Skip to comments.War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
Posted on 08/28/2013 8:03:18 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
click here to read article
OMG please tell me the oficial position of FR is not that Obama = Lincoln. If that’s true I’m out or here.
every race and ethnicgroup that hascome to america has experienced prejudice, of course some worse than others, but it hasn’t been a cakewalk for any group/race.
these are just people who want something and this isthe angle they are working.
It is evil, but Lincoln, via the “Corwin Amendment,” supported its preservation in the states where it existed at the time of his inauguration.
don’t fall for thelibtards divide and conquer/deflection techniques. it’s a hundred fifty freaking years. it’s over. that’s why we’re so damn tired of blacks today acting like it ended yesterday.
So you think he started the war for what purpose?
I’m not falling for it. I’m calling on it.
“Here we go. The Bible is on the side of slavery.”
Well you are the one who brought up the subject of sin, so I’ll bite.
Evidently you are aware that Paul didn’t order Philemon to free Onesimus. Maybe that was an oversight on his part.
I’m sure that the Almighty must have condemned all slavery as evil somewhere for you to make the claim, and perhaps you can guide us to the proper chapter and verse.
Unless your concept of sin has nothing to do with the Bible. If so then maybe you can tell us what rule you do use.
You try to make me your slave. Go ahead. Try it.
“So you think he started the war for what purpose?”
It’s easy enough to let Lincoln answer that himself:
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the a ggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consiste ntly with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, and destruction of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty days from date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o’clock, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
“You try to make me your slave. Go ahead. Try it.”
I believe that is what is known as a non sequitur.
Your answer has nothing to do with the question that I asked you. Do you want to try again? Or do you not have an answer?
There would never been a war if but for the sin of slavery. If you defend the south you defend slavery.
I will not be a slave. I will die to defend that principle.
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe... most of the Presidents prior to 1850 owned slaves at one time or another. Were the founding fathers all evil?
“There would never been a war if but for the sin of slavery.”
My question is where you find slavery condemned as sin. Sin in the western world is usually associated with the Christian faith. If you know where it is condemned in the Bible please provide the reference. Surely it is easy enough to find.
That’s nice. Now answer the question.
MAT. 22:39 = And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 = On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You cannot love your neighbor and steal his labor.
It is believable to me that in 2013 we are still discussing the morality of slavery.
I think most political decisions are anything but altruistic, despite the terms they may be couched in. My view is that Lincoln fought for much the same reasons King George tried to stop the colonies from breaking away. The wealth and power of the surviving union would have been greatly diminished had the agriculturally productive southern states been allowed to secede. It might have even resulted in eventual loss of western territories that came under southern influence. Also, how would northern industry have fared after losing the southern market to “friendlier” European suppliers? There were plenty of hard nosed reasons to commit to war, but claims that cause of human liberty was the motivating factor don’t really ring true to me. It is a good way to stir people up to fight though. Do a little digging on the Corwin Amendment if you’ve never heard of it before. It’s not the kind of thing that makes it into the PC hagiographies we’ve been fed on Lincoln for decades.
Live in any fantasy world you choose. The Civil war was fought to end slavery.
If the Southern Patricians had said, your right, slavery is wrong, we henceforth free all our slaves. You think there’d still been a war?
But Paul didn’t quote those verses to Philemon and order him to free Onesimus. Did Paul not know them?
In fact he told Onesimus to return to Philemon. There appears to be a flaw in your use of those verses.
I quoted Jesus and you still defend slavery?
“Live in any fantasy world you choose. The Civil war was fought to end slavery.”
Of course Lincoln believed that he was fighting it to Preserve The Union, but what would he know?
From his First Inaugural:
“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “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.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them...”
Squirm all you like but you are defending slavery. If the Southern patricians had disavowed the immoral theft of other peoples labor there would never have been a war.
“I quoted Jesus and you still defend slavery?”
That would be great if Jesus had been discussing slavery or the value of a man’s labor, which he wasn’t. In fact the verses come from the encounter where Pharisees were trying to trap him and he advises them to pay to Caesar what is owed to Caesar and to pay God what is owed to God. Taking a particular verse out of its context is convenient, but not valid.
On the other hand I brought up to you the letter of Paul’s in which he is sending the runaway Onesimus back to Philemon. It seems very odd that Paul would fail to instruct Philemon on the evil of slavery and the necessity of eliminating it in such a letter. Paul certainly wasn’t shy about condemning other practices that he wrote about, sodomy being an example.
And just to correct a bit of your flawed logic I haven’t defended slavery. I have simply asked you the source for your argument that slavery is per se a sin. So far you haven’t managed to find a reference that addresses the subject and condemns it as a sin. But you should keep trying.
You demanded an answer from me and I gave it to you in the voice of Jesus Christ himself.
Now I demand an answer from you. Would there have been a war if the southern patricians has freed their slaves?
“Squirm all you like but you are defending slavery.”
Lol. The squirming seems to be all yours. I just ask you to provide a reference for your argument that slavery is evil. You seem to be having some difficulty finding the chapter and verse where this is spelled out. Take your time and keep looking.
Ok, Jesus in not an authority to you. Then I need to defend myself from you with weapons Come get me bitch.
You really think it is up to me to defend the proposition:
Slavery is bad.
No. You have accepted the role of defending the proposition that slavery is a socialist good.
Oh, sure it's evil.
But what to do? We had to get your mills the cotton, and couldn't pick it all by ourselves.
We would have preferred to work the Irish, but y'all had all of them.
“You demanded an answer from me and I gave it to you in the voice of Jesus Christ himself.”
No you didn’t. What you provided are a couple of out of context verses from Matthew where Jesus was debating Pharisees. Their discussion involved marriage and rendering what is owed to Caesar. There is no mention of slavery in that chapter.
Matthew’s Gospel does mention slavery but not from where you quoted.
Matthew 18:23-35 speaks of a slave who is punished by his master for being unforgiving.
Matthew 21:33-41 features a group of slaves who are killed and no one objects.
Matthew (10:24) tells us that “slaves are not above their masters” .
Matthew 24:46: “Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives”.
Jesus didn’t take the opportunity to condemn slavery in any of those Matthew verses. Jesus spoke of slaves as a fact of life. People are owned by other people. But you should keep looking for that chapter and verse where Jesus discusses slavery and calls it a sin.
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.
Suspending ‘habeas corpus’ is evil - Yes or no ?
In the presidential election of 1860, the right of the slaveholder to take his slavesproperty recognized by the Constitution and laws of the landinto 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 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.