the Spanish American War, Remember the Lusitania in WWI, Remember Pearl Harbor in WWII, the Gulf of Tonkin in Viet Nam.

The first race riots in the country occurred in NYC during the Civil War:

Blood in the Streets: The New York City Draft Riots
By William F.B. Vodrey
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2003, 2010, All Rights Reserved

The New York City Draft Riots of July 13-16, 1863, were by some measures the most bloody and devastating riots in American history. At a time when the Civil War was raging on battlefields, rivers and oceans, violence and terror ruled the streets of our largest city, and battle-weary troops had to be rushed from Gettysburg to help restore order. What began as a protest against the Federal draft quickly degenerated into a racial and social struggle as ugly as any in the Deep South - far more Jim Crow than Big Apple.
New York historian Edward Robb Ellis wrote, “The Draft Riots...stand as the most brutal, tragic, and shameful episode in the entire history of New York City. Politicians encouraged mob violence. Law and order broke down. Mobs seized control of America’s largest city. Innocents were tortured and slaughtered [and] the Union army was weakened.”

The riots began because of attempts to enforce the first Federal conscription act, and because of the economic hardships, political ideology and social pathologies of the city’s large Irish immigrant underclass. The great majority of them had welcomed neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor the draft. “They were furious,” wrote historian Philip B. Kunhardt Jr., “at being conscripted into a war [by then] dedicated to freeing slaves.” In Ellis’s view, “The infamous Draft Riots... were so well led that they constituted an organized insurrection, rather than a spontaneous mob uprising. Definite strategy may be seen in the efforts to cut off approaches to the city, to sever communications, to capture forts, to seize armories and munitions works with all their weapons and ammunition, and to plunder banks and Federal treasury vaults.” Carl Sandburg wrote, “Never before in an American metropolis had the police, merchants, bankers, and forces of law and order had their power wrenched loose by mobs so skillfully led.”

http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/society/nyc_riots.htm

The above is a worthwhile read though long!

 

[Van]

Have you ever been to Gettysburg? You can walk and walk, and find little markers, so many buried here, so many buried there. You can see the display of "grape shot" where canons fired these 3/4 inch lead balls by the coffee can full into young and brave boys. Hard to justify, easy to cry. Another song I like, is "I was blind, but now I see" Amazing...

 

[OldRegular]

Have you ever been to Gettysburg? You can walk and walk, and find little markers, so many buried here, so many buried there. You can see the display of "grape shot" where canons fired these 3/4 inch lead balls by the coffee can full into young and brave boys. Hard to justify, easy to cry. Another song I like, is "I was blind, but now I see" Amazing...

There were more men killed in the Civil War than any other American War.

Certainly it was a foolish war. Slavery would have collapsed eventually because it was not economically viable. The number of people who owned slaves in the South is estimated to be 25-35% but only the large land holders owned a large number. As far as I know the Civil War was the only time in history where a people fought against their own race to free a people of another race; and as I said earlier that was simply an emotional issue justifying the war.

I believe this is a historical fact. If the United States had treated occupied Japan and Germany like the South was treated for 100 years after the Cicil War the occupation of those two countries would have been very costly in terms of human life.war. Actually the treatment of Germany after WWI sowed the seeds of WWII!

 

[Van]

If everyone who owned a slave owned only one, then 50% of the Southerners would have owned slaves. There were about 6 million whites (or non-slaved) and about 3 million slaves. I suppose the state rights issue to own slaves could have been used by elitist plantation owners to whip up support to for selling the children of slaves.

I see no need to rewrite history and the bible which teaches it is better to be free than slave, and thinking each and every black brother or sister in Christ should be free.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If everyone who owned a slave owned only one, then 50% of the Southerners would have owned slaves. There were about 6 million whites (or non-slaved) and about 3 million slaves. I suppose the state rights issue to own slaves could have been used by elitist plantation owners to whip up support to for selling the children of slaves.

I see no need to rewrite history and the bible which teaches it is better to be free than slave, and thinking each and every black brother or sister in Christ should be free.

There is no "rewrite" of history in the factual statement that the Civil War was only emotionally about slavery, but was in reality about economics.

The vast majority of industrial manufacturing was taking place in the North. The South had almost 25% of the country's free population, but only 10% of the country's capital in 1860. The North had five times the number of factories as the South, and over ten times the number of factory workers. In addition, 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North. It cannot be argued that the Southern economy was built on slave labor. Most Southern white families did not own slaves: only about 384,000 out of 1.6 million did. Of those who did own slaves, most (88%) owned fewer than 20 slaves, and were considered farmers rather than planters. Slaves were concentrated on the large plantations of about 10,000 big planters, on which 50-100 or more slaves worked. About 3,000 of these planters owned more than 100 slaves, and 14 of them owned over 1,000 slaves.

The biggest issue was not the slavery itself. Frankly, the North didn't care if there were slaves in the South or not. The issue was taxes and tariffs. Southern debt meant the local and state governments kept taxes low, while the taxes in the North were beginning to soar by the 1850s. This increased the cost of goods in the South sold by Northern industry and retailers. At the same time taxes were becoming a point of debate between North and South, tariffs became an equally divisive issue.

Throughout the antebellum period, whenever the federal government wanted to raise tariffs, Southern Congressmen generally opposed it and Northern Congressmen generally supported it. Southerners generally favored low tariffs because this kept the cost of imported goods low, which was important in the South's import-oriented economy. Southern planters and farmers were concerned that high tariffs might make their European trading partners, primarily the British, raise prices on manufactured goods imported by the South in order to maintain a profit on trade.

In the North, however, high tariffs were viewed favorably because such tariffs would make imported goods more expensive. That way, goods produced in the North would seem relatively cheap, and Americans would want to buy American goods instead of European items. Since tariffs would protect domestic industry from foreign competition, business interests and others influenced politicians to support high tariffs.

As the 1850s proceeded, the divide between the North and Northwest and the South and Southwest widened. The bitter debates over the slave status of newly-admitted states, which had been going on since at least the Missouri Compromise of 1820, were signs of the very real fear Southerners had of having their voice in Congress drowned out by "Yankee industrialists." Incidents such as the Southern protests against the [URL="http://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/36974["Tariff of Abominations"[/URL] in the 1820s and the [URL="http://www.ushistory.org/us/24c.asp]Nullification Crisis of the 1830s[/URL] demonstrated how deep a rift the tariff controversy was creating between North and South.

In Congress, Southern Representatives and Senators were concerned that their interests would not be suitably addressed. As immigrants flocked to the Northern areas, swelling the ranks, Southerners were afraid the Northern states would increase their representation in the House of Representatives, blocking "Southern-friendly" legislation. The interests of African Americans slaves, however, did not seem to concern a large number of Northern or Southern Congressmen. Efforts in the North to keep the West slave-free were every bit as much economically based as they were concern for black slaves. By the late 1850s, the fear of Northern domination in national economic policy, combined with the desire to maintain Southern institutions (including slavery), became a major influence on the people who eventually chose to secede from the Union.

Slavery was a factor in the Civil War, no doubt, and as much economic as it was morally emotional. But the truth is, economics was more the cause of the rifts which led to secession than slavery. There was also the cultural aspect, that gets largely overlooked, but was perhaps as big an influence in secession as the other two issues were.

Part of the "Southern way of life" was the European flavor and aspirations of the planter class. This cultural influence grew out of and was fed by the long-standing mutual economic relationship between England and the South. In order to ensure that the British market for Southern cotton remained open, Southern planters and others had to maintain relatively sizable importation of goods from Britain. At the same time, the European influence on Southern gentile society; in education, fashion, arts, and other fields; created a large demand for European imports. An imbalance in this relationship, such as would be caused by the abolition of slavery or increases in tariffs, would have cultural implications for the South.

 

[Van]

I have listened to the "slavery was not the issue" arguments since childhood. Slavery was the issue.

1) The south had said it would secede if Lincoln was elected and he was.
2) In a master stroke of triangulation, Lincoln promised to preserve the Union. This was code for ending slavery.
3) The south attacked Fort Sumter, branding the south as the aggressors.

More than 200,000 young men died to continue slavery. What a waste. The leaders of this blood bath are among the most
evil leaders in American history.

 

[OldRegular]

I have listened to the "slavery was not the issue" arguments since childhood. Slavery was the issue.

You are wrong.

The Emancipation Proclamation
Emancipation Proclamation, page 1President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/

So you see Van slavery was not the cause.

CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR


Civil War: In U.S. history, the conflict (1861–65) between the Northern states (the Union) and the Southern states that seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy. It is generally known in the South as the War between the States and is also called the War of the Rebellion (the official Union designation), the War of Secession, and the War for Southern Independence. The name Civil War, although much criticized as inexact, is most widely accepted.

CAUSES

The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements so complex that historians still do not agree on its basic causes. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.

The ELECTION of 1860

The “wedges of separation” caused by slavery split large Protestant sects into Northern and Southern branches and dissolved the Whig party. Most Southern Whigs joined the Democratic party, one of the few remaining, if shaky, nationwide institutions. The new Republican party, heir to the Free-Soil party and to the Liberty party, was a strictly Northern phenomenon. The crucial point was reached in the presidential election of 1860, in which the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, defeated three opponents—Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democrat), John C. Breckinridge (Southern Democrat), and John Bell of the Constitutional Union party. Lincoln's victory was the signal for the secession of South Carolina (Dec. 20, 1860), and that state was followed out of the Union by six other states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Immediately the question of federal property in these states became important, especially the forts in the harbor of Charleston, S.C. (see Fort Sumter). The outgoing President, James Buchanan, a Northern Democrat who was either truckling to the Southern, proslavery wing of his party or sincerely attempting to avert war, pursued a vacillating course. At any rate the question of the forts was still unsettled when Lincoln was inaugurated, and meanwhile there had been several futile efforts to reunite the sections, notably the Crittenden Compromise offered by Sen. J. J. Crittenden. Lincoln resolved to hold Sumter. The new Confederate government under President Jefferson Davis and South Carolina were equally determined to oust the Federals.
http://www.us-civilwar.com/cause.htm

1) The south had said it would secede if Lincoln was elected and he was.

Are you serious? The South said! The South said!

2) In a master stroke of triangulation, Lincoln promised to preserve the Union. This was code for ending slavery.

So you are blaming Lincoln for starting the war.

3) The south attacked Fort Sumter, branding the south as the aggressors.

South Carolina had seceded. The Yankees were occupying their land!

More than 200,000 young men died to continue slavery. What a waste. The leaders of this blood bath are among the most
evil leaders in American history.

You really need to check your facts!!

US Civil War Death Toll Much Higher Than Thought
JAMES JOYNER · WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 · 13 COMMENTS
Historian J. David Hacker argues that the death toll from the US Civil War is much higher than we think.
Even as Civil War history has gone through several cycles of revision, one thing has remained fixed: the number of dead. Since about 1900, historians and the general public have assumed that 618,222 men died on both sides. That number is probably a significant undercount, however. New estimates, based on Census data, indicate that the death toll was approximately 750,000, and may have been as high as 850,000.

The notion that we’ve drastically undercounted the Civil War dead is not a new idea: in fact, Francis Amasa Walker, superintendent of the 1870 Census, estimated that the number of male deaths was “not less than 850,000.” So how did the lower number come to be the accepted count — and why does it matter that it was wrong?

Efforts to identify, rebury and count the dead began as soon as the war ended. A precise count proved impossible, however: both armies lacked systematic procedures to identify the dead, wounded and missing in action, as well as an official means to notify relatives of a soldier’s death. Men went missing; battle, hospital and prison reports were incomplete and inaccurate; dead men were buried unidentified; and family members were forced to infer the fate of a loved one from his failure to return home after the war.

Francis Amasa Walker, Superintendent of the 1870 and 1880 Census enumerations, noted the shocking lack of population growth between 1860 and 1870 and blamed the war. He estimated 500,000 Union and 350,000 Confederate deaths, including those who died shortly after the war from maladies caused by their deployment. But his estimates were rejected by those who argued that the low figures were the effect of a systematic undercount.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us-civil-war-death-toll-much-higher-than-thought/

Finally it appears that Lincoln was the cause of the War of Northern Aggression!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I have listened to the "slavery was not the issue" arguments since childhood. Slavery was the issue.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Van]

Yes, not being a slave, I am entitled to my opinion. Being a Christian, I am entitled to hold that slavery was and is a godless enterprise. Those that fostered it were evil, sacrificing humanity on the alter of greed. Thank God for Fredrick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and all those who wore blue, singing let us die to make men free.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, not being a slave, I am entitled to my opinion. Being a Christian, I am entitled to hold that slavery was and is a godless enterprise. Those that fostered it were evil, sacrificing humanity on the alter of greed. Thank God for Fredrick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and all those who wore blue, singing let us die to make men free.

Actually you are wrong again. Slavery is practiced in the Bible. You might read Paul's short letter to Philemon! Ignorance is not bliss and knowledge of Scripture can accomplish wonders.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Actually you are wrong again. Slavery is practiced in the Bible. You might read Paul's short letter to Philemon! Ignorance is not bliss and knowledge of Scripture can accomplish wonders.

Unfortunately English has only one word where many are needed. Slavery in Biblical times was quite different than slavery in the USA. We have no adequate term to differentiate between the two forms of servitude and that can lead to confusion.

The "man stealing" practiced in the USA is condemned in the Bible.

“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

 

[Van]

Thanks Crabtownboy, anyone who thinks the 3 million slaves in the south, were not either kidnapped themselves or were the offspring of kidnapped ancestor, is running from reality. Slavery as practiced in America was a monstrous practice. Hundreds of thousands of men died to set those 3 million free, and they helped keep our Government not only of the people, and not only by the people, but for the people freed from slavery. We are not done yet, but it is for us the living to take that torch of freedom and carry it until Christ comes.

There are those that deny the Holocaust, and those that deny the monstrosity of Slavery caused the civil war, but imagine if you were manacled on one of those "tight pack" slave ships, smelling death with every breath.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Thanks Crabtownboy, anyone who thinks the 3 million slaves in the south, were not either kidnapped themselves or were the offspring of kidnapped ancestor, is running from reality. Slavery as practiced in America was a monstrous practice. Hundreds of thousands of men died to set those 3 million free, and they helped keep our Government not only of the people, and not only by the people, but for the people freed from slavery.

There are those that deny the Holocaust, and those that deny the monstrosity of Slavery caused the civil war, but imagine if you were manacled on one of those "tight pack" slave ships, smelling death with every breath.

The slave ship was anything but a cruise ship.

And they certainly were not housed in hotels when not on a ship.

Alex Haley has a graphic description of what it was like for the slave while aboard a slave ship in his book Roots

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Alex Haley's "ROOTS" has been completely discredited.


http://nypost.com/2013/11/11/history-channel-plans-to-remake-historically-problematic-roots/

I had a thread on this a while ago.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Yes, not being a slave, I am entitled to my opinion. Being a Christian, I am entitled to hold that slavery was and is a godless enterprise.

I don't believe I've characterized it as anything else. Of course it was godless, still is. That has little to do with the fact that slavery was primarily the emotional, not the "nuts-and-bolts" issue, that drove the nation into the Civil War.

Those that fostered it were evil, sacrificing humanity on the alter of greed. Thank God for Fredrick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and all those who wore blue, singing let us die to make men free.

Agreed. Nonetheless, and once again, it was the emotional driver of the war, not the deciding factor in its beginning.