Nope. The lies are yours. Entirely.
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted dozens of times already because I have literally nothing else.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
5.
4
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted dozens of times already because I have literally nothing else.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
In your last post you said, and I quote, "You've posted one quote from Davis 2 years before secession talking about slavery." Now you're accusing me of regurgitating previous posts. If you're going to lie about what I said, can you at least be consistant?
I've been entirely consistent. You keep posting the same single speech. Nowhere in that speech 2 years before Secession did Davis say secession was "about" slavery. Nowhere in that speech did he say the war was "about" slavery. You'd think you could figure that point out because......HELLO!!!! It was years before secession or the war happened. But you keep posting it thinking it somehow "proves" your point. It of course, does no such thing.
I don't care what JD and Confederate sympathizers said about how secession wasn't about slavery, because they said on numerous ocasions that it was, and their actions backed the fact that it was about slavery.
I don't care about your PC Revisionist propaganda that secession was "about" slavery. Davis and many others said it was not on numerous occasions and their actions backed up the fact that it was not about slavery. Namely, they turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
From Georgia:
blah blah blah
None of this has anything to do with economics or legalities, so there was no reason to add them unless they believed it.
I've already told you numerous times they listed the Northern states' violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution and them trying to claim all the western territories for themselves for economic reason AND for votes in the US Senate when those territories became states. They also listed the economic causes in their "train of abuses" in the style of the Declaration of Independence.
I never minimized it. On the contrary, I said everyone in the North wasn't the good guys. I condemned it as I condemn the free traitors who got us hooked on Chicom slave labor now, but the fact is that Lincoln had to work with these states to get things done.
You cannot seriously claim the Southern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war somehow "proves" that the war was "about" slavery while dismissing the Northern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war.
No, but combining that with their comments defending slavery is all the evidence any jury would need to convict.
Combining with the fact that slavery was not threatened in the US AND the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment which was offered by the Northern states AND their comments indicating neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery is all the evidence a reasonable person would need to conclude that neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
You're the one making assumptions. You're assuming the Corwin Amendment could have been anything but the failed last ditch effort that it was. I'm just pointing out that we can't assume there would have only been 50 states if the slave holding states hadn't seceded.
I take the Corwin Amendment for what it was - a serious offer to induce the original 7 seceding states back into the Union by means of explicitly ensuring the protection of slavery effectively forever. Its very far fetched to assume there would be 10 more states than there actually are today solely to have enough states to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery. It could have been banned but it would have had to be with the consent of the 15 states that still had it - that means a generous compensated emancipation program of the kind other countries used to get rid of slavery would have had to be adopted.
But it wasn't passed, and slavery couldn't have been abolished without enough states voting to ratify the 13th Amendment anyway. It was nothing.
It was explicit protection of slavery. As such it is very clear that there was no intent on the part of the Northern states or the Republican party at the time to abolish slavery. Consequently even the original 7 seceding states could not have been seceding to protect something that was not threatened anyway.
Everything I've posted comes from the Democrat run Confederacy itself.
You're making PC Revisionist arguments....the kind of arguments one did not see until Leftist PCers in Academia started pushing this narrative in the 1980s.
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted dozens of times already because I have literally nothing else.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
No, "no reply needed", as in if you want to make the point that the Holocaust wasn't an act of war against the Jewish people, then I'll let the readers decide. If you're not a lefty trying to make the right look bad, then I'm sure you can see how appalling that is to others. Of course, as a leftist impersonating a Conservative, that's your goal anyway, isn't it?
It isn't an act of war against the Jewish people. One cannot commit an act of war against a people. Acts of war can only be committed against countries. The fact that they do not fit the definition of "act of war" which has a very specific meaning does not mean they were not atrocities. Of course, you're an ignoramus impersonating a Conservative so I'm not surprised you cannot grasp this.
Your only solid example was a Confederacy sympathizer which I answered below. The treatment of Confederacy sympathizers was no worse that the treatment escaped slaves who were recaptured got from the Confederacy they sympathized with.
What you're calling "confederacy sympathizers" were American citizens. Citizens of Northern states to be precise. Last I checked, individuals were supposed to have their god given rights protected from government abuse under the constitution.
Pointing to Biden doesn't prove anything about Lincoln.
Lincoln was a tyrant.
Once again you can't get your story straight. In your previous post you posted excerpts from their "MSM" defending the Confederacy against claims that secession was about preserving slavery. Now you're saying the exact opposite. Which is it?
Strawman alert! I never posted that several of the most prominent newspapers in the Southern states did not say secession and the war were about economics. They did say that. They also criticized Davis harshly for his conduct of the war.
The credibility of the source is fair game, especially after you used a leftist who is trying to tie slavery to the modern right to make your point in previous posts. Neither Lew Rockwell nor Thomas DiLorenzo are FR Conservatives, but they both reject socialism so they have that going for them. Of course, the only qualification they need is that they say what the Confederacy amen corner wants to hear.
I'm hardly a cheerleader for PC Revisionists like McPherson. Quite the opposite actually. Rockwell and DiLorenzo and many others recognize that the narratives pushed by the Leftist PC Revisionists.....ie the all about slavery myth, are false.
However, not everyone is impressed with Thomas DiLorenzo's work. Here is a counterpoint.
Yeah, Neocons and PC Revisionists.
He left out that Francis Key Howard was a Confederacy sympathizer, which I pointed out in my previous post. That's no different than being a Nazi sympathizer in 1941. He did mention that many were Democrats but left out that many were Confederate sympathizers.,/p>
roll eyes. Here we go again. No its radically different from being a Nazi in 1941 or at any time. What Francis Key Howard was criticizing was the UNCONSTITUTIONAL suspension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln when he ordered the arrest of Maryland Legislators without charge or trial while the courts were functioning and could have tried any charge brought against them. That is tyranny plain and simple.
BTW, 38,000 was just the max estimate.
Oh gee. Is that all? The union only controlled an area with a population of about 22-23 million. The US population is roughly 15 times the size today. Imagine a president today ordering jackbooted federal thugs to just lock up 570.000 Americans without any charge and without trial. That would be equivalent. We would rightly call any president doing that a tyrant.
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted dozens of times already because I have literally nothing else.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
Thanks, but I don't want them.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The first three paragraphs in his speech, although taken altogether the entire speech ties secession to abolition.
I've snipped the repeats.
4
5 "states issued declarations of causes", your words. Maybe you meant only 4 cited slavery, not that I agree with that either.
I've already told you numerous times...
I don't care what you told me, or what Rockwell and DiLorenzo have to say. JD, his VP, the declarations of secession, and many others said it was about preserving slavery, and their actions prove they meant it. None of their poor attempts at PR to walk it back will change that.
You cannot seriously claim the Southern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war somehow "proves" that the war was "about" slavery while dismissing the Northern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war.
I don't dismiss it, nor do I excuse it. I admit that this was an injustice, but Lincoln had to deal with them to keep the Union together. Frederick Douglas understood and acknowledged it.
Once they had the votes they needed, they passed abolition, and the states including some former slave holding states ratified it.
Combining with the fact that slavery was not threatened in the US
According to JD and the declarations of secession it was.
AND the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
Which they already had until the 13th Amendment was passed.
which was offered by the Northern states
Who never ratified it, and many who voted to pass it were out of work the following year.
AND their comments indicating neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery is all the evidence a reasonable person would need to conclude that neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
Do I really need to spam you with all of the comments saying it was about slavery again?
I take the Corwin Amendment for what it was
You take it for what you want to pretend it was. I take it for what it was - NOTHING.
You're making PC Revisionist arguments....the kind of arguments one did not see until Leftist PCers in Academia started pushing this narrative in the 1980s.
The declarations of secession and JD's speech weren't written in the 1980s.
It isn't an act of war against the Jewish people. One cannot commit an act of war against a people. Acts of war can only be committed against countries. The fact that they do not fit the definition of "act of war" which has a very specific meaning does not mean they were not atrocities. Of course, you're an ignoramus impersonating a Conservative so I'm not surprised you cannot grasp this.
How many Conservatives still following this topic agree with this?
What you're calling "confederacy sympathizers" were American citizens.
So were the KKK and some Nazi sympathizers.
Last I checked, individuals were supposed to have their god given rights protected from government abuse under the constitution.
You mean those rights that the Confederacy sympathizers wanted to claim for themselves but denied to the slaves who escaped from the slavery in the Confederacy they sympathized with?
Lincoln was a tyrant.
So was Trump, if you believe the Democrats.
Strawman alert! I never posted that several of the most prominent newspapers in the Southern states did not say secession and the war were about economics. They did say that. They also criticized Davis harshly for his conduct of the war.
So what? After watching our biased media lie through their teeth about everything, why should I believe the Confederacy's media was any less biased back then?
I'm hardly a cheerleader for PC Revisionists like McPherson.
It almost seems as if you are McPherson. You're both trying to tie slavery to the modern right. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly through the Confederacy. Most consider the Confederacy synonymous with slavery, so the result would be the same.
No its radically different from being a Nazi in 1941 or at any time.
I was speaking in the context about what was known about Nazi Germany in 1941, which was bad enough.
Oh gee. Is (38,000) all? The union only controlled an area with a population of about 22-23 million. The US population is roughly 15 times the size today. Imagine a president today ordering jackbooted federal thugs to just lock up 570.000 Americans without any charge and without trial. That would be equivalent. We would rightly call any president doing that a tyrant.
So what would we call a president who defends the enslavement of 4,000,000 humans?