You can stop posting lies and BS. Its easy.
I know they tried to put a pretty face on the Confederacy, but he, his VP, the declarations of secession, and many others said it was about slavery. They were even hestitant to allow blacks to enlist because it would show that "our whole theory of slavery is wrong", their words, in 1865.
He specifically said secession and the war were not about slavery. He said so many times. So did several other Southern political and military leaders as well as leading newspapers. And of course the original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
5. Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
Virginia did not issue a declaration of causes. If you want to argue otherwise, provide the link to Virginia's Declaration of the causes of secession.
No, because it would be a waste of FR bandwidth. I have their statements that it was about slavery and their actions backing that up. Their poor attempts at PR are meaningless.
You mean it would be a waste of bandwidth to show you once again their statements that it was not about slavery and their actions backing that up. The poor attempts by Union propagandists and PC Revisionists are meaningless.
I know, but if those tribes considered themselves sovereign entities then the term act of war applies, regardless of any proxies used to get them.
If those tribes themselves considered themselves to be sovereign entities. So a tribe can declare itself sovereign but not a state? Also you do realize that European and American slave traders did not show up and go into the jungle to capture Africans to enslave them right? That would not have been economical. No. They BOUGHT THEM from their BLACK AFRICAN slavemasters who were quite happy to sell them.
Like the constitutional right to own slaves?
Lincoln didn't interfere with that one. In fact he was supported a constitutional amendment that would have expressly protected slavery forever.
One of them assassinated President Lincoln. Why? Because Lincoln called for equality for blacks.
Firstly John Wilkes Booth was an individual. The 38,000 or so American Citizens imprisoned in federal gulags without charge or trial for disagreeing with government policy were unique individuals who bear no responsibility for Booth's actions. Secondly, Booth's big failing was in waiting too long to kill the tyrant. He might've saved many lives had he killed Lincoln years earlier.
I see. Make slavery legal and it's legal, so there.
Nobody considered slaves or Indians for that matter to be citizens at that time. The mid 19th century was not the 21st century. People in the past did not have the same views we do today.
Like the legal right to own slaves?
Like the right to disagree with government policy and/or criticize politicians.
According to you, they were critical of his handling of the war, not of slavery.
according to anybody who has bothered to read them.
You're trying to tie the Confederacy to the modern right. In most people's eyes, that is synonymous with slavery.
I'm not tying the Confederacy specifically to the modern right. I DO note that the South is the heart of the modern conservative movement. I also note that the South's longstanding support of decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets lie at the heart of conservatism. The Confederacy is only synonymous with slavery to complete ignoramuses.
There was a big difference, in that the Confederacy was formed in part to preserve slavery. They said so themselves.
The Confederacy was not formed to preserve slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US. If anybody thought it was, the North was only too happy to offer protection of slavery effectively forever by explicit constitutional amendment. The original 7 seceding states turned down that offer.
Um, slavery.
ummmm the US had slavery for 80 years. Does that make the US from the time of its founding until 1866 akind to Nazi Germany in your view?
That was a good answer, but slavery was protected by the Constitution (although I'm not sure how) so they couldn't have abolished it by themselves even if they had intended to.
They presided over a country that had slavery. Until very late in the war, Lincoln like the other 15 before him showed no inclination to abolish slavery.
That was until Lincoln and the Republicans got enough votes to pass abolition in 1865, just nine years after they said they would, and the states ratified it.
Neither Lincoln nor the Republicans campaigned on nor supported abolition. In fact they condemned it publicly and repeatedly until very late in the war. They even supported protection of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
Then how would everyone know which of your points I'm replying to?
He specifically said secession and the war were not about slavery. He said so many times. So did several other Southern political and military leaders as well as leading newspapers. And of course the original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
And Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewisnski.
Virginia did not issue a declaration of causes. If you want to argue otherwise, provide the link to Virginia's Declaration of the causes of secession.
I posted the link last time. I'm not playing this stupid game with you. If you don't read it, anyone who is still following this thread can.
You mean it would be a waste of bandwidth to show you once again their statements that it was not about slavery and their actions backing that up. The poor attempts by Union propagandists and PC Revisionists are meaningless.
The Union and the Confederacy have something in common. Both backed their words with actions. The Union backed their words that it was about abolishing slavery by doing it, and the Confederacy backed their words that it was about preserving slavery by defending it.
If those tribes themselves considered themselves to be sovereign entities. So a tribe can declare itself sovereign but not a state? Also you do realize that European and American slave traders did not show up and go into the jungle to capture Africans to enslave them right? That would not have been economical. No. They BOUGHT THEM from their BLACK AFRICAN slavemasters who were quite happy to sell them.
I don't care what proxies they used to get those slaves. What's important is they attained them by force, whether by their own or through proxies.
Lincoln didn't interfere with that one.
The importation of slaves was illegal by then, although it still happened illegally as you're so fond of pointing out.
In fact he was supported a constitutional amendment that would have expressly protected slavery forever.
You mean there was such an amendment that was made into law to offer to the slave holding states? Which was that?
Firstly John Wilkes Booth was an individual. The 38,000 or so American Citizens imprisoned in federal gulags without charge or trial for disagreeing with government policy were unique individuals who bear no responsibility for Booth's actions.
Confederacy sympathizers. Everyone understands what that means but you.
Secondly, Booth's big failing was in waiting too long to kill the tyrant. He might've saved many lives had he killed Lincoln years earlier.
Let's just ignore the fact that the slave holding states were on the wrong side of history on this issue. Nothing would have happened if Lincoln had been assassinated, because all of those issues would have evaporated. Is that your point?
Nobody considered slaves or Indians for that matter to be citizens at that time. The mid 19th century was not the 21st century. People in the past did not have the same views we do today.
Nope. Now we woke, self righteous people outsource our slave labor.
Like the right to disagree with government policy and/or criticize politicians.
Such as slavery.
I'm not tying the Confederacy specifically to the modern right. I DO note that the South is the heart of the modern conservative movement. I also note that the South's longstanding support of decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets lie at the heart of conservatism.
The modern South also rejects slavery. Did the Confederacy?
The Confederacy is only synonymous with slavery to complete ignoramuses.
The Confederacy is not synonymous with the modern South any more than the Nazis are synonymous with modern Germany, except for those who choose it to be so.
The Confederacy was not formed to preserve slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US.
According to JD, his VP, and the declarations of secession among many others, it was.
Repeat of Corbomite Maneuver snipped.
ummmm the US had slavery for 80 years. Does that make the US from the time of its founding until 1866 akind to Nazi Germany in your view?
With the full understanding that I'm debating a liberal posing as a conservative, it doesn't have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to be wrong or appalling.
The Democrats split the country over slavery and were willing to fight a war to preserve it. They said as much. Fortunately most Republicans stood their ground and slavery was abolished.
They presided over a country that had slavery. Until very late in the war, Lincoln like the other 15 before him showed no inclination to abolish slavery.
JD and the articles of secession said he did.
Neither Lincoln nor the Republicans campaigned on nor supported abolition. In fact they condemned it publicly and repeatedly until very late in the war.
JD and the articles of secession said they did.
Another repeat of Corbomite Maneuver snipped.