No, they don't. They amplify it. You, on the other hand, lie.
The creation of a southern republic was intended, largely, to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. Those who would deny that simple truth are not unlike those who deny the truth about the European Holocaust of the 1930s-40s.
You repeat the charge without showing the evidence, by equating Southerners with Nazis and neo-Nazis. I challenge your veracity yet again. Show me that Southerners murdered blacks in the millions. Show me the numbers. Show me the inquests, the warrants. Show me, liar.
BIG LIE #1 "You repeat the charge without showing any evidence." I have provided plenty of evidence that the protection and expansion of slavery was a primary Southern motivation for secession. On this thread, other active threads, and many long inactive threads, I have provided quotations from the southern leadership which show conclusively the link between slavery and secession.
You choose to deny the truth.
BIG LIE #2 "[You equate] Southerners with Nazis and neo-Nazis." Good propaganda technique. When you can't refute the truth, pervert the statements of the messenger. Goebbels would be proud of you.
The statement I made was that people who deny the fundamental truth of the slavery-secession link are not unlike those who deny the European Holocaust. The comparison was between those who deny obvious truth - and to go to great lengths to do so. It was not a comparison between southerners and nazis. That is your perverted interpretation. Similarly, in the paragraph above I compare your technique to that of Goebbels. Am I calling you a nazi? No. I am pointing out how your perversions are similar to the type Goebbels used on a regular basis.
BIG LIE #3 - "You, on the other hand, lie." Another knowing misrepresentation. Repeatedly calling another a liar is classic "Big Lie" technique. The best antidote is to continually post the truth of the matter and to put as much sunshine on the issue as possible. For every misrepresentation you make, I will shine the big bright light of truth on it. Dan Rather understands the concept, now.
It is one thing to differ on policy or interpretation, and debate the relative merits. It is another thing to engage in character assassination. You are getting to be as bad as some of the droolers.