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.
Much of what I post comes from the Confederacy itself, so I guess I have to concede that point.
He felt it was not about slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
That was not a declaration of causes.
Here it is again. The readers can decide for themselves.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
The Union backed their words that it was not about slavery by offering slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Union then warned the South that if they attacked, an equal force would be hurled against them destroying them, and that since the Corwin Amendment had been implemented, no attacker has ever survived the attack.
That's as close to reality as your Corwin Amendment. At least the Corbomite Maneuver made money for its writers. The Corwin Amendment did nothing but give you a talking point.
Repeats snipped.
They didn't attain them by force.
Yes they did, through proxies.
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.
Pointing out what would have happened if doesn't prove anything. As JD and others said, the Confederacy saw having slaves as a right and weren't going to give them up without a fight. Just like the Democrats with their entitlement attitude of today.
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.
Lies like this are why I call you a liar. I have acknowlwdged several times that some states in the Union still had slaves and everyone in the North wasn't onboard with abolition, and Lincoln had to work with them.
The Confederacy is no more comparable to Nazi Germany than the US of 1860 was comparable to Nazi Germany.
Except the Confederacy was formed to preserve the slave labor they thought they were entitled to. The union had slave states, but their goal as a nation wasn't to preserve slavery, as shown by their refusal to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver even thought it meant secession and war.
This is what shrinks call "projection". You, who argues the Leftist position - PC revisionism...ie the "all about slavery" myth...
All of my sources are from before the PC revisionism you say happened in the 1980s.
accusing a Conservative of being the Leftist. Sure we can all agree that slavery was appalling. We all do in modern times.
Many said so then too, and several nations had already abolished it. In this environment, the Confederacy was formed to preserve it. They said so several times.
That said neither the US in its first 80 years nor the Confederacy were remotely comparable to Nazi Germany.
Do you have to be comparable to Nazi Germany to be wrong?
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.
Unless you were born a slave.
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.
Both sides also said the opposite, so we must base our conclusions on what happened.
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.
They also said it was.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
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.
IOW, it was about preserving slavery. Are you serious?
Jefferson Davis never said that.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858