Replies

LOL Or we could just read what the secessionists said in the official record, and they said clearly that secession was for slavery.

Some do, some don't, but your need for absolutes seems to drive your posts.

You said that blacks weren't universally against it. That implies it wasn't so bad, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. People aren't universally against abortion, yet no greater holocost against the innocent was ever carried out as the abortion industry in modern-day America. I stated a fact... you drew a conclusion.

Im not. (putting words in your mouth)

You've stated that I:

1. Said slavery was OK.
2. Bashed America.
3. claimed Lincoln only fought for money.
4. blacks were better off as slaves.

None of these can be found in any of my posts.

You went on a rant about things being shredded or whatever

Hamilton's vision for America was shredded... For this, if anything, I love our country more. A claim that dislike for Hamiltonian nationalism is "America bashing" (to use familiar words you can relate to) is beyond the pail, tinfoil hat material.

You added power, which is the same as money

Today moreso than in 1860. Lincoln was not 'rich,' yet proved himself as powerful as any man in his time.

By only telling one side of the story, implications were made.

If you think so, then by all means, tell the other side of the story; just don't lie about what I said thinking that it's helping you.

I don't think I'm out of line in saying that slavery was a bad thing for blacks,

Slavery was a bad thing for blacks, as it was for whites... as it was for Southerners... as it was for Yankees... as it was for immigrants... as it was for (need I continue)??? Your obsession with it as the single cause of secession, however, is factually incorrect; not to mention beyond the pale, tinfoil hat material.

Some do, some don't, but your need for absolutes seems to drive your posts.

I can read what was said at the time and southerners did indeed secede for slavery. It's why they hated Lincoln so and thay said so in the Declarations.

If the Massachusettes legislatured commissioned a Declaration to declare their secession for the perpetuity of abortion, would you say that anyone who pledged to fight for that cause wasn't a supporter of abortion, but for something someone might make up 140 years down the road?

Im not. (putting words in your mouth) You've stated that I: 1. Said slavery was OK.

I said you implied.

2. Bashed America.

You did.

3. claimed Lincoln only fought for money.

You did.

4. blacks were better off as slaves.

I said you implied it.

None of these can be found in any of my posts.

Your implications are certainly there.

You guys hate people for the silliest of reasons, it's hard to know who you are for and who you are against.

Today moreso than in 1860. Lincoln was not 'rich,' yet proved himself as powerful as any man in his time.

If all he wanted was money and power, he would've stayed a Whig or became a Democrat. You're delusional in saying that money (which is power) was his only motivation.

If you think so, then by all means, tell the other side of the story; just don't lie about what I said thinking that it's helping you.

I didn't lie. I said you have been implying things, and you have.

Slavery was a bad thing for blacks, as it was for whites... as it was for Southerners... as it was for Yankees... as it was for immigrants... as it was for (need I continue)??? Your obsession with it as the single cause of secession, however, is factually incorrect; not to mention beyond the pale, tinfoil hat material.

The Declarations state that slavery was the cause for secession. It's the official record by the actual entities that drove secession. You just can't dismiss their words and revise history.