-
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!
Poll: The Civil War, which side was right?
- Thread starter eric_b
- Start date
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
See? I told ya~THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!
Deo Vindice![><]Resurgam!
Deo Vindice![><]Resurgam!
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
Aahh~Bro.Eric...you're not beat; you're a great sport! 
Maverick
Member
Roger that Rev!
I saw this today and thought it fittin' fer our debate.
A Black Man Marches For The Confederacy!!!
I saw this today and thought it fittin' fer our debate.
A Black Man Marches For The Confederacy!!!
That proves nothing relevant to the "right" or "wrong" of the war. I'm sure we could find examples of African Americans who opposed the Civil Rights movement; that has nothing to due with whether it was right or wrong.
Any more than the presence of Southerners in the Northern Army is relevant to the question.
Or the fact that many women opposed suffrage is relevant to the right or wrong of the that question.
Any more than the presence of Southerners in the Northern Army is relevant to the question.
Or the fact that many women opposed suffrage is relevant to the right or wrong of the that question.
Bro. James Reed
New Member
[ September 20, 2002, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James Reed ]
Bro. James Reed
New Member
PreachtheWord,
Please read a background of the Civil War. Jefferson Davis offered to free southern slaves in order to keep the south's sovereign right of freedom. Lincoln and his followers would not hear of it and attacked anyway. Also, to anyone who believes that the states did not have the right to secede, I've got news for you, the state of Texas, at least, still has in our state Constitution, the right to secede from the United States. That right was part of the agreement in admitting Texas to the Union in 1840's. I'll tell you something else, if secession came up for a vote in Texas, I would vote for it in a heartbeat. It would make me proud to see other states fall in line behind us, too.
Please read a background of the Civil War. Jefferson Davis offered to free southern slaves in order to keep the south's sovereign right of freedom. Lincoln and his followers would not hear of it and attacked anyway. Also, to anyone who believes that the states did not have the right to secede, I've got news for you, the state of Texas, at least, still has in our state Constitution, the right to secede from the United States. That right was part of the agreement in admitting Texas to the Union in 1840's. I'll tell you something else, if secession came up for a vote in Texas, I would vote for it in a heartbeat. It would make me proud to see other states fall in line behind us, too.
Where did this come from? Davis wouldn't have made such an offer, couldn't have made such an offer. Slavery was a state matter and he had no authority over it.
Or did he actually make such an offer late in the war, knowing it was too late and he would never be called upon to fulfill it?
Maverick
Member
rsr, I only added it because it was interesting and because we always hear that Black folks are terribly offended by he flag. Only because Mfume and the media have pushed it as a symbol of hatred. My Black co-worker watched Dukes of Hazard and only thought the flag was a good old boy thing. He says neither King nor X worried about so he does not know why the NAACP is so excited about it. Things are getting better and they need to keep their job.
Davis was teaching his slaves to read and write against MS law so tha they can do well in freedom. Let's see take away your home, your food and everything else and dump you on the street as an illiterate and call you free. Maybe Bobby McGee was right when he said that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. Some folks did not leave the plantation because they had no where to go and because like it or not many owners did treat their slaves like Aunts and Uncles and many a White boy nursed at a Black breast. Maybe it was not something that we like in our culture nor even understand, but it may not have been nearly as evil as it is now portrayed.
NJ would not have had a three tier emancipation program and the military would not have been segegrated until the late 50's if the war was really about the Nawth's concern for Black folks.
Davis was teaching his slaves to read and write against MS law so tha they can do well in freedom. Let's see take away your home, your food and everything else and dump you on the street as an illiterate and call you free. Maybe Bobby McGee was right when he said that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. Some folks did not leave the plantation because they had no where to go and because like it or not many owners did treat their slaves like Aunts and Uncles and many a White boy nursed at a Black breast. Maybe it was not something that we like in our culture nor even understand, but it may not have been nearly as evil as it is now portrayed.
NJ would not have had a three tier emancipation program and the military would not have been segegrated until the late 50's if the war was really about the Nawth's concern for Black folks.
Maverick, I'm not going to wander off into the flag thing because I'm neither a dyed-in-the-wool Dixie-ite nor a black person. I don't have an emotional attachment either way.
Were some slaves treated relatively well? I'm sure they were.
Were many abused, whipped and hunted down because they wanted their freedom? Of course.
I won't defend the North's record after the war; the only ones with the stomach to do what would have been necessary -- land grants, education, etc. -- were the Radicals, and the North just generally was tired of dealing with the South after 11 years of reconstruction.
I won't deny that race relations in the North were poor as well, but that's another question.
(BTW, if I ever seem cranky in my posts, well, it's because sometime I am. No offense meant -- usually.)
[ September 20, 2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
because I'm neither a dyed-in-the-wool Dixie-ite nor a black person. I don't have an emotional attachment either way.Were some slaves treated relatively well? I'm sure they were.
Were many abused, whipped and hunted down because they wanted their freedom? Of course.
I won't defend the North's record after the war; the only ones with the stomach to do what would have been necessary -- land grants, education, etc. -- were the Radicals, and the North just generally was tired of dealing with the South after 11 years of reconstruction.
I won't deny that race relations in the North were poor as well, but that's another question.
(BTW, if I ever seem cranky in my posts, well, it's because sometime I am. No offense meant -- usually.)
[ September 20, 2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
Maverick
Member
James, I believe that what we can do is break up into 5 smaller states if we desire, but we cannot secede. That is another example of might making law, but not necessarily right. Secession originally developed in the North. It was the Northern understanding of the Constitution and the Union of SOVEREIGN states. It was merely a contract of cooperation not a giving up of their sovereignty. Like any other contract, it could be broken by any of the parties. NJ threatened several times to secede. Only the South had the guts to do it. Even Abe in 1844, said that it was a divine right of the people to change their government if that government no longer represented them. Funny, how politicians change their mind after they are elected.
rsr, honest historians say that slavery was a dying institution and would have been dead in 10 years at the most without the war. Follow the money trail. If the South left the union, then the North would lose access to their raw materials that they were getting dirt cheap and then tariffed at that. Had they shared some of the technology they had slavery may have ended by 1860. The South's economy was based on agriculture and hence manual labor. The North's was based on industry and even cheaper labor than slaves that you could care nothing about.
Once that economy was established and they had sold most of their slaves to the South then and only then did the North develop a conscious. They wanted to change the economy overnight and that can only bring about disaster, which would have left the South even more vunerable to abuse from the North.
No, there was no honor in the Yankee aggression. It was all about ego and money. The soldiers were murderers, rapists and thieves singing about God's truth. I will not sing the Battle Hymn of the Repugnant. Singing that in a Southern church is like quoting Mein Kampf in a synagogue. It is a song of hypocrisy. The North called Blacks the N word and treated them as badly as any Simon Legree. If they were so open to freedom and equality of the Blacks than why were there Black sides of town in the North? Why did the Grand Army of the Republic remain segegrated until the 50's? Why were the Blacks in the GAR the first sent out to attack Southern positions, for cannon fodder since they were not as valuable as the White soldiers? Why did a liberating officer of the GAR in SC shoot a Black man? He ran out and hugged his liberator and the the officer said, "We'll have none of that!", as he pushed the man back and shot him dead. No, there was no honor in their victory nor honorable cause in their aggression. Sherman was as bad as any Nazi and Abe backed him so that makes him a Hitler supporting genocide, which continued after the war against the American Indian. No honor only the false honor of the victor writing the history and controlling the media. The North was the evil nation of that time. Enjoy what honor man may give here because it will be a different story told afterward.
The South is not without sin, but it was and is more honorable than the North.
rsr, honest historians say that slavery was a dying institution and would have been dead in 10 years at the most without the war. Follow the money trail. If the South left the union, then the North would lose access to their raw materials that they were getting dirt cheap and then tariffed at that. Had they shared some of the technology they had slavery may have ended by 1860. The South's economy was based on agriculture and hence manual labor. The North's was based on industry and even cheaper labor than slaves that you could care nothing about.
Once that economy was established and they had sold most of their slaves to the South then and only then did the North develop a conscious. They wanted to change the economy overnight and that can only bring about disaster, which would have left the South even more vunerable to abuse from the North.
No, there was no honor in the Yankee aggression. It was all about ego and money. The soldiers were murderers, rapists and thieves singing about God's truth. I will not sing the Battle Hymn of the Repugnant. Singing that in a Southern church is like quoting Mein Kampf in a synagogue. It is a song of hypocrisy. The North called Blacks the N word and treated them as badly as any Simon Legree. If they were so open to freedom and equality of the Blacks than why were there Black sides of town in the North? Why did the Grand Army of the Republic remain segegrated until the 50's? Why were the Blacks in the GAR the first sent out to attack Southern positions, for cannon fodder since they were not as valuable as the White soldiers? Why did a liberating officer of the GAR in SC shoot a Black man? He ran out and hugged his liberator and the the officer said, "We'll have none of that!", as he pushed the man back and shot him dead. No, there was no honor in their victory nor honorable cause in their aggression. Sherman was as bad as any Nazi and Abe backed him so that makes him a Hitler supporting genocide, which continued after the war against the American Indian. No honor only the false honor of the victor writing the history and controlling the media. The North was the evil nation of that time. Enjoy what honor man may give here because it will be a different story told afterward.
The South is not without sin, but it was and is more honorable than the North.
Maverick, we've hashed this out before, so I'll be brief.
Honest historians don't think slavery was a dying institution. Had it been, there would have been no need to abolish it immediately and the war could have been avoided.
Don't you think comparing Sherman and Lincoln to Nazis is hyprbole? There have been many people guilty of war crimes (not admitting the two mentioned were) who didn't try to exterminate an entire ethnic group. Actually, more than one. Hitler also tried to exterminate the Gypsys and would have loved to have finished off the Slavs. (There were just too many of the latter.)
The reference to the five states from Texas is from the joint resolution authorizing admission. As far as I know, it is still in effect . (Curiously, it would not be valid if Texas had really left the union, because that would have dissolved the contract.) I know several have tried to make the split -- including the State of West Texas, which went so far as to draw up a constitution and make maps, and John Nance Garner in the 1930s. But I can't imagine Texans not wanting to be Texans, pure and simple.
[ September 21, 2002, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
Honest historians don't think slavery was a dying institution. Had it been, there would have been no need to abolish it immediately and the war could have been avoided.
Don't you think comparing Sherman and Lincoln to Nazis is hyprbole? There have been many people guilty of war crimes (not admitting the two mentioned were) who didn't try to exterminate an entire ethnic group. Actually, more than one. Hitler also tried to exterminate the Gypsys and would have loved to have finished off the Slavs. (There were just too many of the latter.)
The reference to the five states from Texas is from the joint resolution authorizing admission. As far as I know, it is still in effect . (Curiously, it would not be valid if Texas had really left the union, because that would have dissolved the contract.) I know several have tried to make the split -- including the State of West Texas, which went so far as to draw up a constitution and make maps, and John Nance Garner in the 1930s. But I can't imagine Texans not wanting to be Texans, pure and simple.
[ September 21, 2002, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
Maverick
Member
Which is why we haven't use the split option. Texas is proud to be Texas.
Sherman wanted to eterminate the Southerners, which is why he did what he did . That sounds like genocide to me. The North turned around and did the same thing under Grant to the Indians. That is not hypebole, just facts.
Again, 600,000 freed Blacks in 1860. It was dying. It may have taken less than or more than 10 years but no battle need have been fought over it. It was money and ego not human rights that Abe cared about. He wnated to keep the South and the EP was only a ploy to cause Black revolution and it did not. With mostly, women, children and old men left at home, it would have been easy for Blacks to start a major insurrection that would have brought the soldiers home and hastened the end of the war. It did not happen. If the Blacks were as greatly abused as it is proposed then they would have taken the chance and burned the plantations to the ground. It didn't happen. Maybe things were not as bad as they are portrayed and maybe they did not believe the Yanks either. Some who rode the railroad North came back. There was no paradise as the Yanks promised.
I hear Abe got saved after Gettysburg and that is good if it is true, but before that he was a very messed up man that should have left the South go as he said he believed was their right in 1844. Obviously, he was a liar or deluded.
Sherman wanted to eterminate the Southerners, which is why he did what he did . That sounds like genocide to me. The North turned around and did the same thing under Grant to the Indians. That is not hypebole, just facts.
Again, 600,000 freed Blacks in 1860. It was dying. It may have taken less than or more than 10 years but no battle need have been fought over it. It was money and ego not human rights that Abe cared about. He wnated to keep the South and the EP was only a ploy to cause Black revolution and it did not. With mostly, women, children and old men left at home, it would have been easy for Blacks to start a major insurrection that would have brought the soldiers home and hastened the end of the war. It did not happen. If the Blacks were as greatly abused as it is proposed then they would have taken the chance and burned the plantations to the ground. It didn't happen. Maybe things were not as bad as they are portrayed and maybe they did not believe the Yanks either. Some who rode the railroad North came back. There was no paradise as the Yanks promised.
I hear Abe got saved after Gettysburg and that is good if it is true, but before that he was a very messed up man that should have left the South go as he said he believed was their right in 1844. Obviously, he was a liar or deluded.
There is no evidence to suggest that Lincoln "got saved" at any time.
His father was a Primitive Baptist and he attended a Presbyterian church in Washington, but there is no evidence of a conversion, although he was deeply influenced by predestination -- as evidenced by the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural.
His father was a Primitive Baptist and he attended a Presbyterian church in Washington, but there is no evidence of a conversion, although he was deeply influenced by predestination -- as evidenced by the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural.