Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Oct 12, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CNN

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Comments
24,021 - 24,040 of 32,001 Comments Last updated 11 hrs ago

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25245
May 6, 2013
 
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tomorrow I will PM a book to you that you will find even more interesting.
ok
Patriot

Boulder, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25246
May 6, 2013
 
FYI

5/5/2013 — 4.2M + 3.7M Earthquakes at Lava Hot Springs, Idaho — Dormant volcano movement

May 5, 2013 .. Two earthquakes at Lava Hot Springs, ID.*3 miles away*

More dormant volcano activity — no surprise at this point.

Here are my past posts on the dormant volcanic movement happening:

http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/...

http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/...

———————

Wondering why the USGS lists the nearest town as “Soda Springs”.. when clearly Lava Hot Springs is right there at the epicenter… I’m sure they might use the population density map as the reason to NOT list this town, but as someone who is interested in geology / volcanology / seismology , knowing this is the location, makes a HUGE difference in determining the actual cause of the movement.

For the general public, the USGS would just have you see this:

M4.2 – 28km W of Soda Springs, Idaho 2013-05-06 03:13:42 UTC

In reality, the screenshot shows you what is at the earthquake epicenter. Lava Hot Springs.

Here’s to DOWNPLAYING EARTHQUAKES….lol… hasn’t the USGS seen the Movie Dante’s Peak?

Nearby Cities

1.28km (17mi) W of Soda Springs, Idaho
2.50km (31mi) SE of Pocatello, Idaho
3.54km (34mi) SE of Chubbuck, Idaho
4.72km (45mi) SSE of Blackfoot, Idaho
5.205km (127mi) N of Salt Lake City, Utah

http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25247
May 6, 2013
 
Patriot wrote:
FYI
5/5/2013 — 4.2M + 3.7M Earthquakes at Lava Hot Springs, Idaho — Dormant volcano movement
May 5, 2013 .. Two earthquakes at Lava Hot Springs, ID.*3 miles away*
More dormant volcano activity — no surprise at this point.
Here are my past posts on the dormant volcanic movement happening:
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/...
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/...
———————
Wondering why the USGS lists the nearest town as “Soda Springs”.. when clearly Lava Hot Springs is right there at the epicenter… I’m sure they might use the population density map as the reason to NOT list this town, but as someone who is interested in geology / volcanology / seismology , knowing this is the location, makes a HUGE difference in determining the actual cause of the movement.
For the general public, the USGS would just have you see this:
M4.2 – 28km W of Soda Springs, Idaho 2013-05-06 03:13:42 UTC
In reality, the screenshot shows you what is at the earthquake epicenter. Lava Hot Springs.
Here’s to DOWNPLAYING EARTHQUAKES….lol… hasn’t the USGS seen the Movie Dante’s Peak?
Nearby Cities
1.28km (17mi) W of Soda Springs, Idaho
2.50km (31mi) SE of Pocatello, Idaho
3.54km (34mi) SE of Chubbuck, Idaho
4.72km (45mi) SSE of Blackfoot, Idaho
5.205km (127mi) N of Salt Lake City, Utah
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/
Interesting.

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25248
May 6, 2013
 
The North's true motive for launching an invasion into the south was not one of high moral principles to end slavery, but one of greed and fear of economic loss. The real issue between the north and the south was political and economic. Shortly after the American Revolution, the northern states decided to transfer all state war debts to the federal government. This meant that the federal government would pay the war debts of the states. This would be a windfall for the North because the federal government would obtain the monies to pay the debt by raising tariffs. The result was that the Southern states were required to pay a disproportionate share of the debt. Why? Because at this time the South was wealthy while the north was not, largely due to the export of cotton alone.
Of course, the South objected to this. If this were to happen, the North could use any reason they needed to take monies from the South, pilfering it, and cause an economic collapse. Under federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the federal revenue for the Northern States, with very little coming back to the South. The South was financing the North. Plain and simple. When Pres. Lincoln was asked why the North should not let the South go, his reply was, "let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!"

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25249
May 6, 2013
 
I realize you don't want to get into this topic, largely because it's not about whether or not Mormons are Christian. However, it just needs to be said that who in their right mind can honestly claim that the southern soldiers and sailors, the vast majority of whom were not slaveowners, went to war against a numerically superior foe and endured four long years of hardships, all in order to allow a few rich men to keep their slaves? These men were fighting for the same principles their forefathers fought for in the war for American Independence, the right of self-government.

It was the fear of the North losing its commercial advantages to the states along the Mississippi in the North's invasion of the South. Just weeks before the firing of the first shots of the war, the New York Times, in 1861, ran story after story about how the commerce of the North would be lost to New Orleans and to the rest of the South because of the low Southern Tariff. Northerners even admitted that their reasons for fighting the south were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law, but only because their profits might be lost if the South was successful in its move for independence. In fact, in an earlier article, the New York Times complained about the loss of revenue because the tariffs were no longer being collected in the Southern states. The article bemoans the fact that new loans were needed, but could not be guaranteed because the seceded states could not be forced to collect the national tariff.(The New York Times, "an extra session of Congress," March 23, 1861 page 4)

In an editorial, the Manchester, New Hampshire, Union Democrat (Feb. 19, 1861) had this to say about the loss of its Commercial advantages if the North were to "let the South go." "The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and it's fabrics employees more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No we must not let the South go."

Greed and fear of economic loss.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25250
May 6, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
Yea,
And Christianity was about NOT enslaving the 'less inferior' but instead was about elevating those who seemed to be less intelligent or less capable by finding the truth and moving out of the way so they can be free to learn to their potential and to discover without hinderance.
You're quite ignorant of slavery and it's many various histories. You should research it a bit, really.
In the name of Christianity Christian countries would invade and conquer the non-Christian heathen and those they didn't kill, they converted to Christianity and made slave labour of. Muslims did the same exact thing of Christians, conquering them and converting them and using them for slave labour.
Christians enslaved Christians in Rome, Greece, Spain and Europe and other countries for slave labour for centuries. The church in Rome was against such slave labour, Christians enslaving Christians such as in certain islands of the Pacific etc. So when Christian governments turned to Africans instead, they turned a blind eye for a centuries. Than they finally made a stink about the enslavement of Africans.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25251
May 6, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
See there you go. Unable to understand any grammar.
The first Africans were brought to the US as indentured servants, not as slaves.
Your dullwitted ears hears:
"The first africans ever enslaved in history were brought to the USA"
you're a dumbass... it takes five posts just for you to keep up with a basic conversation.
<quoted text>
Unable to understand you eighth grade level grammar? I'll be the first to agree!
You stated...ignorantly and stupidly... "The first africans ever enslaved in history were brought to the USA" ...this was the real pathetic ignorant stupidly written part of your sentence... "The first africans ever enslaved in history..." ...YOU DIDN'T STATE WHAT HISTORY BE IT WORLD HISTORY OR AMERICAN HISTORY you fricking shallow minded idiot.
So I posted to your statement as you wrote it so ignorantly as you said the first Africans "EVER ENSLAVED IN HISTORY" didn't happen IN AMERICA you stupid pathetic ignorant fool.
Next time state what you really want to say with specific grammar, just saying lol.

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25252
May 6, 2013
 
The forced movement of Africans to various parts of the world began in the ninth century and continued legally until the late 19th century, or for about 1000 years. Two major waves of the slave trade occurred during that time. The trans-Sahara and trans-Atlantic waves would be responsible for the forced movement of just over 20 million Africans from their native soil. Another 5 million would die in transit. The second great wave of African slave trading began in the mid 1400s. Around 1460, Portugal established posts along the coast of western Africa to trade in African slaves. This was the beginning of the European slave trade that would be carried on legally and illegally until the end of slavery in the Western Hemisphere in 1888, the date Brazil banned the practice. Interestingly slavery was not halted legally worldwide until 1962 when it was outlawed on the Arabian Peninsula.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25253
May 6, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
Racism, silly boy, is not about skin color.
Skin color based racism, stupid Mormon is what YOUR religion codified into a so-called holy book. Taking teaching about a pre-existent life and equating black skin as a punishment in the next.
The only other religion that does that, is Hinduism.
Are you an offshot of Hinduism?
Because it seems pretty clear to me that Joseph Smith borrowed ideas from it.
<quoted text>
lol...you really make some fine back-*ssed statements dude lol.

Let's see if you comprehend what you wrote okay?

You said matter of factly in your opinion... "Racism, silly boy, is not about skin color." Now let's paste that again so you read it to understand it. "Racism, silly boy, is not about skin color." That would mean to you, real racism is about anything BUT SKIN COLOUR. That was the meaning of YOUR STATEMENT. "Racism, silly boy, is not about skin color."

So then you go on to immediately contradict yourself by saying... "Skin color based racism,...is what YOUR religion codified into a so-called holy book." ...and this can't be accurate by your logic because you stated racism isn't about skin colour. So by your own definition of what racism isn't, you show your proof that Mormon's actually don't base racism by skin colour, as you have continued to accuse them of doing, because you stated "Racism, silly boy, is not about skin color."
You really need to organize your thinking a bit better.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25254
May 6, 2013
 
osirica wrote from ignorant stupidity again...
1. I will be glad to debunk you again.
1a. You meant you'll in ignorance debunk your own pathetic stupidity.
2. Genesis 2:8 East of what? Is that east of where Noah’s ark LANDED? East of where you WANT it to be? East of where you hope it is relative to Africa?
2a. You're pathetic ignorance seems to be getting in the way for you to understand/comprehend a simple statement. So let's go over it again for you :)
Gen 2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; See, everything about the earth was just created PRIOR to verse 8. That included the land mass called "earth" that was made of dirt. Can you comprehend that much? Or are you having problems understanding?
So according to the writer, the land mass made of dirt was called Eden OR, a part of the land mass made of dirt was called Eden, do you understand? The writer stated the earth or a part of the earth was called Eden. That is what the writer stated. Do you understand?
Now the writer than states in this land called Eden, the Lord God PLANTED A GARDEN EASTWARD IN EDEN. Do you understand yet? Are you having comprehension problems as is usual for you?
The writer declared in a land called Eden, in the EASTWARD PART OF EDEN THE LORD GOD PLANTED A GARDEN. That is why we call it the garden OF/OF/OF/OF (did you get that word OF?) OF Eden. Because the garden was A PART OF EDEN. The garden WASN'T EDEN. The garden WAS A PART OF EDEN. Do you understand the difference? See, if their was no difference, the writer would have proclaimed the Lord God made Eden a garden instead of saying what they wrote that in the eastward part of Eden the Lord God planted a garden. Are you able to understand? And the writer didn't state east of what. The writer stated in the eastward part of Eden the Lord God planted a garden. Your comprehension values are like so pathetically lacking dude. I had black Christian ministers teaching me this difference in Georgia in the 60s. Do you pretend to be pathetically stupid or are you pathetically stupid in comprehension?

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25255
May 6, 2013
 
These two great waves of slave migration are very similar. Each wave lasting around 500 years, was responsible for approximately 10,000,000 Negroes being taken from Africa. Both were carried on by religious people, one Muslim, one Christian. Both were sanctioned by international law. There are also some differences between the two great waves. The earlier wave followed a land route across the Sierra. The other was an ocean route, across the Atlantic. Nevertheless, Arabs and Berbers were the first to become involved in the slave trade, and they influenced the Europeans who became involved several hundred years later. We already know that Africans owned other Africans as slaves, but what is even more shocking is the fact that black Americans owned other blacks as well. In the book "Black Slaveowners" it's documented that blacks owned other blacks in America. According to the 1830 census record, more than 10,000 slaves were owned by free men of color. In Sumpter, South Carolina, in 1860, William Ellison, a free man of color, had 70 slaves working his plantation. In Louisiana, in St. Landry Parish, a free man of color, Auguste Donatto, held 70 slaves to work his 500 acre plantation. Even in New York City, eight free men of color owned 17 slaves in 1830. The liberal would have you believe that these black slaveholders were only doing this for benevolent or kinship reasons. This is not so, both the white and black slaveowner exploited the labor of slaves with the desire for-profits.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25256
May 6, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
Now you say “we can assume an unnamed river is running east into the garden of Eden” right after you quoted the Bible saying “10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden”
The Bible’s “Out of eden” and your “into the garden” are contradictory. So your assumption is rejected.
Man are you thick. How the heck do you go anywhere without getting lost?
Let's go over this as simply as we can for you as you have some real comprehension problems.
Verse 8 declares a part of the earth's dry land or all of the earth's dry land is called Eden. That's the writer's declaration, not mine, not yours.
Verse 8 also declares in this land called Eden, in the eastward part of this land called Eden, the Lord God planted a garden. The writer declares that. Understand? In the eastward part of Eden the Lord God planted a garden.
Having problems understanding that? Well try this. What the writer said could be compared to saying for instance, in the eastward part of Asia the lord God planted a garden. Does that help you? Hmm?
Now the writer states specifically next in verse 10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;
That statement can be taken two ways. Out of Eden would be the same as saying out of Africa or out of America or out of Canada, it means you're out of that specific named area. You're no longer there. You're somewhere else. This meaning implies the garden isn't even IN Eden, but that it is OUTSIDE of the area called Eden when it states... "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;"
Or, or we can assume that the other meaning is what was meant. That the river flowed out of Eden and into that part of Eden that was occupied by the garden that the Lord made.
Any questions or pathetic remarks?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25257
May 6, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
Well you speak far too detailed about what happened, since the very last point is moot.
To the east of Eden, if it was in Africa, could be Yemen, it could be many places. The fact is, this has no bearing on my earlier points. Because we know EDEN had to be in a tropical environment for the humans to live there comfortably. There was no “snow” in Eden. There was no cold weather. There was noting about the leaves changing color and FALLING OFF THE TREES.
Only in Africa, near the EQUATOR, are the seasons so balanced that you can have the potential for a high place of a river, oh lets say THE NILE, branching off into multiple tributaries, one of which surrounding the whole of Ethiopia.
<quoted text>
You're ignoring the facts of the story be the story true or myth.
Everything, not one thing, not a few things, not some things, EVERYTHING spoken about concerning direction GOES EAST.
The garden was set to the eastward part of Eden.
After Adam and Eve were removed from the garden,(not from eden) God set two Cherubims and a flaming sword where? TO THE EAST OF THE GARDEN THAT SAT IN THE EASTWARD PART OF EDEN...
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
That infers that Adam and Eve were removed out of the garden on it's east part because that is where the two Cherubims were put to keep Adam and Eve from returning.
And which direction did Cain go after being punished? To the east IN EDEN IN A LAND CALLED NOD.
16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
..........
You have a problem oh one of pathetic comprehension. You claim Africa is Eden. You claim the five rivers flowed north out of Eden and the garden in Eden. And that isn't your problem I speak of. Scholars have thought what you believe for centuries.
You're problem is that Genesis states that the human populations of Adam and Eve CONSTANTLY MOVED EAST, not north, not south and not west but they kept moving EAST.
The lands you say the rivers surrounded that were populated, the writer of Genesis states they were empty of people because humanity in Adam's era kept moving east. Get it? They didn't move north with the rivers. They kept moving east and into what are seas and oceans. Get it?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25258
May 6, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
I will be glad to debunk you again
Genesis 2:8 East of what? Is that east of where Noah’s ark LANDED? East of where you WANT it to be? East of where you hope it is relative to Africa?
Ok, so that vague eastliness you bring is dropped for a lack of any actual clarity.
Now you say “we can assume an unnamed river is running east into the garden of Eden” right after you quoted the Bible saying “10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden”
The Bible’s “Out of eden” and your “into the garden” are contradictory. So your assumption is rejected.
Next debunking…
Well you speak far too detailed about what happened, since the very last point is moot.
To the east of Eden, if it was in Africa, could be Yemen, it could be many places. The fact is, this has no bearing on my earlier points. Because we know EDEN had to be in a tropical environment for the humans to live there comfortably. There was no “snow” in Eden. There was no cold weather. There was noting about the leaves changing color and FALLING OFF THE TREES.
Only in Africa, near the EQUATOR, are the seasons so balanced that you can have the potential for a high place of a river, oh lets say THE NILE, branching off into multiple tributaries, one of which surrounding the whole of Ethiopia.
<quoted text>
One more thing for you to consider through that thick ignorance you have for reasoning.
God gathered all the waters into one place. Meaning a single body of water made of many. From that single body of water God made dry land(not lands)appear.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
In the first nine chapters of Genesis the "dry land" was always written 'singularly' as one, a single object. Never in the plural.
So in the first nine chapters of Genesis we have the word 'earth' used for what we call the 'world' and what we call 'dry land'. That dry land or a part of it was called Eden. One part of this land called Eden had a garden in it. Then we also have a reference to a 'land of Nod'. But we never have anything in the plural except for mention of Eden and the land of Nod.
The flood happens and in verse ten all previous singular references to land and places go to plural.
Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.(There was never a mention of an island prior to the flood or lands as in plural or nations or countries.)
That information means something indirectly and I wish to know if you'll make an educated guess of what it means/insinuates :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25259
May 6, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
Are you talking to ME, or to
Joseph Smith
Brigham Young
Joseph Smith III
Gordon Hinkley
Because you know I don't feel sorry for myself about my skin color.
You know this...
You know that I truly am speaking from a zero tolerance for religious blasphemy and defamation. Black people will not cede one iota of anything to any white racist philosophy.
The "feeling sorry" thing? You can use that distraction on someone else.
<quoted text>
Pathetic ignorance. God used a prophet to curse a man with leprosy and changed his skin to white as snow. Lepers aren't white skin wise. But in this verse God definitely through a prophet curses a man with leprosy and skin white as snow.
And you claim God won't curse someone with dark/black skin. Seems you think God is a partial God eh? lol...

27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

This was Elisha, the prophet of God, cursing Gehazi and all his descendants as lepers and with parts or some or most or all of their skin being white as snow, a colour going beyond Caucasian.
So tell me again that God or through his prophets God won't change a persons skin colour if he wants to do it.

2 Kings 5:
25 But he went in, and stood before his master. And Elisha said unto him, Whence comest thou, Gehazi? And he said, Thy servant went no whither.

26 And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants?

27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25260
May 6, 2013
 
There is so much more to this topic that I would like to talk about; however, I know this thread is not the place for that. Suffice it to say that slavery was not a Southern institution as history portrays. Very few in the Southern states actually even owned slaves. In studying the slave trade, only 6% of all the Africans taken from Africa were brought to the United States. A full 94% of them were sold into slavery in the Caribbean and in South American countries. Those who would try to defend the North for its involvement in the illegal Slave trade often attempt to shift the blame upon Southerners by saying, "if you Southerners had not provided the market for our slaves, we would never have been in the slave trade." That is simply not the truth. The slave trading colonies of the North saw the slave trade as a very lucrative business. A business they were unwilling to let go of. In fact, Massachusetts drafted and passed laws protecting it, while the colony of Virginia was busy enacting laws against it. The truth is that after 1800 the South was never a viable market for the African slave traders.

Then you'll say, "yes, but the Northern states were the first to abolish it. Ahhh, but wait...

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25261
May 6, 2013
 
When one thinks about the abolition of slavery most people think about Abraham Lincoln. But long before Lincoln the state of Virginia had already gone on record as opposing the African slave trade. "By an act of the Gen. assembly of the state of Virginia, while Patrick Henry was governor, the state outlawed the slave trade in Virginia. This was done on October 5, 1778, ten years before Massachusetts and thirty years before the British Parliament acted on the vile trade. The law was entitled an act for preventing the further importation of slaves. This law not only prevented the importation of slaves, but also stipulated that any slave brought into the state contrary to the law would be then and forevermore free. Virginia lead the way for the entire South. Throughout the South the move was on to end the trade, but the commercial interests of first England and then new England put a stop to this movement. It was largely the commercial interests of the North who led the fight to include the provision for the protection of the slave trade in the Constitution. This provision was inserted into the new Constitution over the objections of Virginia and other southern states. The North had won its first constitutional battle with the South. It was only after the South had seceded from the union with the North that a clear and unqualified prohibition was written into the Constitution outlawing the slave trade as article 1, section 9, of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. That's right; it was not the United States Constitution that made the first clear and unqualified prohibition against the slave trade, but the Confederate states constitution.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25262
May 6, 2013
 
Nope.

The north ended slavery, and that happened during the war. Whatever "greed" they hoped to achieve with this motive you state... it obviously evaporated when the EXTREMELY LOW taxation on slave labor was entirely ended by freeing the slaves.

This "North was greedy" excuse has no evidence, just like the mark of Cain. There was no greedy motive found in any writings or papers of the time. Lincoln was not formulating a way to get $$$$ from the South, then go to war, free the slaves.

After all, what in the world did the South generate $$$ besides slavery work profit?

NO-thing.

The South had no issue with the fact that the brunt of the war was in the North, nor did the south have issue with the fact that they also were benefitting from the revolution.

The northern delegates would agree to the southerly Potomac River site, and in return, the federal government would assume debts accumulated by the states during the American Revolutionary War.
That was 1790.

Now in regards to the "South" financing the North.

The fact is the Slaves were financing the South. And it was absurd that the economy of the South would rest on the backs of slaves, and low taxes on the enterprise, while the hard workers of the North would be assumed to pay the taxes for the country.

McDonnell,(2006) shows a grave complication in Virginia's mobilization of troops was the conflicting interests of distinct social classes, which tended to undercut a unified commitment to the Patriot cause. The Assembly balanced the competing demands of elite slave owning planters, the middling yeomen (some owning a few slaves), and landless indentured servants, among other groups. The Assembly used deferments, taxes, military service substitute, and conscription to resolve the tensions. Unresolved class conflict, however, made these laws less effective. There were violent protests, many cases of evasion, and large-scale desertion, so that Virginia's contributions came at embarrassingly low levels. With the British invasion of the state in 1781, Virginia was mired in class division as its native son, George Washington, made desperate appeals for troops
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
The North's true motive for launching an invasion into the south was not one of high moral principles to end slavery, but one of greed and fear of economic loss. The real issue between the north and the south was political and economic. Shortly after the American Revolution, the northern states decided to transfer all state war debts to the federal government. This meant that the federal government would pay the war debts of the states. This would be a windfall for the North because the federal government would obtain the monies to pay the debt by raising tariffs. The result was that the Southern states were required to pay a disproportionate share of the debt. Why? Because at this time the South was wealthy while the north was not, largely due to the export of cotton alone.
Of course, the South objected to this. If this were to happen, the North could use any reason they needed to take monies from the South, pilfering it, and cause an economic collapse. Under federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the federal revenue for the Northern States, with very little coming back to the South. The South was financing the North. Plain and simple. When Pres. Lincoln was asked why the North should not let the South go, his reply was, "let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!"

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25263
May 6, 2013
 
1. The southerners weren't defending their way of life from taxation. They were mobilizing against the rightly perceived threat of slavery ending.

no where do you see Southern politicians raising the banner against taxation, but for the end of slavery.

No it was slavery period. The taxation is a moot point since the work was done by the slaves, so there was no moral argument for the South in that regard.

Secondarily, allegedly greedy old Lincoln wouldn't cut his nose and spite his face by freeing the slaves, and causing the $$$ to go bye bye...

And with all that you state below, it pales in comparison to the Confederate Constitution itself, which tried to institute slavery permanently. That stands out as the evidence prima firma... the last call on this issue.

This self-governing nonsense makes no sense as they pushed for federal laws to be enforced in the North to protect slavery. They had NO problem with the federal institutions THEN.

So you have your quotes, and I certainly have the Confederate Constitution to trump them all.

But keep on posting, because you know we can have quotes going back and forth like the civil war... you find some analysis of trading fears of the north and i have many more showing the fears of slavery ending in the south.

Yes, those everyday white folks down there were panicking about the negroes being free. Yes that was the main reason they went to war. The economics was a secondary and RELATED issue.
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
I realize you don't want to get into this topic, largely because it's not about whether or not Mormons are Christian. However, it just needs to be said that who in their right mind can honestly claim that the southern soldiers and sailors, the vast majority of whom were not slaveowners, went to war against a numerically superior foe and endured four long years of hardships, all in order to allow a few rich men to keep their slaves? These men were fighting for the same principles their forefathers fought for in the war for American Independence, the right of self-government.
It was the fear of the North losing its commercial advantages to the states along the Mississippi in the North's invasion of the South. Just weeks before the firing of the first shots of the war, the New York Times, in 1861, ran story after story about how the commerce of the North would be lost to New Orleans and to the rest of the South because of the low Southern Tariff. Northerners even admitted that their reasons for fighting the south were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law, but only because their profits might be lost if the South was successful in its move for independence. In fact, in an earlier article, the New York Times complained about the loss of revenue because the tariffs were no longer being collected in the Southern states. The article bemoans the fact that new loans were needed, but could not be guaranteed because the seceded states could not be forced to collect the national tariff.(The New York Times, "an extra session of Congress," March 23, 1861 page 4)
In an editorial, the Manchester, New Hampshire, Union Democrat (Feb. 19, 1861) had this to say about the loss of its Commercial advantages if the North were to "let the South go." "The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and it's fabrics employees more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No we must not let the South go."
Greed and fear of economic loss.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25264
May 6, 2013
 
Yes and if you want to demonize Lincoln, that's all fine.

I understand his whole thing working with Harriet Tubman was all an act to you, and that's all fine,

but you ARE flooding the thread with an off topic conversation. I indulged it to a point, but I can see you will take the Mormon curse of cain out of this thread in the process...
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lincoln was a stone cold racist and that's an undisputed fact. Much of how he truly felt has been omitted from history. How??? History is written by the victor. But, as of late, much has come to light.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••