“Actually it was the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88.”
Which wouldn’t have been ratified at all had it excluded slavery...which makes your point, well, pointless.
“’Actually it was the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88.’
‘Which wouldn’t have been ratified at all had it excluded slavery...which makes your point, well, pointless.’”
Huh? what does slavery have to do with anything? This is what Zionist Conspirator was responding to:
“it was Lincoln and the defeat of the Confederacy that put us on the nationalist path that has given us Obama and ObamaCare.”
And, to be sure, it’s hard to argue that the creation of the national government didn’t put us on the nationalist path more than the Civil War. Firstly, there wouldn’t have been a war without there being a national government. Secondly, Lincoln and the other nationalists were of a ming to assert the supremacy of the national government without the Civil War giving them inspiration. They thought that up all by themselves, so accustomed were they to the preeminence of the America as the U.S.
“Actually it was the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88.”
Which wouldn’t have been ratified at all had it excluded slavery...
True that.
which makes your point, well, pointless.
Not really. If the slaveholders had merely been content to practice their lifestyle in their own states and not been engaged in a conspiracy to impose it on the rest of the nation against its consent the Republican party would never have arisen. And if they had remained in the Union instead of seceding because they realized they weren't going to get away with it any more there would never have been a Civil War.
Too few people recall that many abolitionists were all for the South seceding. The Republican ideology was nonexention, not abolition.