The trouble with arguing with people who want to believe what they want to believe is that they hear what they want to hear.
That's all you. I had no input on that claim.
Not that I believe that of course, but your own words support the interpretation that the Civil War was fought over slavery.
The North did not invade to stamp out slavery. They invaded to stamp out independence. Therefore the war was over independence, not slavery. Do you not remember me showing you the Corwin Amendment which is the Northern Republicans handing the South slavery on a silver platter? Did you forget about that?
If you have some copies of orders that show the Military was instructed to stamp out slavery when they initially invaded, I'm perfectly willing to accept your claim that Northern Armies invaded because of slavery.
The absolute truth is that the Northern Armies which invaded had no intention of changing the slavery situation at all.
“ The trouble with arguing with people who want to believe what they want to believe is that they hear what they want to hear.”
I agree and despite the fact that this describes you perfectly, I intend to keep this going as long as you want.
“ The North did not invade to stamp out slavery. They invaded to stamp out independence.”
That’s obvious and hardly in dispute. The bone of contention is your refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that the Southern states of the Confederacy sought independence in order to preserve slavery slavery and their concept of white supremacy as a cultural lifestyle.
“ If you have some copies of orders that show the Military was instructed to stamp out slavery when they initially invaded, I’m perfectly willing to accept your claim that Northern Armies invaded because of slavery.”
Strawman argument, since I never made such a claim. Can you feel the ground shifting under your feet as your position weakens?