Most Evil Person in American History

[OldRegular]

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

I thought I was paying you a compliment by referring to your bulldog personality. You have hung on to your false argument that slavery caused the War of Northern Aggression in spite of evidence posted by a number of people that you are wrong, just like a bulldog. You need to be more gracious and learn how to accept a compliment!

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?

There would have been no war if Lincoln had honored his oath to abide by the Constitution.

3) Lincoln had no interest in abolishing slavery!

I am pleased to see you finally admit what Lincoln confessed. He simply used the slaves in whatever manner served his purpose.

Preserving the Union meant the end of Slavery.

That is your opinion. I have stated on this thread that slavery would have eventually collapsed because it was not economically viable. Furthermore, the number of people owning large numbers of slaves was limited as has been shown on this thread.

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.

Van, Van, Van! You spend too much time reading fiction, perhaps watching Roots. There is no doubt that slaves were mistreated but the worst treatment they received was in the Yankee slave ships.

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

A lot of believers do adopt a "holier than thou" attitude!

Incidentally, I am not a Calvinist!

 

[agedman]

So are you on SS and Medicare?

Partially,

I do not rely upon SS and because I am involved in a state retirement program, the federal SS windfall excludes me from most of the benefit in which I was forced to pay my whole working life.

The state retirement program requires that I have medicare as my first health coverage and then the retirement program insurance jumps in.

However, being on SS and Medicare does not mean I am incapable of proclaiming the truth of FDR and his programs.

 

[Salty]

...Incidentally, I am not a Calvinist!

Were you predestined NOT to be Calvinist?

Salty
Yankee by birth
Rebel by choice

 

[agedman]

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.

I was taken back some years ago when I happened across the information about FDR's philosophy of government and people. Just like our current administration head, FDR was Marxist in much of his thinking and also rather communistic in view.

But then a great number of the people of the world actually thought Hitler was a good man during the mid 30's.

LBJ wanted notoriety - a legacy.

Frankly, it could be historically argued that the Kennedy admin. would not be friends of LBJ's great society. Kennedy (and brothers) viewed LBJ with suspicion and actively seeking to marginalize his power broking.

But the real evil man - FDR.

The basic fabric of the US society and governance changed under his leadership.

 

[OldRegular]

Were you predestined NOT to be Calvinist?

Salty
Yankee by birth
Rebel by choice

I was predestined to be born in a family of Old Regular Baptists and, therefore, to believe the Bible. I thank God for both.

You sure you weren't predestined to be a "rebel"?

 

[OldRegular]

I was taken back some years ago when I happened across the information about FDR's philosophy of government and people. Just like our current administration head, FDR was Marxist in much of his thinking and also rather communistic in view.

But then a great number of the people of the world actually thought Hitler was a good man during the mid 30's.

LBJ wanted notoriety - a legacy.

Frankly, it could be historically argued that the Kennedy admin. would not be friends of LBJ's great society. Kennedy (and brothers) viewed LBJ with suspicion and actively seeking to marginalize his power broking.

But the real evil man - FDR.

The basic fabric of the US society and governance changed under his leadership.

I believe the move toward ignoring the Constitution probably began under Lincoln, accelerated under Wilson and FDR with his New Deal put us on the slippery slope to an all powerful Federal Government and an "entitlement mentality". LBJ gave that movement a tremendous boost with his "Great Society" and Medicare.

Obamacere may be the burden that broke the Constitution and our union of sovereign states. I must also add that the Federal Courts have aided and abetted in much of this only occasionally dissenting. Perhaps the worst ruling in history was that of the Roberts Court on Obamacare.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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

When one has his head in the sand, it's not a personal attack to say "You have your head in the sand." It's an effort to help -- maybe not in the kindest way, so for that, I ask forgiveness..

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.

The overwhelming contradictions to your viewpoint would tend to disprove that statement.

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

No, it is a statement that haven't posted anything to counter a key central point to our argument.

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

Since I hadn't said it up to that point, it wasn't a repeat of anything, but it was a characterization of your posts, because they have been devoid of proof.

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.

Interesting that you see facts as "muddying the water" and "personal attack."

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

So the South -- supposedly making slavery their #1 issue -- seceded when a president was elected who had been widely quoted as saying, "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. 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"?? Really??

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.

You're right, up to the point that I emboldened and italicized, because as we've said repeatedly and accurately, slavery wasn't the South's chief issue. It was a major one, to be sure, but it wasn't the chief one.

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

"Yakked on and on" would seem to indicate you know that was a primary concern of what became the CSA, yet you discount it as a reason for the war? Amazing.

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

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? We'll never know, will we?

 

[Salty]

If the North thought slavery was all that worng - why did they not insist on it be prohibited in the Constitution?

Since they did not - is not the North just as guilty of slavery

 

[Van]

Hi Salty, their was a skirmish over slavery when the Constitution was written, but in order to get the votes, it was agreed by those opposing slavery, to hold their nose and vote to allow it. A partial victory is better than no victory.

Yes, those insisting on slavery being part of the constitution were just as guilty as those who lead us into war 60 odd years later.

 

[Van]

By the numbers

When one has his head in the sand, it's not a personal attack to say "You have your head in the sand." It's an effort to help -- maybe not in the kindest way, so for that, I ask forgiveness..
The overwhelming contradictions to your viewpoint would tend to disprove that statement.

We all, including me, need forgiveness for intemperate and hurtful verbiage.

No, it is a statement that haven't posted anything to counter a key central point to our argument.

1) The South seceded because they feared Lincoln would not allow any new states to be slave, thus tipping the power balance in Congress to the anti-slavery side.

2) The South fired on Fort Sumter, starting the hostilities that led to over 200,000 southerners dying for slavery needlessly, making the southern leaders among the most evil leaders in American history.

3) Lincoln's use of "preserve the Union" was a Trojan horse, for uniting the union on a non-slave holding basis.​

None of this has been refuted.

To say a person is stomping their feet is to insult by saying they are behaving like a child.

Talking about the faults of northern rather than preserving slavery, is like Obama blaming the slow and over-regulated economy on Bush.

We have the statements of the seceding states.

Slavery was not just the chief issue, at the end of the day, it was the only issue, hidden beneath all the numerous strawman arguments.

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.

Yes, the South feared the North would use "unconstitutional means" to what? Lower the price of cotten? Or end SLAVERY.

 

[Van]

Hi Agedman, Ben Franklin would call such a compliment "faint praise."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

We all, including me, need forgiveness for intemperate and hurtful verbiage.

1) The South seceded because they feared Lincoln would not allow any new states to be slave, thus tipping the power balance in Congress to the anti-slavery side.

2) The South fired on Fort Sumter, starting the hostilities that led to over 200,000 southerners dying for slavery needlessly, making the southern leaders among the most evil leaders in American history.

3) Lincoln's use of "preserve the Union" was a Trojan horse, for uniting the union on a non-slave holding basis.​

None of this has been refuted.

Sorry, Van. This has all been refuted. Obviously not to your satisfaction, which of course none of us can do anything about. Not worth the continued effort. Review the thread, see the facts, and then (I suspect) refuse to change your mind, but the arguments have been well articulated. Thanks for the effort.

 

[Salty]

...Yes, those insisting on slavery being part of the constitution were just as guilty as those who lead us into war 60 odd years later.

Including the Northern States/Commonwealths that still had slaves during the War of Northern Aggression?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Including the Northern States/Commonwealths that still had slaves during the War of Northern Aggression?

Which states would that be, other than a few holdovers from manumission plans of the past?

 

[Van]

The old claim victory and walk away tactic does not alter the facts.

1) The South seceded because they feared Lincoln would not allow any new states to be slave, thus tipping the power balance in Congress to the anti-slavery side.

2) The South fired on Fort Sumter, starting the hostilities that led to over 200,000 southerners dying for slavery needlessly, making the southern leaders among the most evil leaders in American history.

3) Lincoln's use of "preserve the Union" was a Trojan horse, for uniting the union on a non-slave holding basis.​

None of this has been refuted.

 

[Van]

Hi Salty, why ask questions leading away from the question, what caused the civil war. Slavery did, as I have shown without refutation.

1) Did I say the north were saints and the south were sinners? Nope, plenty of noble minded people, sometimes mistaken on both sides.

2) Ask yourself why all the effort to show faults of the north, i.e. Yankee Slave Traders, Northern slave owners, etc. etc. The reason is to run away from the fact the south wanted to continue the monstrosity of slavery. Hundreds of thousands of young men died on the alter of slavery, no need to deny it.

3) The evil men of our past pushed for slavery, which entailed the murder of thousands of slaves, now the evil men push for abortion, which entails the murder of millions of babies. Listen to their off center arguments, saying we want women to be forced to use clothes hangers, and bleed to death in dark alleys. Then consider the arguments from those unwilling to see the evil in continuing slavery.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

None of this has been refuted.

"The Big Lie" does not become you, Van.

 

[OldRegular]

If the North thought slavery was all that worng - why did they not insist on it be prohibited in the Constitution?

Since they did not - is not the North just as guilty of slavery

Don't forget all the money them Yankee ship owners had made hauling slaves across the wide Atlantic! And the Yankees also traded with the South during the War of Northern Aggression.

 

[Van]

"The Big Lie" does not become you, Van.

Another non-insult from the one who does not insult.

Note no reference was provided to document the claimed rebuttal.

Here is the claim.

1) It was shown the south did not fear Lincoln would use any means available to ensure only non-slave states were added to the union. Note that the Texas secession statement says they were.

2) It was shown the south did not fire on Fort Sumter, making it easy to portray the war as defending the Union.
Did anybody actually see that evidence in this thread?

3) It was shown that "Lincoln's use of "preserve the Union" was a Trojan horse, for uniting the union on a non-slave holding basis. Did anyone see that evidence in this thread.

The civil war was caused by the monstrosity of Slavery.

 

[OldRegular]

Hi Salty, why ask questions leading away from the question, what caused the civil war. Slavery did, as I have shown without refutation.

1) Did I say the north were saints and the south were sinners? Nope, plenty of noble minded people, sometimes mistaken on both sides.

2) Ask yourself why all the effort to show faults of the north, i.e. Yankee Slave Traders, Northern slave owners, etc. etc. The reason is to run away from the fact the south wanted to continue the monstrosity of slavery. Hundreds of thousands of young men died on the alter of slavery, no need to deny it.

3) The evil men of our past pushed for slavery, which entailed the murder of thousands of slaves, now the evil men push for abortion, which entails the murder of millions of babies. Listen to their off center arguments, saying we want women to be forced to use clothes hangers, and bleed to death in dark alleys. Then consider the arguments from those unwilling to see the evil in continuing slavery.

Pathetic and false! Or should I say false and pathetic. There has been more than sufficient information presented on this thread to convince anyone who approaches this problem rationally that slavery, though a factor, was not the absolute cause of the Was as you continue to insist!. By the way, it is evil to bear false witness and no one has said that it was not evil to continue slavery but the War started by Lincoln killed ~ 800,000 men. How can you justify that?.