I said no such thing. (Though to be fair I’m not entirely sure what you’re asserting here...) To suggest the CSA would have never freed the slaves betrays deep ignorance of world history.
They didn’t go to war to see the end of slavery and the profits it’s labor bought to the South.
Fine, but history proves it wouldn’t have continued to be profitable. Brazil abolished slavery when it became cheaper to employ European immigrants instead. The CSA undoubtedly would have done the same.
I didn’t insult you.
Could have fooled me, though I wasn’t offended... your use of the term “Lost Causer” doesn’t make it sound as though it’s a good thing; you do frame it in the form of an personal insult—literally an ad hominem argument—and you shouldn’t do that if you really want your argument to be taken seriously. To be fair to you, some quick Googling about it does show that my feelings about the Late Unpleasantness are close enough to theirs that you could suggest I’m at least sympathetic to them.
I simply and prosaically said your argument is false. I’ve been on this web site for years refuting people who have your convoluted arguments.
You do your position no favors, because you fail to prove what you assert. I was serious when I said your argument is based on a half-truth because it is oversimplified, and I’ve not even been the only one in this thread to do so.
When it comes to slavery being the major cause and secession to protect slavery being the proximate cause of the war, I agree with you. When it comes to slavery being evil, I agree with you. However, I cannot agree that it was the sole cause of the war. Very little in human life is so black-and-white—history and the figures in it make up a complex painting done in shades of gray.