“Regardless, my arguments are not in conflict . .”
This is another instance where your self-exculpatory statements do not quite settle the matter.
You have argued the South (one southern state at least) forced the other states to adopt a slavery-enshrined Constitution BUT you have argued that all the states adopted the slavery-enshrined Constitution by mutual consent.
If it was forced, then it wasn’t mutual consent.
All this, of course, ties back into the “at pleasure” superstructure of your discredited mother church.
What you should do now is to point out that you were unwittingly, and deliberately, led into a trap. You probably were.
They would if you had any respect for the truth.
jeffersondem: "You have argued the South (one southern state at least) forced the other states to adopt a slavery-enshrined Constitution BUT you have argued that all the states adopted the slavery-enshrined Constitution by mutual consent.
If it was forced, then it wasn’t mutual consent."
Politics is politics, they made a deal -- the South got slavery, the North got Union.
The Deep South wanted Union but they wanted slavery more.
The North opposed slavery, but they wanted Union more.
A future President would call that "the Art of the Deal".
jeffersondem: "All this, of course, ties back into the “at pleasure” superstructure of your discredited mother church."
"At pleasure" is an important point.
"Mother church" is pure jeffersondem fantasy.
jeffersondem: "What you should do now is to point out that you were unwittingly, and deliberately, led into a trap. You probably were."
More jeffersondem fantasy, untethered to even your own "mother ship" of Lost Cause lies.
Get a grip, FRiend.