I could tell that immediately by the lack of paragraphs - a true mark of creative genius.
Like I said, when two nut cases find each other it can be a beautiful thing.
It exactly corresponds with what I have realized after three years of researching the social and financial dynamics involved prior to the civil war.
No, it's the same BS that's been circulating for years. They turn that garbage out by the yard on some websites today.
Slavery was a real issue, and the one that tore the country apart. Northern hatred for the South was not universal in 1860, and it was fully matched by Southern hatred for the North. Southern contempt for New Englanders may have been stronger than any feelings Northerners had about the South.
Form is nice, but substance is the thing of value.
Slavery was a real issue, and the one that tore the country apart.
Did you miss the discussion that indicated Lincoln was quite possibly the major player behind the Corwin amendment?
I suspect slavery then is like "Transgender rights" now. The existing mouth pieces constantly spew about it, and the easily manipulated bottom half of the population intelligence spectrum, gobbles it all up and regurgitates it.
Now this sh*t is everywhere, and all the major corporate players are demanding everyone recognize and support transgenderism and oppose "toxic masculinity."
Was the slavery issue astroturfed? I'm pretty sure some of it was, but the signal is often difficult to pry out of the noise.
Why did slavery become the issue that caused a war if the US had been a slave holding republic from the founding? What possible real problem for someone in Michigan would be slave holding in Mississippi, you note I write real problem. Not one generated by an overactive psyche and a lot of slavery screaming preachers.