Most Evil Person in American History

[Bro. Curtis]

Completely off topic.

Actually, the OP is evil, not slavery. Nice try. I know how you like to keep your mind free of contrary views.


Admonishment rejected.

 

[Salty]

Actually, the OP is evil, not slavery. Nice try. I know how you like to keep your mind free of contrary views.


Admonishment rejected.

Actually, I can see where Crabby is coming from - this thread got way off OP

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Since my post deals with the evil of child labor, it is quite on-topic.

 

[Van]

This thread took a turn when it was pointed out the Southern leaders who led us into the civil war were among the most evil people in American history.

1) They denied the South seceded due to slavery, and ignored the statements of the seceding states, claiming the north had misrepresented history.

2) They defended those same southerners by using the argument that the northern leaders were just as bad.

3) Slavery caused the civil war, with the North trying to end it, and the South trying to prolong it.

4) The effort to hide the truth included, insults, personal attacks, and misrepresentation of the facts.

a) It is fact the South seceded before Lincoln took office.
b) It is a fact their statements of secession said slavery or the fear of of the North ending slavery in the south was the reason for the succession.
c) It is a fact I posted 4 statements from seceding states to that effect.​

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It is a fact Lincoln didn't give a rip about slavery.

 

[Salty]

It is a fact Lincoln didn't give a rip about slavery.

Sure he did - when it suited him for political reasons.

 

[Van]

Sure he did - when it suited him for political reasons.

Mind reading is a tell indicating disparagement is the goal, not truth.

Lincoln opposed the extension of Slavery, as did the Republican Party.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You cannot make up your own facts, Van. Lincoln did not care about slavery. We have shown his own words. You have shown YOUR own words. You lose.

 

[Van]

Now the Southerns deny Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery and act like that is not a fact in evidence. Discussion with them seems a waste of time.

And has any statement been entered that says "Lincoln did not care about Slavery?" Nope

1) Fact, the Civil War ended Slavery.

2) Fact, Lincoln said a man has the right to keep what he earned by the sweat of his brow.

3) QUOTE ""I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel."

4) QUOTE ""I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union."

5) QUOTE "I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end."

Folks, pay no attention to the complete fiction offered by these folks trying to hide the culpability of the South in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

None of your questions address the issue in contention, that Slavery caused the Civil War.

Slavery caused the Civil War in the same way alcohol causes adultery: It doesn't actually cause it, it just puts both parties in a position to commit it.

In the case of the Civil War, if you wanted to argue that the South's growing anger over federal intrusion that occurred as a response to slavery, then you might have a point.

But to say "slavery caused the Civil War" is just good old fashioned intellectual laziness.

It is undisputed that history shows the South seceded because they feared Lincoln would not allow any more slave states to enter the Union.

What's your source for this? Because my source says that slave states would have already been prevented from entering the Union by the anti-slavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance.

I would also add that the issue wasn't that more slave states wouldn't be allowed to enter the Union, but that the federal government was governing with bias in favor of some states, at the expense of other states and "directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof".

 

[Revmitchell]

This thread took a turn when it was pointed out the Southern leaders who led us into the civil war were among the most evil people in American history.

1) They denied the South seceded due to slavery, and ignored the statements of the seceding states, claiming the north had misrepresented history.

2) They defended those same southerners by using the argument that the northern leaders were just as bad.

3) Slavery caused the civil war, with the North trying to end it, and the South trying to prolong it.

4) The effort to hide the truth included, insults, personal attacks, and misrepresentation of the facts.

a) It is fact the South seceded before Lincoln took office.
b) It is a fact their statements of secession said slavery or the fear of of the North ending slavery in the south was the reason for the succession.
c) It is a fact I posted 4 statements from seceding states to that effect.​

Still waiting for you to provide evidence

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Opposition to the expansion of slavery is not the same as supporting abolition. With the Dred Scott Decision and the Fugitive Slave Act, slave holders could move their property into otherwise free States and Territories witout fearing loss.

While massive property losses was the proximite cause, the basic cause was the Southern elites seeing the demographic handwriting on the wall. The population of non-slave based economies was growing at a faster pace. The soon to be Confederate States saw they would be losing their Congressional power.

 

[agedman]

Opposition to the expansion of slavery is not the same as supporting abolition. With the Dred Scott Decision and the Fugitive Slave Act, slave holders could move their property into otherwise free States and Territories witout fearing loss.

While massive property losses was the proximite cause, the basic cause was the Southern elites seeing the demographic handwriting on the wall. The population of non-slave based economies was growing at a faster pace. The soon to be Confederate States saw they would be losing their Congressional power.

I would agree, that fear is always a tension between agricultural and industrial based living.

What drove secession was the demand of the federal oversight what the states considered their right to regulate.

From the Civil war, the Federal has been a continual access point to "reconstruct" the US into some socialistic agenda.

FDR is remarkably the single most influencing factor in this move that Lincoln started.

Not a single current issue that presses tension between conservatives and liberals would truly be as great a problem if the states had retained their rights as the constitution laid out.

ALL matters NOT in the constitution are supposed to be up to the states to make decisions.

But very few rules and regulations that the Federal government imposes upon the every day living of folks and the states are "enumerated" in the constitution.

That was the true reason for the Civil War.

State's rights.

Look at the list from Wikipedia of "enumerated" powers and see what the constitution allows and how state's rights have been pilfered by the federal system.

 

[Van]

Parcing to remove truth

Slavery caused the Civil War in the same way alcohol causes adultery: It doesn't actually cause it, it just puts both parties in a position to commit it.

In the case of the Civil War, if you wanted to argue that the South's growing anger over federal intrusion that occurred as a response to slavery, then you might have a point.

But to say "slavery caused the Civil War" is just good old fashioned intellectual laziness.

What's your source for this? Because my source says that slave states would have already been prevented from entering the Union by the anti-slavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance.

I would also add that the issue wasn't that more slave states wouldn't be allowed to enter the Union, but that the federal government was governing with bias in favor of some states, at the expense of other states and "directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof".

1) I provided by source, the secession statements of seceding states, such as Texas.

2) Yes, the war with its hundreds of thousands of American deaths was caused by the South's effort to preserve slavery.

3) No need to hide behind name calling, insult, and other logical fallacies. My earliest known relative with my last name, i.e. the paternal line, engaged is seafaring in 1774 along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts. I do not know if they profited from transporting slaves or slave labor products, but it is likely. That same paternal line fought "Indians" (native peoples) helping to take the USA land from the native peoples by deception and force of Arms. Truth is truth, no need to rewrite history, and then insult those presenting truth.

4) The South seceded after Lincoln was elected. They fired on Fort Sumter. They were unwilling to see their antebellum way of life end (built on the monstrosity of slavery), now it is gone with the wind.

 

[Van]

Still waiting for you to provide evidence

One of the logical fallacies of folks presenting fiction to the argument from personal incredulity. They say they do not believe, no proof has been presented, and other denials.

Pay no attention to logical fallacies from those who would rewrite history, rather that admit the monstrosity of slavery caused the civil war.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

1) I provided by source, the secession statements of seceding states, such as Texas.

You did not. You referred to them, but you haven't posted a single link on this thread. And I doubt you have thoroughly read the only four Declarations of Secession that were issued, or you would not refer to them, as they largely overthrow your claim as invalid. I call to your attention, for example, the Georgia declaration. It lays out in great detail not just slavery issues -- which by themselves would have been no reason for secession -- but the economic and political injuries perpetrated on the South by the more populous and therefore more powerful (in Congress) North. I have agreed with you many times, slavery was a major issue. But it wasn't the only issue, as Georgia's declaration spells out how the North co-opted the anti-slavery movement to forward its real agenda.

Declarations of Secession: Georgia​

The party of Lincoln ... While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph.

What this says, and goes on to explain in greater detail by bringing forth each point of contention regarding the economic and political policies the North attempted to use to force the South to be its inferior second cousin, is that slavery became the North's rallying cry, a methodology for demonizing the South and glossing over the very real, severe economic hardships the North was imposing on the South. The Georgia declaration proves that slavery was an issue of the North, not the South, but that the North successfully -- and has managed to continue for 150 years, as your misperception proves -- supplanted real difficulties that it could not openly argue, with the face of a black man in chains and rallied a nation to war over a falsehood.

The Georgia declaration's authors point out, accurately, that the Constitution was written with compromise over slavery as one of its centerpieces, and the declaration, while not outrightly admitting it, indicates that slavery was dying its own natural death. Therefore, why was a war over slavery necessary? It wasn't. But the North couldn't go to war over internally charged tariffs that were nothing more than illegal taxes. The North couldn't go to war over a growing Southern shipping industry that threatened to cripple Northern interests in that venue. The North couldn't go to war over Missouri -- and therefore, potentially, other states' -- industries processing the state's own foodstuffs and textiles, thus hurting Northern interests. So it went to war over slavery. That was a war it could "sell."

And 150 years later, there remain those such as yourself "convinced" by their lie.

2) Yes, the war with its hundreds of thousands of American deaths was caused by the South's effort to preserve slavery.

Clearly, Georgia did not believe so. And you are the one who claimed our viewing of the secession declarations would prove you correct. It doesn't. In fact, it proves you don't know what you're talking about.

3) No need to hide behind name calling, insult, and other logical fallacies. My earliest known relative with my last name, i.e. the paternal line, engaged is seafaring in 1774 along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts. I do not know if they profited from transporting slaves or slave labor products, but it is likely. That same paternal line fought "Indians" (native peoples) helping to take the USA land from the native peoples by deception and force of Arms. Truth is truth, no need to rewrite history, and then insult those presenting truth.

:applause: Nice performance. Self-righteous indignation, self-martyrdom, and revisionist history all pulled together in a neat little paragraph. What do you do for an encore?

4) The South seceded after Lincoln was elected. They fired on Fort Sumter.

True, but as Georgia's declaration points out, it was the North that made slavery the issue it was not, while ignoring all of the South's legitimate grievances which the federal government of the day refused to redress.

They were unwilling to see their antebellum way of life end ...

As we posted for you much earlier in the thread, the "antebellum" lifestyle was quite rare in the south. Less than 1% of population could be termed rich, and the number of plantations of significant size in the South never numbered more than 1,200, and only 385,000 people owned slaves in 1850. That is less than 1% of the U.S. population at that time, and fewer than 5% of Southerners. Your sweeping statement is based on Hollywood, not facts. That said, it is still true most people don't like to see their way of life torn down in shambles by unfair taxation, unjust treatment, and lack of representation in the government.

... (built on the monstrosity of slavery) ...

As earlier quoted figures on slavery prove, not so much.

... now it is gone with the wind.

Swept away by socialism in its infancy in the North, combined with unchecked greed on the part of industrialists who, in that day, were not governed by federal agencies.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

1) I provided by source, the secession statements of seceding states, such as Texas.

Yes, you provided a source. The problem is that the source doesn't say what you claimed it says.

2) Yes, the war with its hundreds of thousands of American deaths was caused by the South's effort to preserve slavery.

If you say so.

3) No need to hide behind name calling, insult, and other logical fallacies.

I agree. I didn't do that and I certainly hope you won't.

Truth is truth, no need to rewrite history, and then insult those presenting truth.

And yet, you're doing exactly that.

4) The South seceded after Lincoln was elected. They fired on Fort Sumter. They were unwilling to see their antebellum way of life end, now it is gone with the wind.

So, who does want to see their way of life end?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You did not.

He did, it just didn't say what he claimed it says.

 

[Salty]

(now this might seem to be off OP - but bear with me.....)

Question for VAN ---
(and let Van answer before anyone else does)

In the Declaration of Independence - what was the main reason America wanted Independence from England?

 

[Van]

Folks, the denial that the monstrosity of slavery caused the civil war goes not unabated.

They say I have my head in the sand and that saying so is not an insult.
Judge for yourself, if someone said your head was in the sand, would you think you had been insulted?

They say either I did not present evidence or the evidence I presented did not say what I said it says. Read post 113 for yourselves, clearly the secession statements say the fear that the north would end slavery in the future was the cause.

3) They say I did not present evidence, or the evidence did not say what I said it says that the South seceded before Lincoln took office over fear his administration would continue to allow non-slave states to be added to the union. Starting with South Carolina on December 20, 1860, five more deep south states seceded by February 1, 1861, well before Lincoln took office March 4, 1865. These states (Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana) were followed by Texas (on Feb 1, 1861). More states did secede when the south fired on Fort Sumter (Virgina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas.)

Next, if was falsely claimed that Lincoln did not care about slavery, but I provided numerous quotes, see post #149.

At the end of day, Slavery caused the civil war, and the south, unwilling to see it come to an end, first seceded, the fired on Fort Sumter, making those southern leaders among the most evil leaders in American history.