Sorry, DiogenesLamp, I am not going to engage in a purely emotional discussion with you.
I don’t appreciate your inference that i am dishonest because I don;t see it the same way you do.
And that's him being cordial ;')
Why that is demonstrably untrue. When one starts the conversation using the emotional club of slavery, one has already engaged in an emotional discussion. I asked you about ex post facto, because it is not emotional. It is a well understood concept in history and law.
What you are trying to do, is ex post facto justify an invasion that had no intention of abolishing slavery, with the four year later consequence of slavery being abolished.
It is dishonest, and it is completely emotional.
I don’t appreciate your inference that i am dishonest because I don;t see it the same way you do.
You are dishonest for just the reasons I have named. You are trying to justify what someone did after the fact, because what they did which you agree with, was not done prior to the fact of the war. It was long long after the war had been going on that they tacked on that little "purpose" of the war.
And you accept it unquestioning because this is the history you have been taught. H3ll, it was the History I was taught as well, but I learned better as I went through life.