Most Evil Person in American History

[poncho]

Edward Bernays the father of modern "public relations" although he wasn't a politician he helped the elite better understand how easily the public mind could be manipulated through the use of propaganda.

 

[Crabtownboy]

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!

There is nothing in the Constitution saying a state can succeed. So the Constitution does not speak to the issue either way. Nice try Old, but it won't wash.

Why do you defend slavery?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

This represents a gross refusal, a "head-in-the-sand" denial, of the facts. The number of presentations on this thread which prove you absolutely wrong is overwhelming, you have yet to address Lincoln's racial prejudice -- common among nearly every American who lived at the time -- and you have posted nothing that would counter the evidence in place from other posters. You can stomp our feet and shout at the top of your voice for all I care, it won't change historical truth.

 

[OldRegular]

There is nothing in the Constitution saying a state can [succeed]. So the Constitution does not speak to the issue either way. Nice try Old, but it won't wash.

It is secede not succeed CTB. It turns out that the purpose of the Federal government is to prevent the success of the States.

Why do you defend slavery?

Nothing I have said is a defense of slavery. I repeat my post #41 for your edification CTB. I have emphasized part in case you are unable to read.

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!

I don't support slavery CTB. I suspect even at the time of the War of Northern Aggression the vast majority of Southern people rejected slavery. I also suspect that most of the whites in the South were viewed as "white trash" by the large land and slave owners.

thisnumbersdisconnected in his Post #30 provided useful information on the practice of slavery in the Old South. I have engaged in this discussion about the War of Northern Aggression because of the ignorance of some people regarding the actual cause. I believe the information that I and others have posted does shed some light on this issue.

So CTB you are making a lying accusation when you say I support slavery. But I am making a true statement when I say that you are a rabid supporter of abortion. I use the term "rabid supporter" because you continue to make endless excuses on this Forum for your support of the American Holocaust, the slaughter of more than 55,000,000 unborn babies. Then you accuse those of us who oppose abortion of not caring for the poor. You are a very hypocritical person Crabtownboy. Any professing Christian who supports the "slaughter of the unborn" is to be pitied!

 

[Revmitchell]

Nothing I have said is a defense of slavery. I repeat my post #41 for your edification CTB. I have emphasized part in case you are unable to read.

When you respond to garbage like that all you are doing is feeding his trollish behavior.

 

[OldRegular]

When you respond to garbage like that all you are doing is feeding his trollish behavior.

I know, I know. I have been saying the same thing to those who respond to Ryan and E-7 on the Other Denominations forum!:BangHead::BangHead:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Don't worry. Any minute C4K will tell us conservatives to be honest and treat each other with respect.

 

[Van]

Good Golly Miss Molly

This represents a gross refusal, a "head-in-the-sand" denial, of the facts. The number of presentations on this thread which prove you absolutely wrong is overwhelming, you have yet to address Lincoln's racial prejudice -- common among nearly every American who lived at the time -- and you have posted nothing that would counter the evidence in place from other posters. You can stomp our feet and shout at the top of your voice for all I care, it won't change historical truth.

1) You offer a personal attack, devoid of merit, "head in the sand" smear.

2) The number of presentations, mostly non-germane, like Lincoln was bigoted to a degree, has nothing to do with the merit of the presentations. The civil war was fought over the monstrosity of slavery.

3) "You have posted nothing that would counter" is a general statement, simply dismissing what I have said.

4) Repeating the personal attack "you can stomp your feet and shout" adds nothing.

5) You are right, the historical truth will not be changed by changing the subject, muddying the water, and personally attacking those who hold differing views.

A) The South seceded because Lincoln was elected, and they feared he would see to it only non-slave states were added to the union.

B) The South fired on Fort Sumter, branding the South as the aggressors in the mind of the North, ushering in the war to preserve slavery in the seceding states.

C) Rather than advocate for the atrocity of slavery, the southern politicians yakked on and on about "states rights."​

But no matter how much lipstick you smear on that pig, slavery was the cause of the civil war.

 

[Alcott]

Slavery or any other single issue notwithstanding, Amendment X to the constitution gave states the right to engage in actions not forbidden to them by the constitution or by a constitutional action of the federal government, and the latter would mean either repealing or nullifying the Tenth Amendment (as the Prohibition Amendment was repealed by a later amendment). So there being nothing in favor of supporting or prohibiting secession of a state from the union-- is clearly in favor of the state's action.

 

[Salty]

... B) The South fired on Fort Sumter, branding the South as the aggressors in the mind of the North, ushering in the war to preserve slavery in the seceding states...

If I remember my history correctly Ft Sumter was NOT the first military action - will have to reseach a little - but am just fixing to walk out the door.

 

[Van]

Hi Salty, no problem. My history says South Carolina fired on a Federal ship attempting to land supplies, men and arms at Fort Sumter on January 9, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4. And again, South Carolina fired, this time at Fort Sumter, on April 12, 1861. The Fort surrendered on April 13.

Thus hostilities had begun, and it became easy to portray the war as a defense of the Union.

 

[Alcott]

And again, South Carolina fired, this time at Fort Sumter, on April 12, 1861. The Fort surrendered on April 13.

Nice birthday present for the original states-righter, Thomas Jefferson, who said we 'need a revolution' every 20 years or so.

 

[Salty]

Hi Salty, no problem. My history says South Carolina fired on a Federal ship attempting to land supplies, men and arms at Fort Sumter on January 9, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4. And again, South Carolina fired, this time at Fort Sumter, on April 12, 1861. The Fort surrendered on April 13.

Thus hostilities had begun, and it became easy to portray the war as a defense of the Union.

Prior to Ft Sumter, Confederate forces seized numerous federal forts within territory claimed by the Confederacy. Had the Commnader of Ft Sumter, Yankees would have been permitted to return to the North. - Remember, the CSA had no desire to take over the North - just as the founding fathers had not desire to abolish the British throne in 1776- both groups simply wanted independence.

 

[Van]

Yes, the commander had said they would abandon the fort on April 15, but the South chose not to wait.

But all this is off the central theme. The actions stem from one common thread, the preservation or fear of elimination of Slavery.

The Republican's said they would not allow slavery to expand into the territories. The South feared as more and more non-slave states were added to the Union, congress would vote to end slavery. So when Lincoln was elected, they seceded. Why? To preserve slavery!

Ask yourself this: Why did the seceding states want "independence" from the Union. Fear that the Union would become a majority of non-slave states and vote to end slavery.

 

[OldRegular]

Prior to Ft Sumter, Confederate forces seized numerous federal forts within territory claimed by the Confederacy. Had the Commnader of Ft Sumter, Yankees would have been permitted to return to the North. - Remember, the CSA had no desire to take over the North - just as the founding fathers had not desire to abolish the British throne in 1776- both groups simply wanted independence.

The South is being invaded by the Yankees again and it is all Mr. Carrier's fault.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, the commander had said they would abandon the fort on April 15, but the South chose not to wait.

But all this is off the central theme. The actions stem from one common thread, the preservation or fear of elimination of Slavery.

The Republican's said they would not allow slavery to expand into the territories. The South feared as more and more non-slave states were added to the Union, congress would vote to end slavery. So when Lincoln was elected, they seceded. Why? To preserve slavery!

Ask yourself this: Why did the seceding states want "independence" from the Union. Fear that the Union would become a majority of non-slave states and vote to end slavery.

Van, Don't let your bulldog personality overload your brain. There would have been no War of Northern Aggression if Lincoln had been willing to let the Southern States leave in peace. Just the brief review of history presented on this thread shows that Lincoln had no interest in abolishing slavery. He was willing to use slavery in any way that benefited his unconstitutional war and justified other unconstitutional acts during that war. More and more it appears that Lincoln is not the hero that most people believe but indeed of a villainous mind set and responsible for the bloodiest war in American history.

 

[agedman]

In honor of the OP, I would like to suggest that the one person who truly succeeded to destroy the US was:



Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Every "new deal" item that the supreme court did not reject have lead to every lousy social program and court decision since.

The S Court changed to become a push to social agenda as a result of the following years of Roosevelt.

There is hardly a liberal decision that cannot find seed in the Roosevelt thinking.

Do you know that he ALSO held Marxist ideals just like our current obummer?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In honor of the OP, I would like to suggest that the one person who truly succeeded to destroy the US was:



Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Every "new deal" item that the supreme court did not reject have lead to every lousy social program and court decisio

The S Court changed to become a push to social agenda as a result of the following years of Roosevelt.

There is hardly a liberal decision that cannot find seed in the Roosevelt t
hinking.

Do you know that he ALSO held Marxist ideals just like our current obummer?

So are you on SS and Medicare?

 

[Van]

Van, Don't let your bulldog personality overload your brain. There would have been no War of Northern Aggression if Lincoln had been willing to let the Southern States leave in peace. Just the brief review of history presented on this thread shows that Lincoln had no interest in abolishing slavery. He was willing to use slavery in any way that benefited his unconstitutional war and justified other unconstitutional acts during that war. More and more it appears that Lincoln is not the hero that most people believe but indeed of a villainous mind set and responsible for the bloodiest war in American history.

1) Again the Calvinist starts with an insult, a personal attack.

2) There would have been no war if the North did what the South wanted. Good Golly Miss Molly. Does you amazing mind deny there would have been no war if the South did what the North wanted?

3) Lincoln had no interest in abolishing slavery! Preserving the Union meant the end of Slavery.

4) No, the right to beat, chain, sexually abuse and murder 3 million Americans who were being denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was the cause of the war between the states.

"As Jesus died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."

 

[OldRegular]

In honor of the OP, I would like to suggest that the one person who truly succeeded to destroy the US was:



Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Every "new deal" item that the supreme court did not reject have lead to every lousy social program and court decision since.

The S Court changed to become a push to social agenda as a result of the following years of Roosevelt.

There is hardly a liberal decision that cannot find seed in the Roosevelt thinking.

Do you know that he ALSO held Marxist ideals just like our current obummer?

I agree that the entitlement mentality got its big push as a consequence of the Roosevelt years. Social Security would have been fine if it had been structured like the 401K plans. As for Medicare [A benefit of LBJ's Great Society] it has caused the cost of Health Care to skyrocket.

I will concede that with people living longer some form of retirement income and health care was needed but the Federal Government cannot run anything efficiently. A mandatory 401k plan and health savings accounts could have accomplished the desired results.