• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
….I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Abraham Lincoln

http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/n...-greeley-slavery-union-restoration-union.html
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

But not his description of how slaves were housed. That is quite different than historical accuracy of events. As the graphic in my earlier post shows, it was terrible.

Conditions on board ship during the Middle Passage were appalling. The men were packed together below deck and were secured by leg irons. The space was so cramped they were forced to crouch or lie down. Women and children were kept in separate quarters, sometimes on deck, allowing them limited freedom of movement, but this also exposed them to violence and sexual abuse from the crew.

The air in the hold was foul and putrid. Seasickness was common and the heat was oppressive. The lack of sanitation and suffocating conditions meant there was a constant threat of disease. Epidemics of fever, dysentery (the 'flux') and smallpox were frequent. Captives endured these conditions for about two months, sometimes longer.

In good weather the captives were brought on deck in midmorning and forced to exercise. They were fed twice a day and those refusing to eat were force-fed. Those who died were thrown overboard.

The combination of disease, inadequate food, rebellion and punishment took a heavy toll on captives and crew alike. Surviving records suggest that until the 1750s one in five Africans on board ship died.

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/middle_passage[size]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Alex Haley's book has been completely discredited. You should not be telling people to use it as a source for accurate info on anything.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
….I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Abraham Lincoln

http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/n...-greeley-slavery-union-restoration-union.html

I have said previously that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War and the above statement by Lincoln as well as the Emancipation Proclamation show that I was correct.

The Southern States wanted to secede from the Union and there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and did so one could argue that Lincoln was the cause of the Civil War!.

I have always believed that the country is fortunate the Union was preserved. However the so-called Reconstruction was essentially a rape of the South and set it back for about 100 years.

Given that the radical leftists, who dominate most of the Northern states, are leading the country down the road to bankruptcy it is not beyond possible that some of the red states will again secede unless there is a drastic change in the direction of the country soon!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Those that deny the monstrosity of Slavery caused the Civil War simply are engaged in cognitive dissonance.

1) Why did the southern states secede when Lincoln was elected. Slavery!

2) Why did the south fire on Fort Sumner? Slavery

3) Why did the evil leaders of the south lead their brave sons into war? Slavery

Slavery was a godless evil murderous enterprise, and all the so-called "other causes" trace back to the preservation of slavery.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Who owned the slave ships?

Men who were greedy for profit, you know, like in Capitalism ... who participated in the triangle trade route, who brought humans, yes humans kidnapped, to greedy slave owners who wanted cheap labor so they, the slave owner, could be rich. Unbridled Capitalism knows no morality.

Not sure what your point is.

Cargo of the living dead: The unspeakable horror of life on a slave ship.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ble-horror-life-slave-ship.html#ixzz2oVHUpv7i
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Men who were greedy for profit, you know, like in Capitalism ... who participated in the triangle trade route, who brought humans, yes humans kidnapped, to greedy slave owners who wanted cheap labor so they, the slave owner, could be rich. Unbridled Capitalism knows no morality.


Not everyone was like Whitefield who advocated slavery because he viewed it as biblical, economically sound, and provided an opportunity to share the gospel with those slaves (captive audience)…some were just greedy.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Men who were greedy for profit, you know, like in Capitalism ... who participated in the triangle trade route, who brought humans, yes humans kidnapped, to greedy slave owners who wanted cheap labor so they, the slave owner, could be rich. Unbridled Capitalism knows no morality.


And the Marxism that you and your demigod, Obama, espouse knows morality? How many millions died under the tender hand of Stalin, starved in so-called White Russia or perished in Siberia. How many millions died in China under the tender hand of Mao.

Perhaps worse are the millions of people in this country who are in bondage to the tender Marxism of people like you and the democrat party, who are in bondage to the plantation mentality introduced and propagated by the Marxist democrat party.

Not sure what your point is.

The point is it was the mostly dam Yankees tho operated the slave ships after Britain put a stop to their slave traders.

It is also a fact that Yankees owned slaves and the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing to end slavery in the north. The post by Bro. Curtis clearly shows that ending slavery was not the goal of Lincoln. He was perfectly willing to use slavery in whatever way enabled him to preserve the Union. Does that make him an evil man?
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Those that deny the monstrosity of Slavery caused the Civil War simply are engaged in cognitive dissonance.

Van is one of the few but growing number on this Forum who like to use fancy words! So for usens who are not as eddicated as Van!

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance etc.

I am always comfortable with the truth Van. It appears that you are the one troubled by Cognitive dissonance when you deny the historical statements of Lincoln and others regarding the Civil War.

Perhaps you should blame Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin, which made the raising of cotton profitable but also demanded cheap labor. Actually slave labor was not that cheap and eventually would have collapsed because of economics.

1) Why did the southern states secede when Lincoln was elected. Slavery!

2) Why did the south fire on Fort Sumner? Slavery

3) Why did the evil leaders of the south lead their brave sons into war? Slavery
All those questions have been asked and correctly answered.

Slavery was a godless evil murderous enterprise, and all the so-called "other causes" trace back to the preservation of slavery.

Can you show from Scripture that slavery is a
godless evil murderous enterprise
. I recommended earlier that you read Paul's letter to the slave holder Philemon. I assume you have taken the opportunity to enhance your knowledge of Scripture!
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
1) Why did the southern states secede when Lincoln was elected. Slavery!

.

The truth of this is very easy to verify. Read the declarations of secession of the states or the accompanying reasons for the declaration. Slavery is always at the top of the list. If you want a particularly clear statement read Texas' reasons.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, C4K, there is no debate, the truth is obvious to all.

I think the reason some assert to this day that Slavery was not the cause is to avoid admitting the south was on the wrong side. Their mantra is "the north was as bad, the north had slaves, the north was engaged in a greedy land grab, and on and on.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
The truth of this is very easy to verify. Read the declarations of secession of the states or the accompanying reasons for the declaration. Slavery is always at the top of the list. If you want a particularly clear statement read Texas' reasons.

Actually there is more to secession than you claim above although there is no doubt slavery played a role. The cause of the war was Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union regardless of the cost as I point out in the following post..

Texas

[Copied by Justin Sanders from E.W. Winkler, ed., *Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas*, pp. 61-66.]

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

[And more follows]

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
The truth of this is very easy to verify. Read the declarations of secession of the states or the accompanying reasons for the declaration. Slavery is always at the top of the list. If you want a particularly clear statement read Texas' reasons.

Now for a look at South Carolina, the first state to secede. In this first half of the document slavery is not mentioned. Pay careful attention to the first paragraph because it is relevant to the views of the majority of people today.

South Carolina


[Copied by Justin Sanders from J.A. May & J.R. Faunt, *South Carolina Secedes* (U. of S. Car. Pr, 1960), pp. 76-81.]

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
In my initial post regarding the War between the States I said:

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.

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

In my second post I said:
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:

Now for some other viewpoints:

#1. Post #30 by thisnumbersdisconnected. A very interesting read.

#2. Post #41
….I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Abraham Lincoln

http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/n...-greeley-slavery-union-restoration-union.html


#3. From http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/why-did-the-south-secede/. A long but inciteful read for those interested in the truth.
Why Did the South Secede?

History is important.


Through it we can understand our future, understand politics, understand economics, and understand almost everything a little better. And that’s why having a proper understanding of historical events is important — having a warped view of history gives us a warped view of the present.

Of all of the misunderstood events in history, the American Civil War is probably the worst of the lot. Most students believe that the South was fighting to keep all of the slaves in bondage, while the benevolent Yankees were fighting to free the slaves in captivity — nothing could be further from the truth.

History books are written by the victors. This simple-yet-powerful sentence explains why the “winners” of every war rarely are seen as the “bad guys” for quite some time after the war.

The winners get to rewrite the story to cast themselves as heroes whether they deserve it or not, and that story is going to be a powerful one. My intellectual hero — Richard Maybury — explained it in simple terms:

‎”In our government-controlled schools we are taught that Lincoln was our greatest president because his war ended slavery and saved the Union. As usual, the other side of the story – the side that reflects poorly on the government – somehow gets lost.”​

Let’s take a look at the real story — what Lincoln really said — and what the real reasons were for the South deciding to secede.

Freedom vs. Slavery?

The modern narrative that most people are taught is that the North wanted to abolish slavery and the South wanted to keep it in tact. This is demonstrated in movies, magazines, books, and perpetually taught in elementary schools, high schools, and college. It’s also dead wrong.

Abraham Lincoln flat out rejected it, saying in his first inaugural address:

”I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”​

Later in his presidency, Lincoln wrote the following:

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”​

The motivation of Lincoln was consolidating political power — not freeing the slaves. The notion that he was trying to free the slaves from the get-go is a complete fabrication. Lincoln also was a racist, even though he thought slavery was wrong, and explained so in a debate with Douglas before he was president:

“I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.”​

The notion of Lincoln being a benevolent color-blind freer of slaves is simply not true. It’s a fantasy cooked up by the men who won the war. After all, if you’re telling your grandkids that you waged a war that killed 600,000 men, that destroyed the city of Atlanta, and millions of people were wounded, it doesn’t sound good to say “we did it for political power”.

If the above wasn’t enough, Lincoln also made it clear that the black regiments in the military were to be used as cannon fodder. He used them like animals — to be killed before his precious white troops. He even explained such in a letter during the war in 1863:

“I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union.”​

The Civil War was not over freeing the slaves. The victor writes the history books.

Why the South Really Seceded:

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

1. Anti-South Party

2. Anti-South Tariffs.

3, No Nullification.

4. Capping Southern Influence

5. Structure of Government.

6. No Need for the North


{Note: I have not copied the text explaining each of the above.]

Was slavery wrong? Absolutely. It was wrong. But the war wasn’t over freeing those already enslaved. Lincoln said this. If the South stayed in the Union, there’s a good chance that slavery would have existed for decades longer, because there was no constitutional way for the North to abolish slavery without the South’s consent — and they weren’t going to do that.

The Civil War wasn’t over “freeing the slaves”. It was about politics and regional influence — the North and South were at odds, and the South believed it was better off alone. Were they right? There’s no telling.

Slavery was a great crime against millions of people. It was wrong on a fundamental way. It was inhumane, evil, and disgusting. But “ending slavery” simply wasn’t what the war was about.

History is written by the victor, and nothing could be more clear than this being exactly an example of that. Other wars and events are also “told” in a lopsided manner in the textbooks. World War I, World War II, the Great Depression — many of these stories usually ignore basic historical facts, and are told in such a way as to glorify our government. When reading about history, always remember that the real story might be very different than the story in the book.

The South was kept under the heel of the North until the Eisenhower years.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Yes, C4K, there is no debate, the truth is obvious to all.

I think the reason some assert to this day that Slavery was not the cause is to avoid admitting the south was on the wrong side. Their mantra is "the north was as bad, the north had slaves, the north was engaged in a greedy land grab, and on and on.

If that is the case - then please explan the statements of good ole' Abe
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hi Salty, until the sons of the south face up to the fact the war was fought because the South would not give up slavery, debating this subject is like debating KJVonlyism. No amount of rational evidence with be accepted, only dismissed using absurd argument.

Lincoln triangulated the issue, speaking not directly against slavery, but for preserving the Union. But, liking speaking for a women's right to choose, the actual issue is the right to murder the unborn. The south calls it "States Rights" and the north calls it "save the Union" but the monstrosity of slavery is at its core.

1) The process of adding new non-slave states to the Union, but not adding a like number of slave states, was thought to threaten in the future, the right to slavery in the existing slave states. See the Texas statement.

2) Lincoln addressed not interfering with the existing states, yet clearly was for not adding any more slave states. So the South saw Lincoln as a threat to the preservation of slavery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From The Texas Ordinance of Secession - (February 2, 1861)

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents any state from seceding from the Union; that is a fact! Lincoln's unconstitutional action to prevent the secession of the South makes "him" the cause of the bloodiest war in US history!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Putting all the above remarks about Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression aside I would say that the most evil men in American History are the Seven Black Robed Justices that issued the Roe V Wade decision and all those who support and perform abortions are the most evil of men. The number of unborn children who have been slaughtered as the result of the actions of these people and those, including some on this Forum, who support them is in excess of 55,000,000.

Estimates of those who died as a result of Lincoln's unconstitutional action range as high as 800,000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top