What Was the Result of the War for Southern Independence?

[passionflower]

passionFLower,

Yes, Vikings went all over the european continent and Great Britain conquering as they went. They stayed, farmed, ( a Viking was a farmer ) and intermarried all over the place

Yes, and the African Muslims conquered Spain and Portugal and intermarried with them, and the Ottoman Turks conquered the Balkans and intermarried with them, and if you can include Eastern Europe in your narrow view of Europe, then the Mongols conquered and intermarried with the local population there.

So what's so special about the Vikings?

Regards,

George Clay

George, speaking of narrow views, you are not trying to really enlarge the subject, you are just picking a fight with me. How good does that really make you feel?

Go ahead, have the last word.

[gclayjr]

passionflower,

I'm sorry, I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I just trying to help you see that the historical evidence does not support your theory about God blessing Nordic people above all others, and therefor it is through them that all great things have happened despite the efforts, of lessor races, and groups.

Regards,

George Clay

[Jason]

Impact of banker funded modern libertarian revisionist history....

[davedan]

the Phoenicians were visiting America and mining copper in the Keweenaw for a thousand years. Phoenician mooring stones have been discovered all over the Great Lakes. (see Waubansee Stone). After the Romans conquered the Phoenicians, knowledge of Phoenician sailing technology continued among the Vikings. Likely some Phoenicians fled to Scandanavia.

Phoenicians ran port cities throughout the Mediterranean and Great Britain. In addition to writing in Phoenician, they intermarried and used the various languages of the people like Etruscan, Minoan, Cypriot, Paleo-Hebrew, Libyan and Runic.

The Mulekites likely hitched a ride with the Phoenicians on their way to America. This is why Phoenician names and name places are found in the Book of Mormon (e.g. Sidon)

[passionflower]

the Phoenicians were visiting America and mining copper in the Keweenaw for a thousand years. Phoenician mooring stones have been discovered all over the Great Lakes. (see Waubansee Stone). After the Romans conquered the Phoenicians, knowledge of Phoenician sailing technology continued among the Vikings. Likely some Phoenicians fled to Scandanavia.

Phoenicians ran port cities throughout the Mediterranean and Great Britain. In addition to writing in Phoenician, they intermarried and used the various languages of the people like Etruscan, Minoan, Cypriot, Paleo-Hebrew, Libyan and Runic.

The Mulekites likely hitched a ride with the Phoenicians on their way to America. This is why Phoenician names and name places are found in the Book of Mormon (e.g. Sidon)

Truth is definately stranger than fiction. I saw a youtube video once that claimed the Nordics were originally persian albinos that went north to get out of the heat. I thought this was just too weird at first, but after listening a while, realized there could really be some truth to this. The only thing that held me back was Nephi describing the Gentiles who come to the americas as white and fair like his own people. And BTW, I realized in my last reading of the Old Testament, that Mulek could have only been a kid when he escaped from Jerusalem. I was trying to figure it out one day, and it looked to me like Zedekiah could not have been older than 32 when he was captured by the Babylonians, and I think he had been reigning for 10-12 years. If things followed their usual format, he would have married right after his coronation, especially since he was sort of a puppet king replacement for the real King (jehoichin? I think). That would also make his sons that were murdered in front of him just a bunch of children ( horrible!). I was imagining that if Mulek had been with his father in his attempted escape, he would have been captured along with him, but since we know he successfully took off, and with a number of others, Zedekiah must have left him behind, which doesn't sound very noble, does it?


My whole point in drawing up my civil war scenario, was it could really look like the civil war marked the beginning of the end of white supremacy, which would have to be taken down a few notches by anybody who wanted to "take over the world", and by getting the gentiles to fight against each other, one could conceivably easily do it. Which has happened and is still happening. One good thing that came out of the American Civil War was this quote by Lincoln, " United we stand, Divided we fall". And never has this been more true than today.

[Ezra]

Ajax, JohnnyL,

A couple of things Joseph Smith said about the American Constitution:

The Constitution, when it says, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," meant just what it said without reference to color or condition, ad infinitum.
Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/833152" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.
Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/833154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some things said by various prophets of the Church in support of Confederate Constitution

[Sound of Crickets.}

God Actively protected the Americans in the American Revolution who were fighting the best military in the world

Divine intervention was also significant in the American victory in the Revolutionary War. Just as the Lord protected and sustained Israel anciently, he also provided for those appointed to accomplish his purposes in the American struggle for independence. It had come time to establish a nation where the gospel could be restored, where the Church of Jesus Christ could flourish in a climate of religious freedom, and from where the gospel could be carried to all nations. Inspired and sacrificing leaders, 1 sustained by a power beyond themselves, would establish a remarkable new form of government. The time had come for the American colonists to gain their independence from England in order for Nephi’s prophecy of a people “delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” (1 Ne. 13:19) to be fulfilled and for the gospel to be restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/deli ... y?lang=eng

Divine intervention in the Civil war to protect that great slave holding states rights nation

[sound of crickets... oh wait a minute, the Confederacy fell]

If it was the Confederates who had right on their side, and the Americans under Lincoln, had stifling oppression on theirs, why did none of God's Prophets praise the Confederate constitution, and why did God let the Confederacy fall, never to rise again, even after over 150 years?


Regards,

Georeg Clay

Interestingly enough Joseph smith also weighed in on how to end slavery.

Without war. Paying the Slave owner for their property. By saleing unconditionally owned federal lands. And then giving the slaves some of that same unconstitutionally owner lands to make a living on. So they could be self sufficient.

We were the only country wicked enough Not end slavery peacefully without war.

If that's the case that we were so wicked. Would it mean that Lincoln was the leader of that wickedness?

1 nephi 22:
13 And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.
= civil war. Bloodiest war.

And the leaders were whom?

The saints as we know where In Utah. Which to me is another indication of just how wrong the entire civil war was.

D&c 98: 34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.

Civil war.

No peace banner was lifted.

No commandment for war was given.

A few verses above. D&c98:

24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

The war was a meted and just measure upon the wicked. Upon the great and abominable church. Who forced the saints out to Utah.

And the great and abominable church's leader was???? Lincoln/Jackson/Lee?

[gclayjr]

ezra,

Interestingly enough Joseph smith also weighed in on how to end slavery.

Without war. Paying the Slave owner for their property. By saleing unconditionally owned federal lands. And then giving the slaves some of that same unconstitutionally owner lands to make a living on. So they could be self sufficient.

We were the only country wicked enough Not end slavery peacefully without war.

If that's the case that we were so wicked. Would it mean that Lincoln was the leader of that wickedness?

Yea, but The south never stepped up to that offer. Just because Joseph Smith thought it was a good idea, doesn't mean the South did. It takes 2 for a deal.

Could you let me know what the Haitian Revolution of 1791-1804 was about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
\
I say, you guys keep repeating the same BS among yourselves without question, until you think it is actually true. It would be better to actually research history, rather than just read stuff form fellow Hate Lincoln advocates and accept everything they say without question.


Also, while one could make a reasonable argument, that, Lincoln, the new president from the newly formed Republican anti-slavery party, was wussy, and in the interest of preserving the Union, not willing to take on the south in regards to abolishing slavery, but no reasonable historian could conclude that Lincoln was FOR slavery.....

Now Jefferson Davis....

So I guess by your own standards, Jefferson Davis was the leader of that wickedness!!

Regards,

George Clay

[Ezra]

The great and abominable church wars with itself. Drunk on its own blood.

Your love for Lincoln blinds you. Both Sides in the war are the same side of evil.

Only gods endorsement makes it just. And we know no commandment was given to the saints to go to war Who where lead by a prophet.

The saints were in Utah. Had no part in it.

[gclayjr]

Ezra,

I do love Lincoln, and I am not blinded. I will say nothing to correct your last post, because I understand it is your opinion. I don't jump in just because I disagree with your opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, I jump in when, in your frenzy to support your opinion, you make ridiculous statements that are easily provably false.

as that rare breed of an Honorable Liberal Democratic Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Regards,

George Clay

[Ezra]

Good thing we do have fact.

Saints in Utah. No commandment to go to war given by God. Scriptures that state what God has asked of us concerning war. And also warned what the great and abominable church would do and be. Joseph smiths inspired way to end slavery. The history of how Lincoln disregarded almost every constitutional right and freedom to persue the war. His own statements and his own actions.

Nothing points to him being a good guy.
His only claim to fame is that he in order to win the war ended slavey in the south while it still being legal in the north tell after the war. It was a military move. And a move to gain the support of the north by making it a moral battle as well.
He then spent the rest of his presidency trying to deport them.

Those are facts.

You can justify his actions as needed or just. But it's just a justification.

(For the greater good) he used evil. He used death murder imprisonmemt without charge or trial. He used government force fear and fines to draft an army. Unless you had money to pay for the application of exemption that is. Which cause the draft riots. Which history guesses the death toll at 8000-30,000 people of New York killed in the cross fire between the New York militia and the Union army when the militia and citizens of New York barricaded themselfs off to protect its citizens aginst that draft.

History is full of facts of how it was a horrible wrong thing. and the fact remains that the saints were in Utah. If it was gods will for the civil war. Gods people would have been involved with full support. They however were not.

Yet if it didn't happen I feel Lincoln would have turned his sights on the saints instead. As facts already show he didn't like them either and signed the bill making polygamy illegal to presicute and have a reason to imprison them.

His cold statements to Brigham young. Lots of facts.

[Separatist]

Result? the Death of federalism and the republic.

Destruction of the Constitution in order to save it. This is indisputable. Even pro-Lincoln scholars admit this. Just like Bush II who "abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."

SIX BIG LIES ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SLAVES AND THE WAR
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/08/080815-2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Separatist]

Ajax,

March 4, 1861, Lincoln is inaugurated, April 11, 1861, the South attacks Ft. Sumter

Doesn't look like the South was much in for negotiation with Lincoln

The South would only accept capitulation in regards to secession!

Regards,
George Clay

Let me help you with Fort Sumter:
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/revie ... ggression/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://mises.org/library/century-war-l ... oosevelt-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Chapter 2: Abraham Lincoln and the First Shot)

[JohnnyL]

Impact of banker funded modern libertarian revisionist history....

So bankers are libertarians, revisionists, pro-states rights, anti-federalists, Jefferson-lovers??

[Jason]

Impact of banker funded modern libertarian revisionist history....

So bankers are libertarians, revisionists, pro-states rights, anti-federalists, Jefferson-lovers??

They can be when it suits them...

Like Ron Paul claiming to be a Constitutionalist....a means to an end.

[gclayjr]

Separatist,

Do you know what a straw Man arguement is? A straw man argument is where someone makes a ridiculous assertion of the opposition's point of view, so that they can easily "shoot it down". Your ridiculous, defunct radical web site does just that.

The first big lie, which is universally believed, is that Lincoln, dubbed the “Great Emancipator” by his cult of worshippers, went to war in order to free slaves

Nobody believes that, so I guess it is easy to refute it. Everybody knows that in fear of what Abraham Lincoln might do in regards to limiting Slavery, the South Seceded, revolted, and then attacked a Union Fort, thus firing the first shot of the war.

While all of the revelations of "lies" are in themselves lies, I'll go to their own 6th and worst lie

A sixth lie, perhaps the most despicable of all, is that the War of Northern Aggression was necessary. Only war, say its mythologisers and apologists, could have ended slavery. The truth, of course, is that it was a war of choice and not of necessity

This is also an illusion. The reason you fall for it, is because you so buy into the premise, that you don't even see the premise. Sure the South was willing to negotiate. But they were only willing to negotiate the TERMS of secession. In order to buy into this, you have to be willing to accept the secession, and the existence of the Confederacy. They were not willing to negotiate that away. Since you are sympathetic to that position, you see them as flexible, because they are rigid, on what you believe..

We went into a war of CHOICE with Japan, even thought they attacked Pearl harbor, because we were unwilling to resume free trade with them, after they attacked China and SE Asia. If we would only have been willing to accept their divine destiny, Japan would not have attacked us, and would have been more than willing to negotiate the details.


Regards,

George Clay

[Separatist]

It's really quite simple George. Lincoln was willing to kill hundreds of thousands, including tens of thousands of civilians and trample the Constitution TO MAKE THEM STAY against their will. Sumter, where nobody died, was all the excuse he needed.

And I ask, why would the South, who already seceded, tolerate a federal tariff collecting fort in southern territory? Lincoln knew what he was doing in his provocations, which again, resulted in no loss of life, except a horse.

[ajax]

Jefferson:

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...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Lincoln got it in 1847:

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.

Then forgot it in 1861:

...no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union

Mises understood:

No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.

[Ezra]

It's really quite simple George. Lincoln was willing to kill hundreds of thousands, including tens of thousands of civilians and trample the Constitution TO MAKE THEM STAY against their will. Sumter, where nobody died, was all the excuse he needed.

And I ask, why would the South, who already seceded, tolerate a federal tariff collecting fort in southern territory? Lincoln knew what he was doing in his provocations, which again, resulted in no loss of life, except a horse.

George is quite pro war. Good luck convincing him that war is wrong. He really would like to justify his involvement in military. Even though the lord has specified clearly that a commandment will be given by God to go to war if it's just. He wants to ignore all statements and facts that show otherwise.

[gclayjr]

Separatist,

It's really quite simple George. Lincoln was willing to kill hundreds of thousands, including tens of thousands of civilians and trample the Constitution TO MAKE THEM STAY against their will. Sumter, where nobody died, was all the excuse he needed.

And I ask, why would the South, who already seceded, tolerate a federal tariff collecting fort in southern territory? Lincoln knew what he was doing in his provocations, which again, resulted in no loss of life, except a horse.

You make MY point. The south was not willing to negotiate anything except the terms of the secession, so the only way to prevent the nation from becoming divided was to fight the secessionists. And in doing so the secession failed, and the nation remained a united one, rather than two.

Now you guys like to talk about forcing the south to remain in the Union against their will. Whose will, the elite politicians? Unlike the British, in the Brexit, the southern people NEVER VOTED to secede, only the legislators took that upon themselves to do so, because they didn't like the result of the presidential election. Almost all of the legislators were either plantation owners, or upper class people friendly to slavery. What do you think the result would have been if the South had let its people vote whether to secede? particularly if they included the millions of slaves?...

oh yeah they had no voice in the matter!

Regards,

George Clay

[samizdat]

Separatist,

It's really quite simple George. Lincoln was willing to kill hundreds of thousands, including tens of thousands of civilians and trample the Constitution TO MAKE THEM STAY against their will. Sumter, where nobody died, was all the excuse he needed.

And I ask, why would the South, who already seceded, tolerate a federal tariff collecting fort in southern territory? Lincoln knew what he was doing in his provocations, which again, resulted in no loss of life, except a horse.

You make MY point. The south was not willing to negotiate anything except the terms of the secession, so the only way to prevent the nation from becoming divided was to fight the secessionists. And in doing so the secession failed, and the nation remained a united one, rather than two.

Now you guys like to talk about forcing the south to remain in the Union against their will. Whose will, the elite politicians? Unlike the British, in the Brexit, the southern people NEVER VOTED to secede, only the legislators took that upon themselves to do so, because they didn't like the result of the presidential election. Almost all of the legislators were either plantation owners, or upper class people friendly to slavery. What do you think the result would have been if the South had let its people vote whether to secede? particularly if they included the millions of slaves?...

oh yeah they had no voice in the matter!

Regards,

George Clay

One interesting point, in Texas, is that the governor of the time, Sam Houston, before the first president of the Republic of Texas argued AGAINST secession. He was not in favor of slavery.

Even so the Texans voted overwhelmingly for secession and he resigned the governors' post.

[gclayjr]

samizdat,

Good point. Texas was different from the other southern states. Although even in Texas, neither women, nor slaves could vote.

Oh yea, and although Mexicans who became citizen's of Texas/America could technically vote, between language requirements (which in principle I do agree with), and intimidation, very few actually voted for anything. Sort of a forerunner of Jim Crow south.

Regards,

George Clay

[I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS]

The great and abominable church wars with itself. Drunk on its own blood.

Your love for Lincoln blinds you. Both Sides in the war are the same side of evil.

Only gods endorsement makes it just. And we know no commandment was given to the saints to go to war Who where lead by a prophet.

The saints were in Utah. Had no part in it.

Ezra what's your take on the Mormon Battalion?

They answered the call to fight during the Mexican-American war which commenced after we annexed Mexican territory.
Brigham Young and other leaders gave their blessing and Young prophecied their posterity would be blessed.
So if keeping conquered territory is a worthwhile endeavor, what about saving the Union and freeing slaves?

[Ezra]

The great and abominable church wars with itself. Drunk on its own blood.

Your love for Lincoln blinds you. Both Sides in the war are the same side of evil.

Only gods endorsement makes it just. And we know no commandment was given to the saints to go to war Who where lead by a prophet.

The saints were in Utah. Had no part in it.

Ezra what's your take on the Mormon Battalion?

They answered the call to fight during the Mexican-American war which commenced after we annexed Mexican territory.
Brigham Young and other leaders gave their blessing and Young prophecied their posterity would be blessed.
So if keeping conquered territory is a worthwhile endeavor, what about saving the Union and freeing slaves?

You answered your own question. The prophet supported it. No fighting happend. The lord blessed it.
Civil war. The prophet and God did not support it. They had nothing to do with it.
Joseph smith was inspired how to end slavery without war. Every other nation managed to do so. Lots of evidence that it was just Satans works. Couple that with what God says about war and instructions conceding them in D&c 98. Without the consent or commandment from God. The civil war and any war is just plain wrong no matter who wins.

[Jason]

Separatist,

It's really quite simple George. Lincoln was willing to kill hundreds of thousands, including tens of thousands of civilians and trample the Constitution TO MAKE THEM STAY against their will. Sumter, where nobody died, was all the excuse he needed.

And I ask, why would the South, who already seceded, tolerate a federal tariff collecting fort in southern territory? Lincoln knew what he was doing in his provocations, which again, resulted in no loss of life, except a horse.

You make MY point. The south was not willing to negotiate anything except the terms of the secession, so the only way to prevent the nation from becoming divided was to fight the secessionists. And in doing so the secession failed, and the nation remained a united one, rather than two.

Now you guys like to talk about forcing the south to remain in the Union against their will. Whose will, the elite politicians? Unlike the British, in the Brexit, the southern people NEVER VOTED to secede, only the legislators took that upon themselves to do so, because they didn't like the result of the presidential election. Almost all of the legislators were either plantation owners, or upper class people friendly to slavery. What do you think the result would have been if the South had let its people vote whether to secede? particularly if they included the millions of slaves?...

oh yeah they had no voice in the matter!

Regards,

George Clay

Separatist/Ajax is just regurgitating Mises propaganda funded by the elite bankers...

Same folks Ron Paul rolls with...

Same folks who claim to be Constitutionalists yet recommend we go backwards to the miserable failure called The Articles of Confederation....

[gclayjr]

Ezra,

You answered your own question. The prophet supported it. No fighting happend. The lord blessed it.
Civil war. The prophet and God did not support it. They had nothing to do with it.
Joseph smith was inspired how to end slavery without war. Every other nation managed to do so. Lots of evidence that it was just Satans works.

Yes, but they served in a war to acquire land from Mexico, You know, manifest Destiny, so in your opinion, if you volunteer to fight for an evil cause, it is ok, as long as you don't actually have to engage the enemy.

Joseph Smith ran for president. His suggested solution to the problem of slavery was part of his platform. He lost. It may be a great idea, but the South would not agree. Hey they seceded just because A republican who was for the principle of abolition, if not for implementing it immediately was elected.

You guys try to have it both ways. On one side criticism of President Lincoln, because he didn't promote Joseph Smith's plan to end Slavery or even go to war to end slavery, then blame him for not letting the South just leave and keep slavery for who knows how many years until they felt like getting rid of it. You blame Lincoln for the carnage that our country paid for the sin of slavery, then ennoble those who would promote that sin forever!


You guys keep repeating lies to each other over and over, no matter what the evidence or lack of truth, as long as you like the story. After awhile, those lies become facts to you. For what it is worth other nations also fought to end Slavery. As I previously pointed out:

Hatian Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

heck they are fighting today to try and end Slavery in the Sudan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Sudan


Regards,


George Clay