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.
Civil War is an unlikely step—The only winner Red China. Two second rate powers Would become like North and south Korea. One good thing—we would be out of the World Policeman Job/ Let China take it on. Let the world see what they could do with Xi and his CCP people’
s Army. They wouldn’t last a decade.
Well if you stopped posting lies and BS there would be no lies and BS in this thread since you hold a monopoly on spreading the lies and the BS.
And Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewisnski.
And that is irrelevant. He felt it was not about slavery.
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.
That was not a declaration of causes.
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.
The Union backed their words that it was not about slavery by offering slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Northern dominated Congress also passed a resolution explicitly saying it was not about slavery. The original 7 seceding states demonstrated that it was not about slavery by turning down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
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.
They didn't attain them by force. They attained them by MONEY. They held them by force but Africans were more than happy to sell other Africans they held as slaves.
You mean there was such an amendment that was made into law to offer to the slave holding states? Which was that?
I mean Lincoln orchestrated the writing and passage through the Congress by a 2/3rds supermajority a constitutional amendment which would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever. I mean he endorsed it in his first inaugural address. I mean he orchestrated its ratification by some Northern states.
Confederacy sympathizers. Everyone understands what that means but you.
Not every person illegally imprisoned by federal thugs was a Confederate sympathizer. Many just thought the policy of going to war to impose government rule on people who did not consent to it to be wrong. Many others simply questioned the tyrannical acts of the federal government in furtherance of this war of aggression Lincoln started.
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?
The issue wouldn't have disappeared immediately but had the original 7 seceding states been allowed to go their separate way in peace, slavery would have collapsed rather quickly in those states as their slaves poured over the border into the US which was under no obligation to return them. Nobody need to have been killed in a war to force those states back in.
Nope. Now we woke, self righteous people outsource our slave labor.
and disgusting sleazebags like Nike and Apple lobby to prevent or water down legislation to sanction evil regimes like the CCP which use slaves in the very same province where those companies have their manufacturing.
Such as slavery.
Such as the right to disagree with government policy and/or criticize politicians.
The modern South also rejects slavery. Did the Confederacy?
Did the US until very late in the war? Try as hard as you might, you cannot lay slavery at the feet of the South alone. The facts simply do not support it.
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 is no more comparable to Nazi Germany than the US of 1860 was comparable to Nazi Germany.
According to JD, his VP, and the declarations of secession among many others, it was.
According to JD, several leading Southern politicians, generals and newspapers and the rejection of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, it was not.
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.
This is what shrinks call "projection". You, who argues the Leftist position - PC revisionism...ie the "all about slavery" myth...accusing a Conservative of being the Leftist. Sure we can all agree that slavery was appalling. We all do in modern times. That said neither the US in its first 80 years nor the Confederacy were remotely comparable to Nazi Germany. The former had real elections, a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, no search and seizure without due process etc etc etc. They recognized the rights of man. Nazi Germany did not. It had only one political party, it was a dictatorship and the government was all-powerful. The individual possessed no rights that government had to respect.
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.
The "Democrats" of the time did no such thing. The country was not split over slavery nor did anybody fight to abolish it on the one hand or preserve it on the other. Both sides said so.
JD and the articles of secession said he did.
JD specifically said secession and the war were not about slavery as did several of the leading politicians and generals and newspapers in the South. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes and 3 mentioned things other than the refusal of the Northern states to respect the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution.
JD and the articles of secession said they did.
Jefferson Davis never said that.