-
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!
Understanding Slavery
- Thread starter Hardsheller
- Start date
ScottEmerson
Active Member
That comment is soooo much beneath you, Scott. You're a better man than to say something like that.
I guess if you are consistent you regard the American colonists of 1776 the same way. </font>[/QUOTE]If the comment can be made that the North were similar to the Egyptians or Syrians, then I believe that the comment that I made would be equally appropriate. Remember, I think that the north was right, and that the south was wrong, just as others do, and as even others disagree.
Bro. James Reed
New Member
Why will no one answer KenH's question?
How can one regard the war in 1776 any different from the war in 1861? Both revolts were fought to free themselves from tyranny and to become a separate, independent nation. The issue of slavery aside. Or better yet, lets focus only on the slavery aspect. If there were no slaves in the south, would you still have been against the south? Why or why not? What difference should it make in the overall scheme of things?
The Declaration of Independence states that we, as human beings, have the right to separate our selves from a former government and create our own to our liking. The Founding Fathers wrote that. They believed that secession was a legal act. Just as the 13 colonies seceded from Britain, so did the southern states secede from the Union. Perfectly legal. If you say it's not, you've got your eyes covered. Even the state Constitutions stated, upon entering the Union, that the state had the right to disolve that Union whenever they wanted.
With regards to Ft. Sumter, let me put forth a hypothetical. At this time, the U.S. currently has an agreement, which may legally be nullified at anytime by either country, with Saudi Arabia which allows us to maintain a base and keep troops in their country as long as they allow it. If the leaders of Saudi Arabia were to nullify that agreement and state they want us out of their country, what would we do? Would we say no, then send more troops and supplies to fortify that base within Saudi Arabia's borders? How stupid would that be. If we did, could we then blame the Saudi's if they attacked us to get us out?
As was stated before, this was not a war to take over the entire United States. This was a war to withdraw from a Union that no longer served the purposes of a large number of people. It was legal and the only way to remove U.S. troops from the C.S.'s sovereign territory was by force. The attack occured due to a direct provocation by President Lincoln and the south acted in the only way they could to protect their freedoms.
Bro. James, who would willingly fight for the cause.
How can one regard the war in 1776 any different from the war in 1861? Both revolts were fought to free themselves from tyranny and to become a separate, independent nation. The issue of slavery aside. Or better yet, lets focus only on the slavery aspect. If there were no slaves in the south, would you still have been against the south? Why or why not? What difference should it make in the overall scheme of things?
The Declaration of Independence states that we, as human beings, have the right to separate our selves from a former government and create our own to our liking. The Founding Fathers wrote that. They believed that secession was a legal act. Just as the 13 colonies seceded from Britain, so did the southern states secede from the Union. Perfectly legal. If you say it's not, you've got your eyes covered. Even the state Constitutions stated, upon entering the Union, that the state had the right to disolve that Union whenever they wanted.
With regards to Ft. Sumter, let me put forth a hypothetical. At this time, the U.S. currently has an agreement, which may legally be nullified at anytime by either country, with Saudi Arabia which allows us to maintain a base and keep troops in their country as long as they allow it. If the leaders of Saudi Arabia were to nullify that agreement and state they want us out of their country, what would we do? Would we say no, then send more troops and supplies to fortify that base within Saudi Arabia's borders? How stupid would that be. If we did, could we then blame the Saudi's if they attacked us to get us out?
As was stated before, this was not a war to take over the entire United States. This was a war to withdraw from a Union that no longer served the purposes of a large number of people. It was legal and the only way to remove U.S. troops from the C.S.'s sovereign territory was by force. The attack occured due to a direct provocation by President Lincoln and the south acted in the only way they could to protect their freedoms.
Bro. James, who would willingly fight for the cause.
KenH
Well-Known Member
This is how the U.S. Declaration of Independence begins:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
So, according to the apologists for the Yankees but who think the Revolutionary War was peachy keen, just when was this part of the Declaration declared null and void and by whom?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
So, according to the apologists for the Yankees but who think the Revolutionary War was peachy keen, just when was this part of the Declaration declared null and void and by whom?
As well as movies and reenactments, I do a lot of school presentations about the War of Northern Aggression.
I am constantly amazed at the TEACHERS who come up to me afterwards and ask questions, saying that they NEVER were taught anything like this.
Even if one does not agree with this view of the late great unpleasantness, it is important to herald the truth and not the revisionist liberal federalist history that is being foisted on teachers and their students. MAYBE, one small victory at a time, truth will triumph.
I am constantly amazed at the TEACHERS who come up to me afterwards and ask questions, saying that they NEVER were taught anything like this.
Even if one does not agree with this view of the late great unpleasantness, it is important to herald the truth and not the revisionist liberal federalist history that is being foisted on teachers and their students. MAYBE, one small victory at a time, truth will triumph.
Dr. Griffith,
I wonder if you are aware that the term you used in a previous post "Black Republican" is a racially charged slur? I wonder if you intended it that way - surely not. Here is what I found on the Internet about the term:
Black Republican: a term applied by southern Democrats in the years before the
Civil War to members of the Republican party. Those who used this term intended it to be an insult, hoping that white Americans who felt racial prejudice toward African-Americans would reject the Republicans as too sympathetic to the slaves' demands for liberty and equal rights. They continued to use this term during the Reconstruction period to label Republicans who favored legislation and other government action to help the freed slaves.
--
I wonder if you are aware that the term you used in a previous post "Black Republican" is a racially charged slur? I wonder if you intended it that way - surely not. Here is what I found on the Internet about the term:
Black Republican: a term applied by southern Democrats in the years before the
Civil War to members of the Republican party. Those who used this term intended it to be an insult, hoping that white Americans who felt racial prejudice toward African-Americans would reject the Republicans as too sympathetic to the slaves' demands for liberty and equal rights. They continued to use this term during the Reconstruction period to label Republicans who favored legislation and other government action to help the freed slaves.
--
>>>>>>How can one regard the war in 1776 any different from the war in 1861? Both revolts were fought to free themselves from tyranny and to become a separate, independent nation. The issue of slavery aside. Or better yet, lets focus only on the slavery aspect. If there were no slaves in the south, would you still have been against the south? Why or why not? What difference should it make in the overall scheme of things?<<<<<<<
What tyranny was there in 1861, from the federal government? The tyranny, to the extent that it existed was the oppression of the slaves by the southern states. You apparently count this as nothing. How odd. What surprises me, about the posts in this forum, is how readily many of you are to defend the system of government whose main reason for being was to support and defend slavery. To me, you make an impression similar to that of someone who defends drunken behavior or other types of indecent behavior. At least the southern people who lived in the 1860s have some excuse for their outlook. They had never known anything else but a corrupt and oppressive sytem. Corrupt in the sense that it was based on cruelty and selfishness. If you think slavery was harmless, ask if you would want it for yourself. Would you volunteer to be a slave?
What tyranny was there in 1861, from the federal government? The tyranny, to the extent that it existed was the oppression of the slaves by the southern states. You apparently count this as nothing. How odd. What surprises me, about the posts in this forum, is how readily many of you are to defend the system of government whose main reason for being was to support and defend slavery. To me, you make an impression similar to that of someone who defends drunken behavior or other types of indecent behavior. At least the southern people who lived in the 1860s have some excuse for their outlook. They had never known anything else but a corrupt and oppressive sytem. Corrupt in the sense that it was based on cruelty and selfishness. If you think slavery was harmless, ask if you would want it for yourself. Would you volunteer to be a slave?
>>>>>As well as movies and reenactments, I do a lot of school presentations about the War of Northern Aggression.<<<<<
I think you are doing the students a disservice. I look forward to correcting your mistaken interpretation of history, if you will enter into the discussion at some length. Maybe you can explain how and why you used the term "Black Republicans" and why you use such a racially charged term and whether you mean to project racial prejudice with the use of the term. That was the original meaning of the term, as I have explained in a previous post.
I think you are doing the students a disservice. I look forward to correcting your mistaken interpretation of history, if you will enter into the discussion at some length. Maybe you can explain how and why you used the term "Black Republicans" and why you use such a racially charged term and whether you mean to project racial prejudice with the use of the term. That was the original meaning of the term, as I have explained in a previous post.
>>>>>As was stated before, this was not a war to take over the entire United States. This was a war to withdraw from a Union that no longer served the purposes of a large number of people. It was legal and the only way to remove U.S. troops from the C.S.'s sovereign territory was by force. The attack occured due to a direct provocation by President Lincoln and the south acted in the only way they could to protect their freedoms<<<<<<<
Fort Sumpter was the property of the Federal government. Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort and maintain the federal installations there and elsewhere. Lincoln maintained that if the union was voluntary and in the nature of a contract, then to nullify a contract requires the consent of all parties. So legally there was a substantial argument that the union could not be dissolved in the manner attempted. Lincoln bent over backward to avoid war. The south decided to depart not because of any threat they felt from what the administration might do, but simply because the North had what the south considered a bad attitude towards slavery.
Fort Sumpter was the property of the Federal government. Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort and maintain the federal installations there and elsewhere. Lincoln maintained that if the union was voluntary and in the nature of a contract, then to nullify a contract requires the consent of all parties. So legally there was a substantial argument that the union could not be dissolved in the manner attempted. Lincoln bent over backward to avoid war. The south decided to depart not because of any threat they felt from what the administration might do, but simply because the North had what the south considered a bad attitude towards slavery.
War of Northern Aggression? Yeah, that isn't revisionist. What you people either do not understand, or purposely refuse to believe, is that it is the JOB of the federal government to protect its people from foreign and domestic enemies. The North not only had the right, but the obligation to squelch and put down (with maximum force if necessary) all enemies.
I am glad we are one nation and not a nation of chaotic loons.
Do you pro-southerners really think it would have stopped at that? You don't think a few more disgruntled rejects wouldn't have tried yet another government?
Btw Dr. Bob, I am extremely conservative politically speaking.
The south was nothing more than a ragtag group of terrorists who died in a meaningless way, to promote stupidity.
KenH
Well-Known Member
It's amazing how you can speak so ignorantly about men whose boots you(or I) are not even worthy to polish.
I also see you have not answered my question about your stance on the Revolutionary War. I find that quite telling, quite telling indeed. It definitely shows are you arguing based on your prejudice, not the facts.
I think it is fine to give credit for the courage of the many southern soldiers. I have a collection of music from both the northern and confederate armies. But I really am puzzled by how intelligent people in this age, can provide ideological support for the southern rebellion, particularly when in doing so, they automatically approve of slavery, which was the only significant reason for the existence of the rebellion in the first place. Do you disagree? Then you must not have read the comments of the main participants in the struggle, from both north and south. Most of the southern leaders made no pretense of having any other reason for leaving the union, other than their support of slavery. I grant that there were many courageous and intelligent, and upright people fighting for the south. Some of my own ancestors were among them. But the basis for the southern rebellion was slavery with all its moral corruption. It is remarkable that some, more than a few, religious people, still sympathize with such a corrupt and tyrannical system.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Consider this, if the CSA had freed all of the slaves, would President Lincoln have still sent an army to invade the South?
The obvious answer is yes he would have.
Therefore, the slavery argument is irrelevant. As any historical timeline shows the war had been waging a long time before Mr. Lincoln even tried to free the slaves through the Emancipation Proclamation and then by amending the U.S. Constitution. If that was so important, why didn't the Union do so from day one?
The tyranny, Tanker, was by the federal USA government. That's what the war was fought over.
God save the South!
The obvious answer is yes he would have.
Therefore, the slavery argument is irrelevant. As any historical timeline shows the war had been waging a long time before Mr. Lincoln even tried to free the slaves through the Emancipation Proclamation and then by amending the U.S. Constitution. If that was so important, why didn't the Union do so from day one?
The tyranny, Tanker, was by the federal USA government. That's what the war was fought over.
God save the South!
KenH
Well-Known Member
On September 18, 1858 Abraham Lincoln stated in a debate with Stephen Douglas:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln, The Works of Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Debates 1856-1858 vol. 3 (New York: The University Society Inc., 1908), 288.
Mr. Lincoln also said, "I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Ibid., 24.
Yep. The Yankees were fighting to free the slaves all right...and then send them back to Africa because they sure didn't want them to be living next to them as citizens of the USA.
So before ya'll disparage the South, ya'll might want to look at all of the virulent racism that was in the North.
God save the South!
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln, The Works of Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Debates 1856-1858 vol. 3 (New York: The University Society Inc., 1908), 288.
Mr. Lincoln also said, "I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Ibid., 24.
Yep. The Yankees were fighting to free the slaves all right...and then send them back to Africa because they sure didn't want them to be living next to them as citizens of the USA.
So before ya'll disparage the South, ya'll might want to look at all of the virulent racism that was in the North.
God save the South!
EMPHASIS MINE:
This, sir, is one of the most stupid, idiotic and assinine statements I have ever read!!
If your desire is to be taken seriously, (though not necessarily agreed with), you should engage your brain before using your mouth (keyboard?)!