No. Stick with what YOU introduced. Prove to me and everyone else that slaves were the ONLY property he was referring to. Hell, prove that slaves were even PART of what he was referring to. I am not chasing YOUR stupid rabbit. It’s your quoted material. YOU prove that it means what the ADDED word makes it mean or drop it.
“I’m not aware of any made prior to or during the rebellion. You got any quotes from any of them?”
Nope. Don’t have to. The point stands. Common sense tells me these folks made many statements. Unless you can prove that they never said anything else in reference to the cause of the war, you can not claim that slavery was the ONLY reason, in their minds, for the war. But please, go ahead and try.
OK, so if he never said the war was about anything else then how can I provide a quote to that effect? Tell me that.
Hell, prove that slaves were even PART of what he was referring to. I am not chasing YOUR stupid rabbit. It’s your quoted material. YOU prove that it means what the ADDED word makes it mean or drop it.
Sure you are. Otherwise you wouldn't be off on one of your mouth foaming rants. But scholarship isn't just a Northern tactic. You could provide your own quotes showing other points of view. Toombs and others blathered on about tariffs and such, even though evidence indicates the South actually imported little and paid less in tariffs. Go ahead and trot them out.
Nope. Don’t have to.
You mean, "Nope. Don't know any" don't you?
Exactly. NS has cherry picked a few quotes much in the same way that the left wing cherry picked a few generals that were against the Iraq War and somehow tried to convince the public that that was the consensus at the Pentagon.