Replies

No, but it has become the key to understanding just how full of cr@p you are. Your persistent refusal to back up your claim with a simple link speaks for itself

(Sigh)

- When Roosevelt writes that the Hardford delegates' resolutions were written "as to justify seceding, or not seceding, as events (Madison's response to their concessions) turned out", contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When Congressmen and statesmen repeatedly plead the case to let the South leave peacefully and avoid war, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When there was no legal ruling DELEGATING the right to leave the contract of the Constitution to the common governemnt, but the opposite DID exist - written ratifications and a 10th Amendment reserving the right to the States (or the people of the States of you will), contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When we've all provided countless names, links, books, etc. to support our claims, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

How does that make ME "full of" anything? Because I've tired of providing links for you to ignore? Because the number of Northerners who cried for piece even if it meant disunion doesn't meet your ever-changing quota (we've established 3, 10 and 36 are all too small, even though 3 was your magic number)? Because I've met your "challenges" to provide sources too many times already, only for you to repeatedly ignore them and deflect to a new subject?

You comically like to focus on topics what you won't research yourself (despite providing enough information to find the PDF on google like I did), topics also COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion since you've ignored every other point presented. How does this conversation pivot on whether or not I hand your YET ANOTHER free piece of research you claim doesn't matter anyway? Guess what, it doesn't. You'll dismiss it, since you've proven that to be to be your obtuse expertise, while blaming me for not playing your game anymore.

Well, congrats, no one here enjoys your "game" anymore. Honest Americans take their history seriously, not as a game, but you haven't matured to that point yet. If you'd like start addressing the dozens of points you've read but couldn't find anything to refute so you dismissed, then we can get back to talking like grown-ups.

Or you can go back to being "too cool" to address anything, since it is a Monday night after all and the cool kids are all too busy for the internet.

I guess you're dropping you claim that the Hartford Convention Report and Resolutions was issued years (or months) after the end of the war, huh? How many facts have you conceded so far?

- When Roosevelt writes that the Hardford delegates' resolutions were written "as to justify seceding, or not seceding, as events (Madison's response to their concessions) turned out", contrary to your assertion otherwise;

Sorry, pal. A resolution justifying something that you might do in the future is not the same as legally attempting to do it. Again, you seem to have a problem telling talking about doing something from actually attempting to do it.

- When Congressmen and statesmen repeatedly plead the case to let the South leave peacefully and avoid war, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

When did I assert that there weren't people who wanted to let the south go?

- When there was no legal ruling DELEGATING the right to leave the contract of the Constitution to the common governemnt, but the opposite DID exist - written ratifications and a 10th Amendment reserving the right to the States (or the people of the States of you will), contrary to your assertion otherwise;

And yet a Supreme Court decision (issued after unilateral secession was actually attempted) found differently.

- When we've all provided countless names, links, books, etc. to support our claims, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

Still waiting for a link to that New York Times article, though.

Because I've tired of providing links for you to ignore?

I don't recall you providing a link to a single thing. Maybe you can tell me in which post on this thread you've done that.

You comically like to focus on topics what you won't research yourself (despite providing enough information to find the PDF on google like I did), topics also COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion since you've ignored every other point presented. How does this conversation pivot on whether or not I hand your YET ANOTHER free piece of research you claim doesn't matter anyway? Guess what, it doesn't. You'll dismiss it, since you've proven that to be to be your obtuse expertise, while blaming me for not playing your game anymore.

My, my. All put upon, are we? I don't blame you for getting frustrated after I've shown your facts to be wrong time after time. Give up yet on your Sumter chronology's problem?

So far, you've shown an ignorance of when the Hartford Convention issued it's report, the sequence of events around Ft. Sumter, the effect of the cotton gin on slavery, the price of slaves in the first half of the 19th Century, when the US instituted conscription, the difference between the 1792 and 1795 Militia Acts and where those two million slaves that appeared in the US between the end of the slave trade and the 1860 came from. And yet to you I'm apparently the one who isn't serious about my history.