Hoodwinked

You bring up a lot of points that are right on the money concerning the era of the Civil War. If you take a look at the real reasons for the war however, you will find that the South was fighting over the issue of state's rights being usurped by the federal government. Slavery in the beginning was never part of Lincoln's thinking. On several occasions he even proposed shipping them back to Africa. It wasn't until 1863, two years into his Presidency that he came to the realization that the South would never stop fighting until he took away their right to own slaves which led to the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln's main reason for fighting was preservation of the Union. At the time, there were actually two separate Democratic parties and Lincoln was actually the first Republican ever elected to national office which enraged the southern wing of Democrats. They saw his election as leading to further and further erosion of state's rights. So thinking that slavery was the root cause of the war is a stretch.

"So thinking that slavery was the root cause of the war is a stretch."

Understood, I unfortunately don’t have much recollection of my schools teaching me anything about the Civil War in this context. My research into this topic is in its very first stages. I am going to consume as much information as I can on this subject before I write on it. Any direction you can point me?

came in a period of our history where we were expanding westward very rapidly. The issue of slavery was a very explosive arena during that period. The political arguments were over whether a new territory or state would be slave-owning or slave-free and the southern states who by virtue of a slave having a 3/5th vote gave them a definite advantage. The South maintained that states and territories (state's rights) should vote on their own preferences for owning slaves or not. As long as the number of states remained equal between slave and non-slave, it gave the South a decided advantage in elections because of the 3/5th votes of their slaves. So that issue is where the tensions really escalated.

an American History course at our local Community College and it covers this subject very thoroughly. I read the whole book...I really like history...I will see if he still has it and get back to you with the info.

Thank you very much Norman ! ! !

I like the post. Nice job. Like gramps however I have to say that the civil war was only belatedly about ending slavery.

is more apropo than you think, Greg. I've been digging into the textbooks and resource lists from a Nazi Germany class I took a few months ago and I find more than a few parallels between the Aktion T-4 euthanasia program and modern pushes for abortion and "quality of life" issues.

Excellent points, Greg.

... and considering your obvious knowledge on so many topics which I am only beginning to understand, I will accept the fact that Slavery was not the primary instigator of the American Civil War. What I want to understand above all else is what the primary political parties stood for then and how/why they evolved into what they are now.

I would love to go farther into the past because from what I am observing, the political parties have often been divided up (where Christians are involved) between a primarily secular party, the Democrats of today and a primarily Christian party, the Republicans of today.

I greatly hesitate to attempt to declare who can and who cannot be a Christian but, liberals declared beliefs are not in line with the teachings of Christianity. In my humble earthly opinion, you can’t be a liberal Christian.

Therefore, it looks like to me that these two primary political parties can be divided up, on the basest yet very extreme level as good vs. evil. Christians vs. secular leftist and their pet liberal Christians who seem to me to be false prophets/practitioners regardless of how well intentioned they may be. If you associate with the devil then hey, where are you headed? For a Christian, the support of abortion above all else is a deal sealer, you are killing babies.

I am fully aware that this view will raise some serious eyebrows but I have learned to call it like I see it, and that’s how I see it.

I think you raise an interesting point about liberal christian's. I suppose it depends on what kind of liberal you are.

It reminds me though of a friend of mine and a story he told me about his mother-in-law who is catholic but a raging liberal.

Her liberalism and teh ideology of it have overcome her christian teachings to the point where in one conversation with this friend she declared that she did not believ that you had to be a chirstian to get into heaven. It was of course all tied up in her no culture is better than any other culture and their is no one turth business. SHe was claiming that Islam was just as valid as Chirstianity.

Now leaving aside the fact that the two religions are mutually exclusive and it isnt possible for them to both be right since one directly contradicts the fundamental principles of the other...

My firedn focused instead on the fact that uh..if you don;t beleive in the divinity of Chirst and that he is teh way to heaven...then you aren't a Christian. It's kind of an essential component of the religion. To which she responded that it was very narrow minded of him to think so and that he didn't have the right to impose his narrow sense of christianity on her.

He pointed out that the Pope would almost certainly agree with him and she responded that she wasn;t bound by the narrow interpretations of the church.

UH HELLO ITS YOUR CHURCH?!?!

So for a liberal..their faith in their liberal ideology is all encompassing and retards their moral center and religious underpinings.