Featured Most Evil Person in American History

So you cannot provide any evidence only unsubstantiated claims and unnecessary emotion as well as a false accusation against me. Got it!:thumbsup:

 

First of all, Salty asked you a legitimate question, and your post does nothing to answer it. It is simply more foot-stomping, arm-waving insistence that you and you alone are correct.

No. I'm sure you won't believe this, but if someone said that to me, I'd at least briefly consider the possibility it is true.

No links. The post proves nothing except that you can type.

And yet you chose not to address the segment of the Georgia declaration which clearly lists other reasons for secession, and details how the special interests appropriated the abolitionist movement in order to stir up a unified front against the South on economic and political issues even after those issues had been rejected as violations of states' rights by the general population. You rely on language such as "slave holding states" as proof of your views without giving consideration to the fact that such terms were descriptive of states that held to a plethora of the sociopolitical views of the day -- such as those outlined in my quote of the Georgia declaration -- exactly as we use the term "Red State" or "Blue State" today, and was not a narrow statement regarding the importance of slavery to the South, as you would like it to be.

Again, no links, just your typing. Upon seeing the complete quote, your characterization fails, as is revealed in the part of quote #3, for example, that you failed to post.

The rest of the quote states:

This is disingenuous of you, as I can find no website that does not carry the entirety of that statement.

If you're willing to rationally discuss your views, and honestly be open to differing ones, I'd be happy to continue discussion. But this is just a waste of time right now.

 

I guess this change of subject from the cause of the civil war means you realize I have provided evidence that:

1) The south seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated.

2) There secession statements indicated they feared Lincoln would take action prevent any new state from being slave.

3) The South fired on Fort Sumter, beginning the hostilities.

4) Lincoln was on record as believing slavery was wrong and it should be ended peaceable as soon as possible.

So now you want to discuss the war in independence.

The stated in the Declaration that when any government becomes destructive of "these" ends, the governed had the right to abolish it. These ends include the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Having now answered your question, if you had been one of those 3 million slaves, who would you say are among the most evil leaders of America?

 

Apparently you do not know the difference between a personal claim and evidence. Or you are just a troll. Not sure which.

 

Hi Revmitchell, you do like to find fault with others. Folks, personal incredulity is the refuge of those pushing fiction.

Hi Thisnumber "If you're willing to rationally discuss your views, and honestly be open to differing ones, I'd be happy to continue discussion. But this is just a waste of time right now. "

You keep saying you are going to disconnect, but then you return to your er fictions.

Disingenuous? The part I did not include was non-germane to the point. The excluded portion did not modify what Lincoln gave a rip about.

 

This is really a worthless point.

The south would have seceded no matter who gained the inauguration. The north was just adding frosting to the cake that were pushing down the throats of the southern states.

Again, this is a non-issue. The south didn't fear, but knew any new state would be free. Why do you think the line was established to begin with. Rather that the states making their own constitutional decision, the Federal government was already usurping that authority demanding the states conform to what some northern standard rather than southern.

Fort Sumter was in the south and given time to surrender. Rather, the fort was reinforced. Such was spitting in the eye of the South.

Lincoln is on record as having no strong opinion on slavery - his own state refused to free slaves recognizing property rights of the southerner. Lincoln used slavery as any "good" politician will gather whatever will tease the most public support.

If the public wanted pink panties on all men, he would have gone around in a pink hat to show support.

Not a proper argument. Our feelings have nothing to add or detract from the facts. Our feelings have no bearing on what is evil or righteous as viewed from God's perspective.

But so you are not assuming some Hollywood version, read this taken from "Plantation complexes in the Southeastern United States."

A popular misconception, often perpetuated in print and film, that the typical plantation had a grand mansion and hundreds of slaves is undermined by reality. These large estates did exist, but represented only a small percentage of the plantations that once existed in the South. Although many southern farmers did own slaves prior to emancipation, few owned more than 5. These farmers tended to work the fields alongside their slaves. Of the estimated 46,200 plantations known to exist in 1860, 20,700 had 20 to 30 slaves and only 2,300 had a workforce of a hundred or more, with the rest somewhere in between.
​

 

There is a whole lot more to my post than just the Lincoln quote you deliberately edited, and edited so as to -- yes, I'll say it again -- be disingenuous. Still no comment on the portion of my post that quoted verbatim from the Georgia Declaration of Secession, a declaration that destroys your argument. Still no answer for Salty's question. Still numbering your talking points -- having now repeated them for like the 20th time, which makes them no more correct or valid than they were when you posted them the first time. It becomes obvious that you want to dishonestly whine about everyone else without taking any responsibility for your own inability, your epic failure, at making your argument.

So yes, now I will "disconnect" because, as I said, this is just a waste of time, and you have no interest in honest discussion or informative discourse.

 

He does the same thing with the cals. He doesn't know what "evidence" is.

 

Lets see, Agedman finds and understands the evidence I presented, disagrees, and moves on. But Revmitchell simply presents more logical fallacy, more finding fault with my limited knowledge, rather than addressing the topic. And TND, says I must address each and every point, rather than simply show a point misses the mark, while doubling down on "non-insults" i.e. logical fallacies.

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

2) The Southern leaders who led us into war, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, rank as among the most evil men in American history.

3) All these "usurping power" and "states rights" causes stem from slavery, with the North trying to end it and the south trying to preserve it.

4) Lincoln was a strong anti slavery advocate, but was willing to allow it to continue where it existed for the sake of peace. But the South chose to fire on Fort Sumter, and the rest as they say is history.

 

One more small point, folks. In several posts I provided snippets of statements contained in Lincoln's public record and the succession statements of states. Anyone actually interested in finding the context, can simply insert the snippet into Google and see what pops. So the whole "Van presented no evidence" barrage is simply yet another strawman, to change the subject from the topic to something else, running from history and the truth.

 

Van not only presents no evidence, he tells us how we are to do research.





:laugh::laugh:



TNID is correct. You are not really here for any debate.

 

After "freeing" the slaves, the North, with their child-labor shops which refused to hire blacks, started pandering, and lying to the newly-freed slaves, while secretly conspiring to keep them on the fringe of society. They have not stopped.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2010/summer/slave-pension.html

 

Thanks Salty for actually presenting something other than "the north was bad too" or the denial of evidence for the view Slavery caused the civil war.

1) Agreed, some of the South seceded before they fired on Fort Sumter, others after. But all of them made the choice to seceded because of the fear the North would grain more power as non-slave states were added, and eventually end slavery in the whole Union.

2) Take your time and read them, they all say the same thing, bla bla this, bla bla that, and they had a right to continue slavery.

3) Again, we are agreed, the South fired on Fort Sumter, beginning the hostilities.

4) Yes, but that "keeping slavery" was seen necessary to achieve a peaceable end to slavery over time.

5) You defined the War of Independence as independence from England, so 1776 is the required date. Why shuck and jive?

6) Agreed, we led the effort to end the rule of Britain, and the South led the effort to end the fear that the North would end slavery. Dressing it up in states rights does not move the ball, the state right in question was to continue slavery. All roads lead back to slave labor, and those 3 million human beings being chained, beaten, sexually abused, castrated, and murdered in the name of states rights.

 

Do have any stats on the abuse of these 3 million people ? Are you saying these things happened to all of them ? Most of them ?

You are making a claim you will never be able to back up.

 

Hi Bro, you are the person who claimed Lincoln did not give a rip about slavery. Now that was a false claim.

Did I say each of the 3 million were castrated including the females? Nope. You simply misrepresent, and avoid the truth.

I said they, the 3 million, were being beaten, chained, sexually abused, castrated, and murdered. Beatings occurred, we have pictures of scared backs. We have the manacles used on slaves in our museums. We have blue-eyed blacks in every ghetto in America. We have DNA evidence, the children of slaves were fathered by whites, such as the descendants of Jefferson. We have documents specifying the punishment of castration. And we have documents showing that many slaves, up to 50% of the cargo, died during shipment. And we have folks who deny the monstrosity of slavery caused the civil war. BTW, slavery is a form of abuse!!!

I am reminded of the story from WWII, where the German townspeople said they did not know what was going on in the camps, and so Eisenhower ordered that they be forced to view the camp and see the ovens, and the bones of tiny babies, and on and on.

 

Actually, I gave you a link to his words. Accusation unfounded.

Asking you to prove a ridiculous claim is not misrepresentation.

LOL.
"…pictures of scarred blacks…"

Got 3 million of them ? Got one million " Got 100 ? How many documents do you have ? You are saying MILLIONS of slaves suffered your list of atrocities. You simply cannot back it up.

Yeah. Almost 60 million people died in WWII. Most of them weren't Jews, either.

That can be another thread, as it doesn't do a lick of good proving your outrageous claim.

 

Right now I am researching, and trying to find some credible evidence that 3 million slaves were "...beaten, sexually abused, castrated, and murdered…."

 

PBS actually has a more believable history on the treatment of slaves….


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html

 

Here it is folks, those that deny slavery caused the civil war deny that 3 million slaves were beaten, chained, sexually abused, castrated, and murdered. How many slaves were brought to the New World in chains. Answer all of them. Was the number transported, 3 million, 9 million or more. How many died in Africa, in transport, in "slave forts" waiting to be sold, and under the kind care of the southern slave masters. More than 3 million.

The monstrosity of slavery caused the civil war.