Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2023 12:53:45 GMT
I find it amazing that anyone would be stupid enough to believe that the wealth of the one percenters was a motivation to the hundreds of thousands of Southerners made poor and marginalized by that "free labor". The vast majority of Southerners had no stake in slavery and never would. Slaves were valued in the ten of thousands and even over a hundred thousand dollars EACH in today's dollars. No one is denying that many of the elitists fought for slavery, just as industrialists today want war to line their pockets.
Sort of like how it currently is? How the greatest part of the US military isn't the officer corps, but the lowly foot soldier? Those couple million soldiers who are not members of the one percent of US society in any way? Like the several hundred thousand who are currently serving solely because they could find no jobs or educational opportunities where they live? Do you not understand that the soldiers now, as then, did what they were told to do? And that the top echelons of the military work FOR the civilian leaders of the nation? And that in very many cases those civilians leaders ARE beholden to the influence of the one percenters? Same as it ever was. Indeed, WWI was the result of twenty years of manipulation of the people by both the German and the French leaders. There are tons of archives (tracts, newspaper articles...) to prove it. And WWII was just the result of a very badly resolved WWI also by those leaders who planted the seed of discontent and then let things degenerate to the point that made a second war almost inevitable.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 19, 2023 13:04:49 GMT
To be a Cultist of the Northern Lies, you have to disregard logic, common sense, human nature and the actual historical record. That's why these zealots have to hide behind the consensus of historians who have as little evidence of slavery as the cause as do these "Righteous Myth" fanatics that are triggered by the word slavery.
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. - William Penn
The South was right, as am I. Slavery was not the cause, nor would men fight, starve and die to defend it. It's a stupid dismissal of our own human nature to assume that slavery was the cause.
You've provided no rational evidence nor an objective evaluation of history while I have provided both. For a guy who claims to have the "consensus" at his back, you've provided little to nothing from this cabal of historians that you worship.
This is forever the tactic of these leftists....no evidence, just a claim that it's "settled" because the mob says so. And we're branded as heretics for daring to speak the uncomfortable truth.
I don't give a sh*t if this goes a thousand pages, I will not tolerate the Northern lies to go unchallenged.
It's the actual historical record that demonstrates slavery was the cause of secession. Lost Causers will find any excuse to disregard that record so they can pretend slavery wasn't the cause, even when it's right before their eyes. That's what makes them look so foolish. Maybe Penn meant that slavery was a-okay, even if some of his co-religionists thought otherwise. Penn was a slaver owner himself, though with a modest number of human possessions. Look at the documents and the timeline, it's right there. You just don't want to see it. That's not the fault of Civil War historians, it's yours. The things you've provided are weak and unconvincing, just the usual Lost Cause junk repeated over and over again and convincing no one. Read the books if you want, or don't. You don't like the conclusions of the Civil War historians so they become a "mob" in your imagination. More wingnuttery and hyperbole. No one has called you a "heretic." That's just more of the Lost Cause martyrdom mentality. Whining endlessly is part of the theme. And yet you can't provide anything in this "actual historical record" beyond three measly political documents created by a handful of elitists. I've studied the record for decades, particularly the alleged reasons and justifications for secession and war and the facts contradict your brainwashing.
I've shown you clearly that secession and war were damaging to all of the South's demands and desires relating to slavery. Across the board, the ACTIONS of Southerners show that slavery was not the cause and those actions contradict the fiery hyperbole in three political screeds published by Southern elitists.
Stop hiding behind your hoard of historians as an excuse for not providing any of the facts that you claim that they have. That's intellectually lazy, although as a liberal, we assumed that exercising your brain is a rarity for you. Are you afraid that I would destroy any of the lame garbage that you cherry picked from these alleged "historians"? Count on it.
Your tactics are laughable, like your "let's dismiss Penn's wisdom because he was a slaveowner" schtick. You're as full of fallacies and not much credibility. I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think. If anything has been proven definitively on this thread, it's that you're definitely not a thinker.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on May 19, 2023 20:18:54 GMT
When was this loss? We're still waiting to see it. Ever wonder why your rebel buddies don't get involved? When your blowhole opens, you lose. Didn't someone send you that memo? What "rebel buddies" do you think I have here? We're not exactly overflowing with members here, just as we don't have a flock of idiots from Maine, just one. No, there is a whole bunch of trump supporters.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 19, 2023 20:39:40 GMT
Yes. Hopefully there will be some indictments in GA soon. I found it typical of Republican bullshit that after the GA election was declared to be secure, GA passed or tried to pass a bunch of shit to make voting more difficult. It's almost as if they were pissed off about losing. Also, I wasn't trying to be an ass about the GA/FL thing - just Hard to see how Trump wouldn't be indicted, but with Donny one never knows for sure. We'll see. Changing election laws and using them in an attempt to disenfranchise likely Dem voters is a go to strategy for many in the GOP when they lose elections. No problemo. No one's perfecto.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 19, 2023 21:07:08 GMT
And yet you can't provide anything in this "actual historical record" beyond three measly political documents created by a handful of elitists. I've studied the record for decades, particularly the alleged reasons and justifications for secession and war and the facts contradict your brainwashing.
I've shown you clearly that secession and war were damaging to all of the South's demands and desires relating to slavery. Across the board, the ACTIONS of Southerners show that slavery was not the cause and those actions contradict the fiery hyperbole in three political screeds published by Southern elitists.
Stop hiding behind your hoard of historians as an excuse for not providing any of the facts that you claim that they have. That's intellectually lazy, although as a liberal, we assumed that exercising your brain is a rarity for you. Are you afraid that I would destroy any of the lame garbage that you cherry picked from these alleged "historians"? Count on it.
Your tactics are laughable, like your "let's dismiss Penn's wisdom because he was a slaveowner" schtick. You're as full of fallacies and not much credibility. I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think. If anything has been proven definitively on this thread, it's that you're definitely not a thinker.
If you've been studying the secession documents for decades, then you can see that slavery was the main motivating factor in secession. For whatever reason you just won't admit it. That's your problem, not mine. Of course it was a handful of elitists, a representative handful for each state. Um...... sort of like today's Congress is another handful of elitists. Sure their actions turned out to be damaging. Are you saying that they went to war knowing they would lose? But they just decided to do so for the hell of it? That's ridiculous on the face of it. As I've repeatedly said these goobers....miscalculated. That happens fairly often in military conflicts. There's nothing strange or illogical about it. Read the works of the historians. It's all there. You're mostly allergic to facts anyway, so there's not much sense in pointing them out. Once again, you're not destroying anything or winning anything. You have such a delusional bent that you think your Lost Cause second-hand junk means anything. It doesn't, except to other Lost Cause types. I don't pay much attention to people yammering on about right and wrong when those people own other human beings, even to a relatively modest degree. It kind of blows up their argument before it's even begun. The only thing you can lead me to your repetitious Lost Cause crack garbage. Don't you realize that it ain't working and never will? A new definition of a thinker--anyone who agrees with Paleoconjob. If you don't agree with his Lost Cause junk you're not a thinker. Totally delusional.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 22, 2023 14:15:18 GMT
Critical thinking=People who agree with me. How stupid your definition is. Almost as dumb as proclaiming victory all the time and believing that people are squirming due to your nonsensical "history." I'm not squirming, I'm laughing. But why haven't states passed laws to make abortion murder? If the unborn are the same as a person then abortion is murder. The reason there are no such laws is because, for whatever reasons, most people don't equate the unborn with persons. The mass killers of the 20th century killed people, not the unborn. So there are conflicting attitudes about both abortion and slavery. Big deal. There are conflicting attitudes about dozens of things. That doesn't mean they are similar. They're actual historians who look at the evidence, not wingnuts who will never accept that evidence, not because it's wrong but because they have to stick to their Lost Cause narrative no matter what. They can't accept the documents, they can't accept what the leaders said about slavery being the cause, they can't accept any objective facts about slavery because all these things ruin their crazy narrative. The Lost Cause narrative is not the invention of northern historians, it's the invention of southerners who couldn't accept defeat and came up with their own absurd alternative history. A history that very few people believe in today. And the comparison between Lincoln and George III is just as silly as the rest of your recitation. Mencken, whatever his other talents, was not a Civil War historian. Sure, southerners wanted self-determination, just as they wanted states rights; the self-determination to preserve slavery and their human possessions and the right of the states to support it. No doubt about it. I like Menken's take on some subjects, but I don't like his racism. So, how many centuries we will have to wait for this "ruination?" Yes, no empire lasts forever, but that implies a lessening of power, not "ruination." The British and French empires of the past are long gone, but they seem to be doing okay as countries. So I'm not worrying very much about this. I leave that to the Chicken Littles and their constantly falling sky. Trump called the Secretary of State of Florida asking him to find enough votes to win the state, and that was just one of his maneuvers. What other president of either party had done that before? You're as blind about Trump as you are about the Civil War. Yes, you've said. That's because most of this stuff is in your fantasy world where you always win and everybody else always loses. Reality is a different thing. Keep demonstrating you're a clueless wingnut. I'm getting a big kick out of it. Paleo does this shit every 6 months or so. He gets his ass kicked, and waddles off eventually. Once thing - Trump called the SoS of GA, not FL. Ignore this animal....he's been kicked so much that it's caused brain damage.
He's lying to you.....if I actually got my ass kicked each time, I wouldn't bring it up often, but thor misses such logical details while he's defecating on the forum.
This needs to be clear and unequivocal ....I've had debates on other forums with folks that make you boys look like pre-schoolers and I still kicked their collective asses. I'm barely breaking a sweat with pea-wits like you.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 22, 2023 14:51:18 GMT
And yet you can't provide anything in this "actual historical record" beyond three measly political documents created by a handful of elitists. I've studied the record for decades, particularly the alleged reasons and justifications for secession and war and the facts contradict your brainwashing.
I've shown you clearly that secession and war were damaging to all of the South's demands and desires relating to slavery. Across the board, the ACTIONS of Southerners show that slavery was not the cause and those actions contradict the fiery hyperbole in three political screeds published by Southern elitists.
Stop hiding behind your hoard of historians as an excuse for not providing any of the facts that you claim that they have. That's intellectually lazy, although as a liberal, we assumed that exercising your brain is a rarity for you. Are you afraid that I would destroy any of the lame garbage that you cherry picked from these alleged "historians"? Count on it.
Your tactics are laughable, like your "let's dismiss Penn's wisdom because he was a slaveowner" schtick. You're as full of fallacies and not much credibility. I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think. If anything has been proven definitively on this thread, it's that you're definitely not a thinker.
If you've been studying the secession documents for decades, then you can see that slavery was the main motivating factor in secession. For whatever reason you just won't admit it. That's your problem, not mine. Of course it was a handful of elitists, a representative handful for each state. Um...... sort of like today's Congress is another handful of elitists. Sure their actions turned out to be damaging. Are you saying that they went to war knowing they would lose? But they just decided to do so for the hell of it? That's ridiculous on the face of it. As I've repeatedly said these goobers....miscalculated. That happens fairly often in military conflicts. There's nothing strange or illogical about it. Read the works of the historians. It's all there. You're mostly allergic to facts anyway, so there's not much sense in pointing them out. Once again, you're not destroying anything or winning anything. You have such a delusional bent that you think your Lost Cause second-hand junk means anything. It doesn't, except to other Lost Cause types. I don't pay much attention to people yammering on about right and wrong when those people own other human beings, even to a relatively modest degree. It kind of blows up their argument before it's even begun. The only thing you can lead me to your repetitious Lost Cause crack garbage. Don't you realize that it ain't working and never will? A new definition of a thinker--anyone who agrees with Paleoconjob. If you don't agree with his Lost Cause junk you're not a thinker. Totally delusional. Unlike you, I actually have studied the secession documents...a rather quick study, since there were only four out of eleven seceded states, and not a single one was 100% about slavery as the cause, and only three had a higher percentage for slavery than other reasons. So, slavery was the primary factor for just over a quarter of the states seceding.....using YOUR alleged evidence, of course.
You fail because the damage to slavery came from the act of SECESSION before there ever was a war. I've told you that and proven that to you repeatedly, but you seem immune to facts (most liberals are). Southerners left the union because of the tyrannical Northern drive to centralize power in violation of the Constitution and did so DESPITE the damage that they knew they were doing to the institution that you falsely claim was their singular obsession and motivation.
Claiming that slavery was the cause is the refuge of a simpleton, nothing more.
I've challenged you to post what you think these historians have said rather than hiding behind them, and what do you do? Tuck tail and run. Happens every time I encounter a "slavery was the cause" cultist...prove them wrong and they retreat.
You're as close minded as any liberal I've encountered....dismissing all wisdom because a person participated in a controversial institution is a sure sign of a non-thinker. If I said that anyone that supports abortion never says anything wise or true because of that support, that would be stupid, wouldn't it? That is the stupid thing that YOU just did by dismissing the truth from those who don't think like you, lemming. What a joke.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 22, 2023 21:01:54 GMT
Unlike you, I actually have studied the secession documents...a rather quick study, since there were only four out of eleven seceded states, and not a single one was 100% about slavery as the cause, and only three had a higher percentage for slavery than other reasons. So, slavery was the primary factor for just over a quarter of the states seceding.....using YOUR alleged evidence, of course.
You fail because the damage to slavery came from the act of SECESSION before there ever was a war. I've told you that and proven that to you repeatedly, but you seem immune to facts (most liberals are). Southerners left the union because of the tyrannical Northern drive to centralize power in violation of the Constitution and did so DESPITE the damage that they knew they were doing to the institution that you falsely claim was their singular obsession and motivation.
Claiming that slavery was the cause is the refuge of a simpleton, nothing more.
I've challenged you to post what you think these historians have said rather than hiding behind them, and what do you do? Tuck tail and run. Happens every time I encounter a "slavery was the cause" cultist...prove them wrong and they retreat.
You're as close minded as any liberal I've encountered....dismissing all wisdom because a person participated in a controversial institution is a sure sign of a non-thinker. If I said that anyone that supports abortion never says anything wise or true because of that support, that would be stupid, wouldn't it? That is the stupid thing that YOU just did by dismissing the truth from those who don't think like you, lemming. What a joke.
I meant both the four documents about the reason for that state's secession as well as the 11 documents proclaiming secession. I'll bet if the other seven states also put out the causes of secession most of them would also mention slavery as the prime motivation for secession. And some likely do that even in their documents proclaiming secession. Southerners started to secede shortly after the election of Lincoln, under the mistaken impression that he meant to outlaw slavery in the near future. This was yet another miscalculation, though an understandable one as one couldn't trust pols anymore back then than one can today. Of course the centralized power they feared was the possibility that the federal gov't would shutdown slavery, just as in the recent past they were angry with the federal gov't for trying to limit the expansion of slavery. I guess there must be millions of simpletons out there, some of whom who have studied the Civil War extensively. But since don't agree with the Lost Cause scam they must be simpletons and non-critical thinkers. Hilarious theory. You must know very well what these historians are saying. It's all there in various well-researched books. No sense in trying to boil it all down here, when the profs can do a better job than I ever could. And you still haven't proved anything wrong and likely never will, mostly because you don't have the evidence. Close-minded=someone who doesn't agree with my Lost Cause narrative and won't change their mind even after looking at my weak proof. As far as I can see from what you've presented there's no reason to change my mind. You really don't think your second-hand junk is wisdom, do you? I mean be serious. Slavery was not much of a controversial institution in slave-holding states. What that has to do with thinking is a mystery to me, just as is the tiresome effort to somehow link slavery to abortion. I'm not dismissing the truth because Lost Causers think differently form me. I'm dismissing it because they have utterly failed to make their case.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 23, 2023 20:12:18 GMT
I meant both the four documents about the reason for that state's secession as well as the 11 documents proclaiming secession. I'll bet if the other seven states also put out the causes of secession most of them would also mention slavery as the prime motivation for secession. And some likely do that even in their documents proclaiming secession. Southerners started to secede shortly after the election of Lincoln, under the mistaken impression that he meant to outlaw slavery in the near future. This was yet another miscalculation, though an understandable one as one couldn't trust pols anymore back then than one can today. Of course the centralized power they feared was the possibility that the federal gov't would shutdown slavery, just as in the recent past they were angry with the federal gov't for trying to limit the expansion of slavery. I guess there must be millions of simpletons out there, some of whom who have studied the Civil War extensively. But since don't agree with the Lost Cause scam they must be simpletons and non-critical thinkers. Hilarious theory. You must know very well what these historians are saying. It's all there in various well-researched books. No sense in trying to boil it all down here, when the profs can do a better job than I ever could. And you still haven't proved anything wrong and likely never will, mostly because you don't have the evidence. Close-minded=someone who doesn't agree with my Lost Cause narrative and won't change their mind even after looking at my weak proof. As far as I can see from what you've presented there's no reason to change my mind. You really don't think your second-hand junk is wisdom, do you? I mean be serious. Slavery was not much of a controversial institution in slave-holding states. What that has to do with thinking is a mystery to me, just as is the tiresome effort to somehow link slavery to abortion. I'm not dismissing the truth because Lost Causers think differently form me. I'm dismissing it because they have utterly failed to make their case. Nope, you're not allowed to post mendacious garbage like this without challenge. There were only three declarations that prominently mentioned slavery and even those three listed other causes. That's out of eleven states seceded....and your "bet" as to what the other states would have said is worth less than day-old feces on a San Francisco sidewalk (but I'm betting that your guesses are equally fecal). South Carolina's Declaration was estimated to only be 20% about slavery, 80% other causes, but such context is lost on simpeltons. And there were 13 ordinances of secession, not 11, none mentioned slavery as the cause and only three used the words "slaveholding states" in reference to their neighbors. Your fictional drivel is why you have no credibility here and why you lose.
Only a gullible rube thinks slavery was the cause, when historians have acknowledged that Lincoln was conciliatory concerning slavery while he was adamant in his demand that protective tariffs be collected and enforced. Lincoln was a slave to Clay's American System, and was much more a threat to the South with his zealotry for protective tariffs than any expressed threat to slavery.
From Lincoln's first inaugural:
CONCILIATORY ON SLAVERY: I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
UNBENDING ON TARIFFS: The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
SUPPORTIVE OF CORWIN AMENDMENT: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
And what about the inaugural address of Jefferson Davis? Not a single word about slavery, but a strong emphasis on state's rights and the parallels to the Founders:
The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution.
But you ignore that contradictory document and many others because it doesn't fit you twisted little woke narrative, does it?
And I bet you didn't know that South Carolina issued TWO documents related to their secession, not just the one declaration. Written by one of the "Fire Eaters", Robert Barnwell Rhett, this document spoke of slavery AFTER making clear that the abrogation of the Constitution and taxation were the first and primary causes of secession:
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North.
Oops. You lose again. If your knowledge was less superficial, you'd drop your cartoonish and stupid fiction about that era and learn about the complexities from those of us who actually know history.
And, finally, we have proof of two things from HolyMoly....he runs away when we ask for evidence, proclaiming that there is "no sense in trying to boil it all down here" and he's getting increasingly uncomfortable as he realizes the parallels between abortion and slavery, with abortionists comparable to slave owners.
Liberals hate the truth and the truth was, is and always will be that slavery was not the cause of the Confederate States.
Care to try again, cultist?
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,360
|
Post by thor on May 23, 2023 20:42:03 GMT
I meant both the four documents about the reason for that state's secession as well as the 11 documents proclaiming secession. I'll bet if the other seven states also put out the causes of secession most of them would also mention slavery as the prime motivation for secession. And some likely do that even in their documents proclaiming secession. Southerners started to secede shortly after the election of Lincoln, under the mistaken impression that he meant to outlaw slavery in the near future. This was yet another miscalculation, though an understandable one as one couldn't trust pols anymore back then than one can today. Of course the centralized power they feared was the possibility that the federal gov't would shutdown slavery, just as in the recent past they were angry with the federal gov't for trying to limit the expansion of slavery. I guess there must be millions of simpletons out there, some of whom who have studied the Civil War extensively. But since don't agree with the Lost Cause scam they must be simpletons and non-critical thinkers. Hilarious theory. You must know very well what these historians are saying. It's all there in various well-researched books. No sense in trying to boil it all down here, when the profs can do a better job than I ever could. And you still haven't proved anything wrong and likely never will, mostly because you don't have the evidence. Close-minded=someone who doesn't agree with my Lost Cause narrative and won't change their mind even after looking at my weak proof. As far as I can see from what you've presented there's no reason to change my mind. You really don't think your second-hand junk is wisdom, do you? I mean be serious. Slavery was not much of a controversial institution in slave-holding states. What that has to do with thinking is a mystery to me, just as is the tiresome effort to somehow link slavery to abortion. I'm not dismissing the truth because Lost Causers think differently form me. I'm dismissing it because they have utterly failed to make their case. Nope, you're not allowed to post mendacious garbage like this without challenge. There were only three declarations that prominently mentioned slavery and even those three listed other causes. That's out of eleven states seceded....and your "bet" as to what the other states would have said is worth less than day-old feces on a San Francisco sidewalk (but I'm betting that your guesses are equally fecal). South Carolina's Declaration was estimated to only be 20% about slavery, 80% other causes, but such context is lost on simpeltons. And there were 13 ordinances of secession, not 11, none mentioned slavery as the cause and only three used the words "slaveholding states" in reference to their neighbors. Your fictional drivel is why you have no credibility here and why you lose.
Only a gullible rube thinks slavery was the cause, when historians have acknowledged that Lincoln was conciliatory concerning slavery while he was adamant in his demand that protective tariffs be collected and enforced. Lincoln was a slave to Clay's American System, and was much more a threat to the South with his zealotry for protective tariffs than any expressed threat to slavery.
From Lincoln's first inaugural:
CONCILIATORY ON SLAVERY: I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
UNBENDING ON TARIFFS: The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
SUPPORTIVE OF CORWIN AMENDMENT: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
And what about the inaugural address of Jefferson Davis? Not a single word about slavery, but a strong emphasis on state's rights and the parallels to the Founders:
The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution.
But you ignore that contradictory document and many others because it doesn't fit you twisted little woke narrative, does it?
And I bet you didn't know that South Carolina issued TWO documents related to their secession, not just the one declaration. Written by one of the "Fire Eaters", Robert Barnwell Rhett, this document spoke of slavery AFTER making clear that the abrogation of the Constitution and taxation were the first and primary causes of secession:
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North.
Oops. You lose again. If your knowledge was less superficial, you'd drop your cartoonish and stupid fiction about that era and learn about the complexities from those of us who actually know history.
And, finally, we have proof of two things from HolyMoly....he runs away when we ask for evidence, proclaiming that there is "no sense in trying to boil it all down here" and he's getting increasingly uncomfortable as he realizes the parallels between abortion and slavery, with abortionists comparable to slave owners.
Liberals hate the truth and the truth was, is and always will be that slavery was not the cause of the Confederate States.
Care to try again, cultist?
But wait....there's more... Pvt. Thomas Taylor, 6th Ala., to his parents, March 4, 1862: "we are ruined if we do not put forth all our energies & drive back the invaders of our slavery South."The Black Hand of Truth comes for you.... Your. Ass. Kicked. To. Andromeda. Again. Tell us again, moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 23, 2023 21:27:58 GMT
Nope, you're not allowed to post mendacious garbage like this without challenge. There were only three declarations that prominently mentioned slavery and even those three listed other causes. That's out of eleven states seceded....and your "bet" as to what the other states would have said is worth less than day-old feces on a San Francisco sidewalk (but I'm betting that your guesses are equally fecal). South Carolina's Declaration was estimated to only be 20% about slavery, 80% other causes, but such context is lost on simpeltons. And there were 13 ordinances of secession, not 11, none mentioned slavery as the cause and only three used the words "slaveholding states" in reference to their neighbors. Your fictional drivel is why you have no credibility here and why you lose.
Only a gullible rube thinks slavery was the cause, when historians have acknowledged that Lincoln was conciliatory concerning slavery while he was adamant in his demand that protective tariffs be collected and enforced. Lincoln was a slave to Clay's American System, and was much more a threat to the South with his zealotry for protective tariffs than any expressed threat to slavery.
From Lincoln's first inaugural:
CONCILIATORY ON SLAVERY: I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
UNBENDING ON TARIFFS: The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
SUPPORTIVE OF CORWIN AMENDMENT: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
And what about the inaugural address of Jefferson Davis? Not a single word about slavery, but a strong emphasis on state's rights and the parallels to the Founders:
The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution.
But you ignore that contradictory document and many others because it doesn't fit you twisted little woke narrative, does it?
And I bet you didn't know that South Carolina issued TWO documents related to their secession, not just the one declaration. Written by one of the "Fire Eaters", Robert Barnwell Rhett, this document spoke of slavery AFTER making clear that the abrogation of the Constitution and taxation were the first and primary causes of secession:
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North.
Oops. You lose again. If your knowledge was less superficial, you'd drop your cartoonish and stupid fiction about that era and learn about the complexities from those of us who actually know history.
And, finally, we have proof of two things from HolyMoly....he runs away when we ask for evidence, proclaiming that there is "no sense in trying to boil it all down here" and he's getting increasingly uncomfortable as he realizes the parallels between abortion and slavery, with abortionists comparable to slave owners.
Liberals hate the truth and the truth was, is and always will be that slavery was not the cause of the Confederate States.
Care to try again, cultist?
But wait....there's more... Pvt. Thomas Taylor, 6th Ala., to his parents, March 4, 1862: "we are ruined if we do not put forth all our energies & drive back the invaders of our slavery South."The Black Hand of Truth comes for you....Your. Ass. Kicked. To. Andromeda. Again. Tell us again, moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that? We cannot see, My Darling, into the future, but I trust & have confidence in our people to believe, that if the unprincipled North shall persist in her policy of Subjugating the South, that we, who are able to resist them, will continue to do so, until we grow old and worn out in the service, and that then, our Sons will take the arms from our hands, and spend their lives, if necessary, in battling for Liberty and independence. As for my part, If this trouble should not be settled satisfactorily to us sooner—I would be proud of the thought that our youngest Boy—Yes Darling little Jimmie, will after awhile be able and I trust willing to take his Father's place in the field, and fight until he dies, rather than, be a Slave, Yea worse than a Slave to Yankee Masters—Have you ever anticipated, My Darling, what would be our probable condition, if we should be conquered in this war? The picture is really too horrible to contemplate. In the first place, the tremendous war tax, which will have accumulated, on the northern Government, would be paid entirely and exclusively by the property belonging to the Southerners. And more than this we would be an humbled, down trodden and disgraced, people. Not entitled to the respect of any body, and have no respect for ourselves. In fact we would be the most wretched and abject people on the face of the Earth. Just be what our Northern Masters say we may be. Would you, My Darling, desire to live, if this was the case? would you be willing to leave your Children under such a government? No—I know you would sacrifice every comfort on earth, rather than submit to it.
- James B. Griffin (1825–1881) Slaveowner and Confederate officer who just posthumously kicked thor's ass by explaining the actual cause of the war.
Had Lincoln gotten his way, slavery would have been permanently protected in exchange for the union; slavery would have lasted even longer than the 1880s. That's YOUR perverted hero, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 23, 2023 21:54:20 GMT
Nope, you're not allowed to post mendacious garbage like this without challenge. There were only three declarations that prominently mentioned slavery and even those three listed other causes. That's out of eleven states seceded....and your "bet" as to what the other states would have said is worth less than day-old feces on a San Francisco sidewalk (but I'm betting that your guesses are equally fecal). South Carolina's Declaration was estimated to only be 20% about slavery, 80% other causes, but such context is lost on simpeltons. And there were 13 ordinances of secession, not 11, none mentioned slavery as the cause and only three used the words "slaveholding states" in reference to their neighbors. Your fictional drivel is why you have no credibility here and why you lose.
Only a gullible rube thinks slavery was the cause, when historians have acknowledged that Lincoln was conciliatory concerning slavery while he was adamant in his demand that protective tariffs be collected and enforced. Lincoln was a slave to Clay's American System, and was much more a threat to the South with his zealotry for protective tariffs than any expressed threat to slavery.
From Lincoln's first inaugural:
CONCILIATORY ON SLAVERY: I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
UNBENDING ON TARIFFS: The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
SUPPORTIVE OF CORWIN AMENDMENT: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
And what about the inaugural address of Jefferson Davis? Not a single word about slavery, but a strong emphasis on state's rights and the parallels to the Founders:
The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution.
But you ignore that contradictory document and many others because it doesn't fit you twisted little woke narrative, does it?
And I bet you didn't know that South Carolina issued TWO documents related to their secession, not just the one declaration. Written by one of the "Fire Eaters", Robert Barnwell Rhett, this document spoke of slavery AFTER making clear that the abrogation of the Constitution and taxation were the first and primary causes of secession:
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North.
Oops. You lose again. If your knowledge was less superficial, you'd drop your cartoonish and stupid fiction about that era and learn about the complexities from those of us who actually know history.
And, finally, we have proof of two things from HolyMoly....he runs away when we ask for evidence, proclaiming that there is "no sense in trying to boil it all down here" and he's getting increasingly uncomfortable as he realizes the parallels between abortion and slavery, with abortionists comparable to slave owners.
Liberals hate the truth and the truth was, is and always will be that slavery was not the cause of the Confederate States.
Care to try again, cultist?
No credibility and losing to whom? Just you, I would imagine, as nobody else here has mentioned it. And I'm not much concerned with your opinion on who is winning and losing. So the great majority of historians who believe slavery was the cause are just gullible rubes? It's junk like this that makes your opinions irrelevant and nonsensical. Not to knock ol' Abe, but by the time of his inaugural address most of the states that would make up the Confederacy had already seceded. So what he had to say would be of little interest to those states Once again, the horse was already out of the barn. Of course states' rights, and the state right Davis was most interested in was the right to own people. Apparently these goobers were disappointed that some in the North didn't think slavery was part of the original bargain, though it was. So the Constitution was the work of white supremacists. No kidding. Hmmm, as Rhett is only one person, isn't this just more of the "cherry picking" you always complain about. And he does go on about slavery later in the document. Not very convincing. Do historians who believe that slavery was the cause also believe in a cartoonish fiction? More Lost Cause idiocy. Who is this we you are always going on about? Are you some kind of royalty? Why not be honest and just say I? I'm getting increasingly amused at the dimwitted attempts to link slavery and abortion. I understand why the wingnuts are trying to link the two, but they just make fools of themselves when they do. How much cotton can an unborn child pick. I'm guessing not very much. Did female slaves get to abort the unborn which were the result of rape by their masters? Doubt it. Maybe liberals and SF sidewalks have something to do with this topic, though I kind of doubt it. Alabama secessionists even went so far as to mention the election of Lincoln, which was the event that truly kick off secessionist fever, even though that fever was a.......miscalculation. "Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:"
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 24, 2023 3:57:13 GMT
Nope, you're not allowed to post mendacious garbage like this without challenge. There were only three declarations that prominently mentioned slavery and even those three listed other causes. That's out of eleven states seceded....and your "bet" as to what the other states would have said is worth less than day-old feces on a San Francisco sidewalk (but I'm betting that your guesses are equally fecal). South Carolina's Declaration was estimated to only be 20% about slavery, 80% other causes, but such context is lost on simpeltons. And there were 13 ordinances of secession, not 11, none mentioned slavery as the cause and only three used the words "slaveholding states" in reference to their neighbors. Your fictional drivel is why you have no credibility here and why you lose.
Only a gullible rube thinks slavery was the cause, when historians have acknowledged that Lincoln was conciliatory concerning slavery while he was adamant in his demand that protective tariffs be collected and enforced. Lincoln was a slave to Clay's American System, and was much more a threat to the South with his zealotry for protective tariffs than any expressed threat to slavery.
From Lincoln's first inaugural:
CONCILIATORY ON SLAVERY: I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
UNBENDING ON TARIFFS: The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
SUPPORTIVE OF CORWIN AMENDMENT: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
And what about the inaugural address of Jefferson Davis? Not a single word about slavery, but a strong emphasis on state's rights and the parallels to the Founders:
The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution.
But you ignore that contradictory document and many others because it doesn't fit you twisted little woke narrative, does it?
And I bet you didn't know that South Carolina issued TWO documents related to their secession, not just the one declaration. Written by one of the "Fire Eaters", Robert Barnwell Rhett, this document spoke of slavery AFTER making clear that the abrogation of the Constitution and taxation were the first and primary causes of secession:
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North.
Oops. You lose again. If your knowledge was less superficial, you'd drop your cartoonish and stupid fiction about that era and learn about the complexities from those of us who actually know history.
And, finally, we have proof of two things from HolyMoly....he runs away when we ask for evidence, proclaiming that there is "no sense in trying to boil it all down here" and he's getting increasingly uncomfortable as he realizes the parallels between abortion and slavery, with abortionists comparable to slave owners.
Liberals hate the truth and the truth was, is and always will be that slavery was not the cause of the Confederate States.
Care to try again, cultist?
No credibility and losing to whom? Just you, I would imagine, as nobody else here has mentioned it. And I'm not much concerned with your opinion on who iswinning and losing. So the great majority of historians who believe slavery was the cause are just gullible rubes? It's junk like this that makes your opinionsirrelevant and nonsensical. Not to knock ol' Abe, but by the time of his inaugural address most of the states that would make up the Confederacy had already seceded. So what he had to say would be of little interest to those states. Once again, the horse was already out of the barn. Of course states' rights, and the state right Davis was most interested in was the right to own people. Apparently these goobers were disappointed that some in the North didn't think slavery was part of the original bargain, though it was. So the Constitution was the work of white supremacists. No kidding. Hmmm, as Rhett is only one person, isn't this just more of the "cherry picking" you always complain about. And he does go on about slavery later in the document. Not very convincing. Do historians who believe that slavery was the cause also believe in a cartoonish fiction? More Lost Cause idiocy. Who is this we you are always going on about? Are you some kind of royalty? Why not be honest and just say I? I'm getting increasingly amused at the dimwitted attempts to link slavery and abortion. I understand why the wingnuts are trying to link the two, but they just make fools of themselves when they do. How much cotton can an unborn child pick. I'm guessing not very much. Did female slaves get to abort the unborn which were the result of rape by their masters? Doubt it. Maybe liberals and SF sidewalks have something to do with this topic, though I kind of doubt it. Alabama secessionists even went so far as to mention the election of Lincoln, which was the event that truly kick off secessionist fever, even though that fever was a.......miscalculation. "Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:" I'm sure you do want to avoid the subject of winning and losing, since all you seem capable of is the latter....you run away from the truth a lot, don't you cultist?
You're just too easy because you are so ignorant....only seven states had seceded by the time Lincoln gave his inaugural address (the last four wouldn't decide to secede until Lincoln called up troops after Fort Sumter), and his emphasis on the subject of secession seems to show that he didn't think it was too late.
Just how dumb must this liberal be to read Davis' inaugural address that contains zero mention of slavery, yet peddle the laughable fiction that slavery is the state's right he must have been thinking of. HolyMoly reads the minds of dead people instead of providing evidence like normal people.
And look at him squeak about "cherry picking" when his entire argument has been nothing but cherry picking! The entire "slavery was the cause" narrative is cherry picking! He can't handle a dose of his own medicine. I've now identified two declarations, both from South Carolina, that emphasize causes other than slavery in a majority of each document, but all this guy can do is get triggered every time the word "slavery" is mentioned. Of the thirteen ordinances of secession, only three mention "slaveholding states" and nothing more. The Confederate Constitution added a brand new section against tariffs and included prohibitions against international slave trade that were stronger than the language in the U.S. Constitution. Does any of that matter to these cultists? When has the truth ever mattered to them?
Yes, every historian, pundit, troll, tweeter, spewer, scholar and novice gullible enough to swallow the "slavery was the cause" lie is deep-throating a shallow, cartoonish work of fiction. No exceptions. You're still welcome to share the words of those alleged experts if you'd like....I can destroy what you post or watch you run away again. I'm good either way.
For a critical thinker, the parallel between abortion and slavery is clear and disturbing, but you'll never be mistaken for a critical thinker. I'll likely start a new thread on the subject where you'll get the chance to look even more foolish, if that's possible. Biggest difference? Abortion is far, far worse than slavery.
No amount of evidence will sway these unthinking "Righteous Myth" cultists. This brainwashed leftist votary will believe every Northern lie before he ever opens his mind to the truth that I keep putting in front of him. You, HolyMoly, are the lost cause here because you don't think for yourself nor listen to those of us who can show you how it's done. Groupthink is your only weapon here, and it's why you lose.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 24, 2023 21:21:45 GMT
I'm sure you do want to avoid the subject of winning and losing, since all you seem capable of is the latter....you run away from the truth a lot, don't you cultist?
You're just too easy because you are so ignorant....only seven states had seceded by the time Lincoln gave his inaugural address (the last four wouldn't decide to secede until Lincoln called up troops after Fort Sumter), and his emphasis on the subject of secession seems to show that he didn't think it was too late.
Just how dumb must this liberal be to read Davis' inaugural address that contains zero mention of slavery, yet peddle the laughable fiction that slavery is the state's right he must have been thinking of. HolyMoly reads the minds of dead people instead of providing evidence like normal people.
And look at him squeak about "cherry picking" when his entire argument has been nothing but cherry picking! The entire "slavery was the cause" narrative is cherry picking! He can't handle a dose of his own medicine. I've now identified two declarations, both from South Carolina, that emphasize causes other than slavery in a majority of each document, but all this guy can do is get triggered every time the word "slavery" is mentioned. Of the thirteen ordinances of secession, only three mention "slaveholding states" and nothing more. The Confederate Constitution added a brand new section against tariffs and included prohibitions against international slave trade that were stronger than the language in the U.S. Constitution. Does any of that matter to these cultists? When has the truth ever mattered to them?
Yes, every historian, pundit, troll, tweeter, spewer, scholar and novice gullible enough to swallow the "slavery was the cause" lie is deep-throating a shallow, cartoonish work of fiction. No exceptions. You're still welcome to share the words of those alleged experts if you'd like....I can destroy what you post or watch you run away again. I'm good either way.
For a critical thinker, the parallel between abortion and slavery is clear and disturbing, but you'll never be mistaken for a critical thinker. I'll likely start a new thread on the subject where you'll get the chance to look even more foolish, if that's possible. Biggest difference? Abortion is far, far worse than slavery.
No amount of evidence will sway these unthinking "Righteous Myth" cultists. This brainwashed leftist votary will believe every Northern lie before he ever opens his mind to the truth that I keep putting in front of him. You, HolyMoly, are the lost cause here because you don't think for yourself nor listen to those of us who can show you how it's done. Groupthink is your only weapon here, and it's why you lose.
Not at all. What I find some humorous about it is that you declare you're the winner as if one person saying he is the winner has any meaning. It doesn't. Anyone can say it and it's irrelevant. But keep on adding up these imaginary victories if you want. Last time I looked 7 is more than 4, almost twice as much. Looks like Lincoln miscalculated too. No biggie, it happens. You don't have to be much of a mind reader to see that slaveowner Davis was talking about slavery without actually mentioning the word. The old states' rights dodge was a Confed specialty. The Confederate Constitution also added more protections for both slavery and its possible expansion. Not exactly a surprise for a confederation headed by slaveholders. Of course the slavery is the cause belief is hardly cherry picking. Whole books have been written about it. It's more like a spreading chestnut tree that overshadows everything. I'm not talking about trolls, pundits, spewers, just Civil War historians. Yep, I'll take the word of historians over your laughable Lost Cause claptrap any day. Your "destruction" of my posts is as imaginary as your wins. It exist only in your own mind. How can I reply to your posts and run away at the same time? How exactly would that work? Just to use your own bizarre vocabulary--critical thinker=anyone who agrees with Paleoconjob. Not thinking for oneself=not agreeing with Paleoconjob on a topic. Brainwashed=Again, not following in lockstep with Paleoconjob's opinions. Cultist=Someone who doesn't think the same as Paleoconjob. (You really should look up the meaning of cult/cultist because you're getting it wrong.) Groupthink=Similar to not thinking for oneself, except it applies to more than one person who disagrees with Paleoconjob's views. Evidence=Using the above terms, repeated ad nauseum, as if they proved anything, which they don't. Why do you write as if you're addressing an audience? I doubt there's much of one here. It just sounds ridiculous. Topics of importance to Civil War discussions-liberals, SF sidewalks, abortion, Trump, etc.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 25, 2023 15:25:27 GMT
I'm sure you do want to avoid the subject of winning and losing, since all you seem capable of is the latter....you run away from the truth a lot, don't you cultist?
You're just too easy because you are so ignorant....only seven states had seceded by the time Lincoln gave his inaugural address (the last four wouldn't decide to secede until Lincoln called up troops after Fort Sumter), and his emphasis on the subject of secession seems to show that he didn't think it was too late.
Just how dumb must this liberal be to read Davis' inaugural address that contains zero mention of slavery, yet peddle the laughable fiction that slavery is the state's right he must have been thinking of. HolyMoly reads the minds of dead people instead of providing evidence like normal people.
And look at him squeak about "cherry picking" when his entire argument has been nothing but cherry picking! The entire "slavery was the cause" narrative is cherry picking! He can't handle a dose of his own medicine. I've now identified two declarations, both from South Carolina, that emphasize causes other than slavery in a majority of each document, but all this guy can do is get triggered every time the word "slavery" is mentioned. Of the thirteen ordinances of secession, only three mention "slaveholding states" and nothing more. The Confederate Constitution added a brand new section against tariffs and included prohibitions against international slave trade that were stronger than the language in the U.S. Constitution. Does any of that matter to these cultists? When has the truth ever mattered to them?
Yes, every historian, pundit, troll, tweeter, spewer, scholar and novice gullible enough to swallow the "slavery was the cause" lie is deep-throating a shallow, cartoonish work of fiction. No exceptions. You're still welcome to share the words of those alleged experts if you'd like....I can destroy what you post or watch you run away again. I'm good either way.
For a critical thinker, the parallel between abortion and slavery is clear and disturbing, but you'll never be mistaken for a critical thinker. I'll likely start a new thread on the subject where you'll get the chance to look even more foolish, if that's possible. Biggest difference? Abortion is far, far worse than slavery.
No amount of evidence will sway these unthinking "Righteous Myth" cultists. This brainwashed leftist votary will believe every Northern lie before he ever opens his mind to the truth that I keep putting in front of him. You, HolyMoly, are the lost cause here because you don't think for yourself nor listen to those of us who can show you how it's done. Groupthink is your only weapon here, and it's why you lose.
Not at all. What I find some humorous about it is that you declare you're the winner as if one person saying he is the winner has any meaning. It doesn't. Anyone can say it and it's irrelevant. But keep on adding up these imaginary victories if you want. Last time I looked 7 is more than 4, almost twice as much. Looks like Lincoln miscalculated too. No biggie, it happens. You don't have to be much of a mind reader to see that slaveowner Davis was talking about slavery without actually mentioning the word. The old states' rights dodge was a Confed specialty. The Confederate Constitution also added more protections for both slavery and its possible expansion. Not exactly a surprise for a confederation headed by slaveholders. Of course the slavery is the cause belief is hardly cherry picking. Whole books have been written about it. It's more like a spreading chestnut tree that overshadows everything. I'm not talking about trolls, pundits, spewers, just Civil War historians. Yep, I'll take the word of historians over your laughable Lost Cause claptrap any day. Your "destruction" of my posts is as imaginary as your wins. It exist only in your own mind. How can I reply to your posts and run away at the same time? How exactly would that work? Just to use your own bizarre vocabulary--critical thinker=anyone who agrees with Paleoconjob. Not thinking for oneself=not agreeing with Paleoconjob on a topic. Brainwashed=Again, not following in lockstep with Paleoconjob's opinions. Cultist=Someone who doesn't think the same as Paleoconjob. (You really should look up the meaning of cult/cultist because you're getting it wrong.) Groupthink=Similar to not thinking for oneself, except it applies to more than one person who disagrees with Paleoconjob's views. Evidence=Using the above terms, repeated ad nauseum, as if they proved anything, which they don't. Why do you write as if you're addressing an audience? I doubt there's much of one here. It just sounds ridiculous. Topics of importance to Civil War discussions-liberals, SF sidewalks, abortion, Trump, etc. So pathetic....you've really got nothing at all, do you? I win because your lame garbage is so weak and stupid, it makes people laugh rather than think. You don't even understand that you've run away with your tail tucked between your legs each time I've asked you for the EVIDENCE that you claim these vaunted historians of yours are suppose to have.
You were one of those participation trophy kids, weren't you? Just show up...no need to show your work, right? Well, you ain't in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Simply posting your empty drivel gets you an "F" for the lack of any facts or evidence and an "L" for loser on a discussion forum.
So you like redefining words, do you?
"Stupidity" - pretending that even when Davis says nothing about slavery in his inaugural address, it's still about slavery...that's not history, that's just your imagination, which is why you lose.
Just as you keep imagining things in the Confederate Constitution that aren't there. Unlike you, I post the facts and evidence while you sit on your ass squeaking about historians that you never quote:
1.2.3 (Persons included for Representation) “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves …”
This is identical to the 1787 Constitution except for use of the word ‘slaves’.
1.9.1 (Bars Foreign Slave Trade) “The importation of Negroes of the African race, from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectively prevent the same.”
No such prohibition exists in the 1787 Constitution. This is a reinforcement AGAINST slave trade.
1.9.2 (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.”
Yet another PROHIBITION on more slaves in the Confederacy, not a pro-slavery position. You lose again.
1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
Very similar to the U.S. Constitution and a restriction on the central government of the Confederacy....you know, state's rights. Oops.
4.2.3 (Fugitive Slave Clause) “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Very close to the clause in the U.S. Constitution except for the use of the words “slave”, “Territory” and “lawfully carried”.
And finally, here are the only two new clauses in the Confederate Constitution related to slavery:
4.2.1 (Privileges and Immunities) “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”
4.3.3 (Governance of Territories prior to Statehood) “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
And...drumroll please....they only address the right of transit between states and territories.....oh, what a letdown for a poor cultist like HM. Not much change related to slavery makes him pout. Reality doesn't support your whining.
So, no, the Confederate Constitution was NOT about slavery, but it was nearly the same as the U.S. Constitution, with minor changes for clarification and to address past controversies on a range of topics.
Alas, in this leftist troll's imagination, it's still all about slavery, despite so much proof to the contrary. Make believe and pretending that slavery was the cause is a childish fantasy, not history. When you grow up, perhaps you'll understand that you've been lied to by those who claim that slavery was the cause.
After your laughably naive take on the South, I'm guessing you're one of those gullible folks who swallowed the Trump-Russia collusion lie for two years. After all, the "experts" told you that Trump did it and you'd never think for yourself and question the consensus, right?
So pathetic. Remember.....I can help a liberal be less stupid, but he/she/it has to stop resisting.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,360
|
Post by thor on May 25, 2023 16:27:47 GMT
Not at all. What I find some humorous about it is that you declare you're the winner as if one person saying he is the winner has any meaning. It doesn't. Anyone can say it and it's irrelevant. But keep on adding up these imaginary victories if you want. Last time I looked 7 is more than 4, almost twice as much. Looks like Lincoln miscalculated too. No biggie, it happens. You don't have to be much of a mind reader to see that slaveowner Davis was talking about slavery without actually mentioning the word. The old states' rights dodge was a Confed specialty. The Confederate Constitution also added more protections for both slavery and its possible expansion. Not exactly a surprise for a confederation headed by slaveholders. Of course the slavery is the cause belief is hardly cherry picking. Whole books have been written about it. It's more like a spreading chestnut tree that overshadows everything. I'm not talking about trolls, pundits, spewers, just Civil War historians. Yep, I'll take the word of historians over your laughable Lost Cause claptrap any day. Your "destruction" of my posts is as imaginary as your wins. It exist only in your own mind. How can I reply to your posts and run away at the same time? How exactly would that work? Just to use your own bizarre vocabulary--critical thinker=anyone who agrees with Paleoconjob. Not thinking for oneself=not agreeing with Paleoconjob on a topic. Brainwashed=Again, not following in lockstep with Paleoconjob's opinions. Cultist=Someone who doesn't think the same as Paleoconjob. (You really should look up the meaning of cult/cultist because you're getting it wrong.) Groupthink=Similar to not thinking for oneself, except it applies to more than one person who disagrees with Paleoconjob's views. Evidence=Using the above terms, repeated ad nauseum, as if they proved anything, which they don't. Why do you write as if you're addressing an audience? I doubt there's much of one here. It just sounds ridiculous. Topics of importance to Civil War discussions-liberals, SF sidewalks, abortion, Trump, etc. So pathetic....you've really got nothing at all, do you? I win because your lame garbage is so weak and stupid, it makes people laugh rather than think. You don't even understand that you've run away with your tail tucked between your legs each time I've asked you for the EVIDENCE that you claim these vaunted historians of yours are suppose to have.
You were one of those participation trophy kids, weren't you? Just show up...no need to show your work, right? Well, you ain't in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Simply posting your empty drivel gets you an "F" for the lack of any facts or evidence and an "L" for loser on a discussion forum.
So you like redefining words, do you?
"Stupidity" - pretending that even when Davis says nothing about slavery in his inaugural address, it's still about slavery...that's not history, that's just your imagination, which is why you lose.
Just as you keep imagining things in the Confederate Constitution that aren't there. Unlike you, I post the facts and evidence while you sit on your ass squeaking about historians that you never quote:
1.2.3 (Persons included for Representation) “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves …”
This is identical to the 1787 Constitution except for use of the word ‘slaves’.
1.9.1 (Bars Foreign Slave Trade) “The importation of Negroes of the African race, from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectively prevent the same.”
No such prohibition exists in the 1787 Constitution. This is a reinforcement AGAINST slave trade.
1.9.2 (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.”
Yet another PROHIBITION on more slaves in the Confederacy, not a pro-slavery position. You lose again.
1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
Very similar to the U.S. Constitution and a restriction on the central government of the Confederacy....you know, state's rights. Oops.
4.2.3 (Fugitive Slave Clause) “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Very close to the clause in the U.S. Constitution except for the use of the words “slave”, “Territory” and “lawfully carried”.
And finally, here are the only two new clauses in the Confederate Constitution related to slavery:
4.2.1 (Privileges and Immunities) “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”
4.3.3 (Governance of Territories prior to Statehood) “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
And...drumroll please....they only address the right of transit between states and territories.....oh, what a letdown for a poor cultist like HM. Not much change related to slavery makes him pout. Reality doesn't support your whining.
So, no, the Confederate Constitution was NOT about slavery, but it was nearly the same as the U.S. Constitution, with minor changes for clarification and to address past controversies on a range of topics.
Alas, in this leftist troll's imagination, it's still all about slavery, despite so much proof to the contrary. Make believe and pretending that slavery was the cause is a childish fantasy, not history. When you grow up, perhaps you'll understand that you've been lied to by those who claim that slavery was the cause.
After your laughably naive take on the South, I'm guessing you're one of those gullible folks who swallowed the Trump-Russia collusion lie for two years. After all, the "experts" told you that Trump did it and you'd never think for yourself and question the consensus, right?
So pathetic. Remember.....I can help a liberal be less stupid, but he/she/it has to stop resisting.
But wait...there's more.... Pvt. Jonathan Doyle, 4th La., to Maggie, May 27, 1863: "We must never despair, for death is preferable to a life spent under the gaulling [sic] yoke of abolition rule."The Black Hand of Truth comes for you.... Tell us again, moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 25, 2023 17:48:47 GMT
So pathetic....you've really got nothing at all, do you? I win because your lame garbage is so weak and stupid, it makes people laugh rather than think. You don't even understand that you've run away with your tail tucked between your legs each time I've asked you for the EVIDENCE that you claim these vaunted historians of yours are suppose to have.
You were one of those participation trophy kids, weren't you? Just show up...no need to show your work, right? Well, you ain't in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Simply posting your empty drivel gets you an "F" for the lack of any facts or evidence and an "L" for loser on a discussion forum.
So you like redefining words, do you?
"Stupidity" - pretending that even when Davis says nothing about slavery in his inaugural address, it's still about slavery...that's not history, that's just your imagination, which is why you lose.
Just as you keep imagining things in the Confederate Constitution that aren't there. Unlike you, I post the facts and evidence while you sit on your ass squeaking about historians that you never quote:
1.2.3 (Persons included for Representation) “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves …”
This is identical to the 1787 Constitution except for use of the word ‘slaves’.
1.9.1 (Bars Foreign Slave Trade) “The importation of Negroes of the African race, from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectively prevent the same.”
No such prohibition exists in the 1787 Constitution. This is a reinforcement AGAINST slave trade.
1.9.2 (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.”
Yet another PROHIBITION on more slaves in the Confederacy, not a pro-slavery position. You lose again.
1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
Very similar to the U.S. Constitution and a restriction on the central government of the Confederacy....you know, state's rights. Oops.
4.2.3 (Fugitive Slave Clause) “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Very close to the clause in the U.S. Constitution except for the use of the words “slave”, “Territory” and “lawfully carried”.
And finally, here are the only two new clauses in the Confederate Constitution related to slavery:
4.2.1 (Privileges and Immunities) “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”
4.3.3 (Governance of Territories prior to Statehood) “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
And...drumroll please....they only address the right of transit between states and territories.....oh, what a letdown for a poor cultist like HM. Not much change related to slavery makes him pout. Reality doesn't support your whining.
So, no, the Confederate Constitution was NOT about slavery, but it was nearly the same as the U.S. Constitution, with minor changes for clarification and to address past controversies on a range of topics.
Alas, in this leftist troll's imagination, it's still all about slavery, despite so much proof to the contrary. Make believe and pretending that slavery was the cause is a childish fantasy, not history. When you grow up, perhaps you'll understand that you've been lied to by those who claim that slavery was the cause.
After your laughably naive take on the South, I'm guessing you're one of those gullible folks who swallowed the Trump-Russia collusion lie for two years. After all, the "experts" told you that Trump did it and you'd never think for yourself and question the consensus, right?
So pathetic. Remember.....I can help a liberal be less stupid, but he/she/it has to stop resisting.
But wait...there's more.... Pvt. Jonathan Doyle, 4th La., to Maggie, May 27, 1863: "We must never despair, for death is preferable to a life spent under the gaulling [sic] yoke of abolition rule."The Black Hand of Truth comes for you.... Tell us again, moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that? The Black Boot of Paleocon plows a new furrow in thor's ass. I'll see your private and raise you a general:
"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." - Gen. Patrick Cleburne
Or how about the president of the entire Confederacy:
"The war...must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks...unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence,and that, or extermination, we WILL have." - President Jefferson Davis
How did you get this stupid? These anecdotal quotes from a handful of individuals are like sand on a beach; they amount to nothing....just like you've amounted to nothing. Get relevant or get lost, animal.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 25, 2023 21:17:23 GMT
So pathetic....you've really got nothing at all, do you? I win because your lame garbage is so weak and stupid, it makes people laugh rather than think. You don't even understand that you've run away with your tail tucked between your legs each time I've asked you for the EVIDENCE that you claim these vaunted historians of yours are suppose to have.
You were one of those participation trophy kids, weren't you? Just show up...no need to show your work, right? Well, you ain't in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Simply posting your empty drivel gets you an "F" for the lack of any facts or evidence and an "L" for loser on a discussion forum.
So you like redefining words, do you?
"Stupidity" - pretending that even when Davis says nothing about slavery in his inaugural address, it's still about slavery...that's not history, that's just your imagination, which is why you lose.
Just as you keep imagining things in the Confederate Constitution that aren't there. Unlike you, I post the facts and evidence while you sit on your ass squeaking about historians that you never quote:
1.2.3 (Persons included for Representation) “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves …”
This is identical to the 1787 Constitution except for use of the word ‘slaves’.
1.9.1 (Bars Foreign Slave Trade) “The importation of Negroes of the African race, from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectively prevent the same.”
No such prohibition exists in the 1787 Constitution. This is a reinforcement AGAINST slave trade.
1.9.2 (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.”
Yet another PROHIBITION on more slaves in the Confederacy, not a pro-slavery position. You lose again.
1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
Very similar to the U.S. Constitution and a restriction on the central government of the Confederacy....you know, state's rights. Oops.
4.2.3 (Fugitive Slave Clause) “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Very close to the clause in the U.S. Constitution except for the use of the words “slave”, “Territory” and “lawfully carried”.
And finally, here are the only two new clauses in the Confederate Constitution related to slavery:
4.2.1 (Privileges and Immunities) “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”
4.3.3 (Governance of Territories prior to Statehood) “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
And...drumroll please....they only address the right of transit between states and territories.....oh, what a letdown for a poor cultist like HM. Not much change related to slavery makes him pout. Reality doesn't support your whining.
So, no, the Confederate Constitution was NOT about slavery, but it was nearly the same as the U.S. Constitution, with minor changes for clarification and to address past controversies on a range of topics.
Alas, in this leftist troll's imagination, it's still all about slavery, despite so much proof to the contrary. Make believe and pretending that slavery was the cause is a childish fantasy, not history. When you grow up, perhaps you'll understand that you've been lied to by those who claim that slavery was the cause.
After your laughably naive take on the South, I'm guessing you're one of those gullible folks who swallowed the Trump-Russia collusion lie for two years. After all, the "experts" told you that Trump did it and you'd never think for yourself and question the consensus, right?
So pathetic. Remember.....I can help a liberal be less stupid, but he/she/it has to stop resisting.
You not only win again in your imagination, but now you have imaginary people who are laughing. And now there are imaginary grades. Weird. Part of the evidence is right there in the secession documents. The rest is available to anyone who looks at the history of the U.S. in the decades leading up to the Civil War. It's right there in the history books, all one has to do is study them. That's easy enough to do. The U.S. Constitution allowed the importation of slaves until 1808, at which time Congress prohibited it. The U.S. Constitution does not tie Bills of Attainder, etc. to Negro slavery. They are treated in different paragraphs in Section 9 of Article I. Yes, the right of Negro property is a state right in the Confederate Constitution. Big surprise. And the two new clauses just add protections for slave owners and the expansion of slavery. Thanks for doing my work for me. It shows the Confederate Constitution expanded the rights of slaveholders beyond anything in the U.S. Constitution, which isn't exactly news for the constitution of a slaveholding entity. The Abbeville Institute is biased toward the Lost Cause narrative, so I would take it with a large grain of salt, though any organization founded by a David Hume scholar can't be all bad. The article is rather long, but I'll get around to it when I have more time. Sorry, from the evidence you really can't help anyone become more enlightened, you can only help them to live in a southern fantasyland and repeat your Lost Cause claptrap. That should be resisted. More topics relevant to the Civil War: Participation trophies, the Wizard of Oz, imaginary grades, imaginary people, leftists, Trump-Russia.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by Paleocon on May 25, 2023 22:48:24 GMT
So pathetic....you've really got nothing at all, do you? I win because your lame garbage is so weak and stupid, it makes people laugh rather than think. You don't even understand that you've run away with your tail tucked between your legs each time I've asked you for the EVIDENCE that you claim these vaunted historians of yours are suppose to have.
You were one of those participation trophy kids, weren't you? Just show up...no need to show your work, right? Well, you ain't in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Simply posting your empty drivel gets you an "F" for the lack of any facts or evidence and an "L" for loser on a discussion forum.
So you like redefining words, do you?
"Stupidity" - pretending that even when Davis says nothing about slavery in his inaugural address, it's still about slavery...that's not history, that's just your imagination, which is why you lose.
Just as you keep imagining things in the Confederate Constitution that aren't there. Unlike you, I post the facts and evidence while you sit on your ass squeaking about historians that you never quote:
1.2.3 (Persons included for Representation) “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves …”
This is identical to the 1787 Constitution except for use of the word ‘slaves’.
1.9.1 (Bars Foreign Slave Trade) “The importation of Negroes of the African race, from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectively prevent the same.”
No such prohibition exists in the 1787 Constitution. This is a reinforcement AGAINST slave trade.
1.9.2 (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.”
Yet another PROHIBITION on more slaves in the Confederacy, not a pro-slavery position. You lose again.
1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
Very similar to the U.S. Constitution and a restriction on the central government of the Confederacy....you know, state's rights. Oops.
4.2.3 (Fugitive Slave Clause) “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Very close to the clause in the U.S. Constitution except for the use of the words “slave”, “Territory” and “lawfully carried”.
And finally, here are the only two new clauses in the Confederate Constitution related to slavery:
4.2.1 (Privileges and Immunities) “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”
4.3.3 (Governance of Territories prior to Statehood) “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
And...drumroll please....they only address the right of transit between states and territories.....oh, what a letdown for a poor cultist like HM. Not much change related to slavery makes him pout. Reality doesn't support your whining.
So, no, the Confederate Constitution was NOT about slavery, but it was nearly the same as the U.S. Constitution, with minor changes for clarification and to address past controversies on a range of topics.
Alas, in this leftist troll's imagination, it's still all about slavery, despite so much proof to the contrary. Make believe and pretending that slavery was the cause is a childish fantasy, not history. When you grow up, perhaps you'll understand that you've been lied to by those who claim that slavery was the cause.
After your laughably naive take on the South, I'm guessing you're one of those gullible folks who swallowed the Trump-Russia collusion lie for two years. After all, the "experts" told you that Trump did it and you'd never think for yourself and question the consensus, right?
So pathetic. Remember.....I can help a liberal be less stupid, but he/she/it has to stop resisting.
You not only win again in your imagination, but now you have imaginary people who are laughing. And now there are imaginary grades. Weird. Part of the evidence is right there in the secession documents. The rest is available to anyone who looks at the history of the U.S. in the decades leading up to the Civil War. It's right there in the history books, all one has to do is study them. That's easy enough to do. The U.S. Constitution allowed the importation of slaves until 1808, at which time Congress prohibited it. The U.S. Constitution does not tie Bills of Attainder, etc. to Negro slavery. They are treated in different paragraphs in Section 9 of Article I. Yes, the right of Negro property is a state right in the Confederate Constitution. Big surprise. And the two new clauses just add protections for slave owners and the expansion of slavery. Thanks for doing my work for me. It shows the Confederate Constitution expanded the rights of slaveholders beyond anything in the U.S. Constitution, which isn't exactly news for the constitution of a slaveholding entity. The Abbeville Institute is biased toward the Lost Cause narrative, so I would take it with a large grain of salt, though any organization founded by a David Hume scholar can't be all bad. The article is rather long, but I'll get around to it when I have more time. Sorry, from the evidence you really can't help anyone become more enlightened, you can only help them to live in a southern fantasyland and repeat your Lost Cause claptrap. That should be resisted. More topics relevant to the Civil War: Participation trophies, the Wizard of Oz, imaginary grades, imaginary people, leftists, Trump-Russia. You couldn't be more ignorant about history if you worked at it. I quoted the ACTUAL articles from the Confederate Constitution and what does this goofball do? Ad hominem....he attacks the messenger, Abbeville Institute, despite the fact that THEY were just quoting the Confederate Constitution. Such idiotic tactics leave no doubt how weak and false his narrative must be to resort to such laughable garbage as this.
Like a child, this troll takes insignificant, infrequent tidbits of information and blows them up in his imagination....he probably thought there were monsters in his closet when he heard the floor squeak back when he was childish and immature. Unfortunately, his embrace of the Northern lies seems to indicate that he never matured at all. Still looking for monsters where there are none.
"But..but...but...the secession documents!" I've repeatedly shown how little his alleged evidence amounts to, and how much contradictory evidence is stacked against him, but he's like Don Quixote, mindlessly imagining dragons when it's just a windmill.
The Confederate Constitution made a STRONGER prohibition against the importation of slaves than did the U.S. Constitution. The Confederates PROHIBITED slaves from outside their territory. Pretty stupid to still think it was all about slavery when they were adding stronger prohibitive language against slavery in their own Constitution!
The Confederates only added clarifying language about slavery rather than adding rights or privileges, but to the brainwashed cultists who think that slavery was the cause, that's a trigger that these snowflakes can't ignore.
Confederates corrected a lot of items unrelated to slavery, including a new clause restricting protective tariffs.....based on your logic, I'll just cherry pick the tariff clause and proclaim that tariffs were the primary cause, just as you've done with slavery. Yes, your alleged reasoning is just that stupid.
You'd have to be more intelligent to become enlightened, so there's no hope. Doesn't mean I stop correcting you....it just means you'll never accept the truth that I have given you repeatedly. You're afraid of what you'll never be able to understand.
And finally, this leftist doesn't like analogous comparisons and phrases like "participation trophies, the Wizard of Oz, imaginary grades, imaginary people, leftists, Trump-Russia", because they hit too close to home in depicting his failures here. He heaps ridicule on anything that scares him. I'm sure he'll whine like a child in his next post again about my analogies.
Challenge still stands....you've provided no evidence from these historians that adds anything to your shallow, false narrative of slavery as the cause. If the supporting historical volumes at your disposal are so numerous, it should be easy for you to step up with proof, but all we get is that little repetitive squeak from you about the refuted "secession documents" (there were just three slavery heavy ones out of eleven seceded states and thirteen ordinances of secession).
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 26, 2023 21:15:04 GMT
You couldn't be more ignorant about history if you worked at it. I quoted the ACTUAL articles from the Confederate Constitution and what does this goofball do? Ad hominem....he attacks the messenger, Abbeville Institute, despite the fact that THEY were just quoting the Confederate Constitution. Such idiotic tactics leave no doubt how weak and false his narrative must be to resort to such laughable garbage as this.
Like a child, this troll takes insignificant, infrequent tidbits of information and blows them up in his imagination....he probably thought there were monsters in his closet when he heard the floor squeak back when he was childish and immature. Unfortunately, his embrace of the Northern lies seems to indicate that he never matured at all. Still looking for monsters where there are none.
"But..but...but...the secession documents!" I've repeatedly shown how little his alleged evidence amounts to, and how much contradictory evidence is stacked against him, but he's like Don Quixote, mindlessly imagining dragons when it's just a windmill.
The Confederate Constitution made a STRONGER prohibition against the importation of slaves than did the U.S. Constitution. The Confederates PROHIBITED slaves from outside their territory. Pretty stupid to still think it was all about slavery when they were adding stronger prohibitive language against slavery in their own Constitution!
The Confederates only added clarifying language about slavery rather than adding rights or privileges, but to the brainwashed cultists who think that slavery was the cause, that's a trigger that these snowflakes can't ignore.
Confederates corrected a lot of items unrelated to slavery, including a new clause restricting protective tariffs.....based on your logic, I'll just cherry pick the tariff clause and proclaim that tariffs were the primary cause, just as you've done with slavery. Yes, your alleged reasoning is just that stupid.
You'd have to be more intelligent to become enlightened, so there's no hope. Doesn't mean I stop correcting you....it just means you'll never accept the truth that I have given you repeatedly. You're afraid of what you'll never be able to understand.
And finally, this leftist doesn't like analogous comparisons and phrases like "participation trophies, the Wizard of Oz, imaginary grades, imaginary people, leftists, Trump-Russia", because they hit too close to home in depicting his failures here. He heaps ridicule on anything that scares him. I'm sure he'll whine like a child in his next post again about my analogies.
Challenge still stands....you've provided no evidence from these historians that adds anything to your shallow, false narrative of slavery as the cause. If the supporting historical volumes at your disposal are so numerous, it should be easy for you to step up with proof, but all we get is that little repetitive squeak from you about the refuted "secession documents" (there were just three slavery heavy ones out of eleven seceded states and thirteen ordinances of secession).
There is no messenger to attack, only the message from the Confederate Constitution. That is the two clauses that confer more power on slaveholders and the expansion of slavery, which go beyond anything in the U.S. Constitution. But what else would one expect from a gov't run by slaveocrats. I mentioned that before I discussed the Abbeville Institute. The AI is a Lost Cause leaning organization, though I doubt they would use that term, though their ideology would certainly fit it. It's obvious when one looks at their website. Very obvious. Here's a good article on the secession documents: blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seceded-from-the-union-to-protect-slavery/At first glance it seems counterintuitive that a gov't run by slaveocrats would ban the importation of slaves. But that would be the swallow, simplistic view. The idea that this ban was added to put an end to slavery also has nothing to do with it.: pastexplore.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/why-did-the-confederate-constitution-ban-the-international-slave-trade/You can't correct things with falsities. I don't accept your "truth" because it's a lot of Lost Cause claptrap with no substantial evidence to back it up. Why would anyone accept such nonsense? Ad hominems? You must be joking. A large part of your posts are nothing more than ad hominems. Rather silly, inaccurate, and imaginary ones, often entertaining, but still ad hominems. I find your analogies as clueless and comical as your ad hominems. I guess when your "evidence" is so thin something else has to come forth, and it's mostly rather weird and irrelevant comparisons that have nothing to do with the Civil War. Monsters in the closet, squeaking floors. Hilarious. Imaginary wins, imaginary audience, and now imaginary psychology. It's all too funny. Challenge, what challenge? You couldn't challenge a toddler with your ahistorical garbage. Don Quixote's delusion was that the windmills were giants, not dragons. Try to keep up. Don Quixote, one of the few persons even more delusional than you.
|
|