Posted on 08/28/2013 8:03:18 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
This is the untold story of the Union's "hard war" against the people of the Confederacy. Styled the "Black Flag" campaign, it was agreed to by Lincoln in a council with his generals in 1864. Cisco reveals the shelling and burning of cities, systematic destruction of entire districts, mass arrests, forced expulsions, wholesale plundering of personal property, and even murder of civilians. Carefully researched largely from primary sources, this examination also gives full attention to the suffering of Black victims of Federal brutality.
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
What?
You are honestly telling me that Jesus supported slavery?
“Ok, Jesus in not an authority to you.”
A doulos for Christ.
“Then I need to defend myself from you with weapons Come get me bitch.”
Drama queen much?
“You are honestly telling me that Jesus supported slavery?”
You mentioned it a being a great sin. I simply asked you for a source making that case.
If you think Jesus came to Earth to tell us it’s ok to enslave our fellow humans, I really don’t know what to say to you.
Slavery would have been abolished in America through a civilized political process ... if the South hadn’t seceded.
From America’s founding, slavery was the great dividing issue. It turned what should have been simple matters into violent controversies. The accepted wisdom of the pro-slavery Democrats and the moderate Whigs was to maintain a careful balance of power: free state for slave state, divide the Senate equally and create deadlock.
Under this arrangement the South got to go on using human beings as chattel and the North got to, well, not be completely overrun poltically. But the abolitionist movement grew in fervor and in power, and eventually tore apart the Whig Party.
The Republican Party rose from the ashes, driven in large part by abolitionists yearning to destroy slavery in America. Because the North was more populous than the South, they had control of the House, and the abolitionists had hope of passing anti-slavery laws there.
Due to the agonizing balancing of the states, the abolitionists had no hope in the Senate. But if they could get their own into the Executive Branch, they wouldn’t need it. Anti-slavery laws, passed in the House, could get a tied vote in the Senate, which the anti-slavery vice president could break, and so send the law to the anti-slavery president to sign ...
Every president elected by the Democratic Party would, of course, defend slavery. No Whig president would attack it, which in practice amounted to the same thing. The presidency reverted between the pro-slavery faction and the moderate faction, and slavery remained safe.
Then the Whigs fell. The Republican Party - newborn and driven with anti-slavery conviction - won the presidential election of 1860, and slavery was no longer safe.
And then the South seceded.
Inaccurate. The Corwin Amendment merely made explicit the belief of almost everybody, including Lincoln, that Congress had no power to legislate on slavery within a state. Part of the amendment made it impossible to be itself amended by a future amendment. Something that is arguably unconstitutional.
Lincoln, who wasn't yet president, did not support the amendment, which would have been kind of pointless since the president has no role in the amendment process.
He merely said that if the amendment was desired by the country, he had no objection to it being made "unamendable." This was unobjectionable, since it merely made explicit what he believed the Constitution already said by implication.
The Bible in the New Testament neither advocates slavery as a positive good nor opposes it as an evil. It merely takes it for granted as a fact of life.
In the Old Testament slavery is also treated as a fact of life, and in fact its position on the subject is very nearly identical to that of the Koran. Except for the sabbath year and Jubilee laws, which did not apply to slaves except those of Hebrew birth, and were probably never really applied anyway.
The principles of human equality and all of us being children of God lead by logical extrapolation to abolitionism, but that principle as such is just not found explicitly in the Book.
So, IMO, it is not possible to say that slavery is a sin per the Bible. But then if we take all parts of the Bible literally we can’t wear clothes of blended fibers or eat lobster, and we must not suffer a witch to live.
Had the South not seceded, the Democrats would have had a 39 to 29 majority in the Senate of the 37th Congress. House was 108 D and 107 R. Although some of those Democrats may have been anti-slavery.
The balance of slave to free states had been lost in 1850 with the admission of California. By 1860 there were three more free than slave states, and KS was obviously about to join up, with no future slave states in realistic prospect.
I seem to recall it being the other way around in the 1960s and 1970s.
The movies portrayed the South and noble and the north as animals.
times change
Suspending ‘habeas corpus’ is evil - Yes or no ?
In the presidential election of 1860, the right of the slaveholder to take his slaves—property recognized by the Constitution and laws of the land—into the territories, was an issue made by the Republican party but no question as to slavery where it already existed, was involved.
On the other hand, Lincoln, in his inaugural address on the 4th of March, 1861, expressly declared that he had no authority to interfere with slavery in the States, and no intention of doing so. And not until the promulgation of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, which went into effect on the 1st of January 1863, made without shadow of right or law, and in direct violation of his solemn declaration and oath of office, was this issue raised, as a war measure, to strengthen the Union cause, which was then on the wane, among the abolitionists at home and abroad.
The New England Yankees, who first imported the negro to America, and who had sold their slaves to the Southern planters, because slave labor was unprofitable at the North, and who had engaged in the African slave trade until this was prohibited by law, at the instigation of the South and against the protest of New England shipping interests which was largely engaged in the African slave trade, and had become rabid abolitionists, now demanded emancipation as the price of their loyalty to the Union cause.
While I was not an original secessionist and voted for the Union candidates for the Convention, yet when the North determined to wage war on the South; when Lincoln called on Virginia for her quota of troops to coerce the seceding States, and when Virginia seceded, it did not take me two seconds to cast my lot with Virginia and the other Southern States. Here I took my stand then, now and forever, and will never give aid in any way to those who were enemies to my State and section, many of whom are still haters and traducers of the Southern people."
From :REMINISCENCES OF THE WAR OF 1861-5
by W.H. Morgan (11th VA Infantry)
The South was right.
Evil. Thank you southern aristocracy.
The principle being shattered wasn’t equality, the principle was theft. The Southern aristocracy was wallowing in it.
Right. Not only is it acceptable to steal another man’s labor, it’s positively wholesome.
And a dead country. That is when the federal power grab started and got us to where we are today.
This is incorrect. This issue was ginned up by the southern fire-eaters to promote discord between the sections.
The Missouri Compromise had prohibited slavery in Louisiana Territory north of the southern border of MO, in return for admission of MO as a slave state.
30 years later the South reneged on this deal and pushed thru Douglass' "popular sovereignty" to allow for slaves going into the territories.
You will note, however, they did not give up their gain of MO as a slave state from the MO Compromise when they overturned this 30 year precedent.
The question of slavery in the Southern States was not an issue at the beginning of the war, as many believe.
Quite true. I really don't know anybody who claims otherwise. But wars change things. When the colonies went to war in spring of 1775, few wanted independence. A little over a year later the Declaration of Independence passed.
Similarly, in early 1861 the destruction of slavery was not a Union war goal. A little over a year later, summer of 1862, the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was released.
The southern aristocrats who attended the Constitutional Convention were embarrassed by slavery and were looking for a way to extinguish it. By 1860 that class not only had convinced themselves that it was morally acceptable, they then believed they were doing their slaves a favor.
Quite true.
Quite blind. If there hadn’t been slavery in the Southern States there would never have been a war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.