Replies

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

By your reasoning, I can read what was said in 1990, and can tell you that the first Gulf war was all about oil. It's not the best analogy, since more than 5% of Americans who fought drove cars at the onset of our invasion.

Not necessarily, especially if many people in Mass professed pro-life sentiment and still chose to pick up a rifle to defend their home. Of course, the argument hinges on the absurd notion that the declarations mention only slavery, which is false.

implied, implied, implied, did so, did so, did so.

Then post where I did. American bashing? Cite it. Until then, you haven't the right.

You guys hate people for the silliest of reasons

Now I hate people? Boy, you sure can take something and run with it, no?