Anon– we let your message through, though you used an improper email address. But that’s only because we thought others might have the same question.

What was the problem with the Yankee’s soul?

#12. The point is simply that Ham has been highly selective in his presentation of evidence, and this is even more obvious after seeing your additional list of groups not mentioned. He pruned the evidence in such a way as to give superficial plausibility to his anti-evolution rhetoric. When the entire list is mentioned, not only does Ham’s argument lose all its kick, but he sets himself up for the suspicion of being a dishonest man.

#13. On Lincoln, I’ll stand by the summary given here:
http://butler-harris.org/archives/85
The quote you give, no matter how worn out, is certainly sufficient to prove that Lincoln did not wage war for the purpose of abolishing slavery.

Note however that that is a quite different question as to whether “if there had not existed slavery there would still have been a Civil War.” You could also say, “if there had not existed a tariff…” or “if the North was still dominated by Christians….” etc. At SOME point, the answer will be no. But historical hypotheticals can only be speculated on. I would rather suggest there is an organic connection between all these things. That is, the Yankee’s willingness to exploit Americans in another region/susceptibility to abolitionist sophistry/abandonment of orthodox Christianity is all ONE problem, not many. It was the Yankee’s soul that was the problem, not this that or the other heresy in isolation.

Whatever Lincoln’s deep feelings about slavery were, we will perhaps never know, since he was the consummate opportunist and politician. However, I think we should certainly agree with his view, documented beyond dispute, that the Negro after emancipation should either be shipped back to Africa or, if he remains, occupy a subordinate position. I think some modern Confederates jump all over on Lincoln for this, but improperly. Yes, it shows the hypocrisy of Republican historiography, but still, Lincoln happened to be right on that point.

#14. How do you explain Lincoln waiting two years to issue it, and why did it not apply to areas (including those that never seceded) that were not “in rebellion”? See the essay referred to above for more information on this. No, if anything the Emancipation Proclamation proves that Lincoln was not a dogmatic abolitionist.

#15. Well Lee here we see your difficulty dealing with both minor and major premise in an argument.

First, I have read large sections in Mein Kampf and not come to anything about evolution or Charles Darwin, nor do I find either topic listed in the index. But I haven’t read every single page, and perhaps the index is inadequate. Nevertheless, I’m calling your bluff, or what I suspect is your bluff: please provide the page numbers and edition in which you claim to have found this discussion.

As I was flipping through the volume last night to check your point, I did find a section in which Hitler describes certain ways the Aryan is inferior, and the jew superior. I will be glad to supply you the page #s AFTER you give us the ones supporting your claim.

However, apart from the factual question, I already addressed your claim in the essay, saying “If it turns out that H believed in evolution in point of fact, would that prove Ham’s thesis? No it would not. It is the logical entailment that is wrong with Ham’s analysis.” You are not grasping the analysis of entailment. Go back and read the essay more carefully.

Brilliant.

I wish I was smart as you. This philosophy degree is kicking my butt.