thor
Legend
Posts: 16,783
|
Post by thor on May 27, 2023 0:26:13 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. One thing that is also hilarious about our generational racist's babbling about the importation of slaves is that he too stupid to realize that banning their importation was unnecessary given the sheer number of slaves that his shitcan ancestors owned. Slaves were self-perpetuating at that point. The bottom line is that this moral degenerate is defending the practices of human trafficking and the breeding and selling of slave labor for fun and profit.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 27, 2023 4:08:28 GMT
One thing that is also hilarious about our generational racist's babbling about the importation of slaves is that he too stupid to realize that banning their importation was unnecessary given the sheer number of slaves that his shitcan ancestors owned. Slaves were self-perpetuating at that point. The bottom line is that this moral degenerate is defending the practices of human trafficking and the breeding and selling of slave labor for fun and profit. Yes, slaves were to some extent reproducing more slaves the natural way and also the Confederate Constitution still allowed slaves to be imported by certain states and territories outside the Confederacy. You do have to wonder why the Lost Causers are so adamant about refusing to recognize the importance of slavery to the act of secession.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 29, 2023 14:34:33 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. What garbage, but that's what we've come to expect form this poster. The three unique clauses in the Confederate Constitution were little more than the right to transport freely across all geographic locations and a complete ban on the importation of slaves. The author of that article that you posted about the importation ban failed to recall this clause in the Confederate Constitution which refutes the entire premise of that idiotic screed: 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.”
That language is just a strong as the original prohibition of slave importation in the U.S Constitution, yet it was ignored for the sake of the narrative.
And once again, you show us that your opinions are so weak that you feel compelled to continue attacking the Abbeville Institute rather than addressing what they have to say. That's the logical fallacy of a loser who has little evidence to back up his claims; that's borne out in the tired repetition of your "secession documents" article full of cherry picking rather than a look at each document that showed many other reasons for secession as well as the fact that so few where issued in the first place. it adds nothing new and is still as painfully thin and unconvincing as before. One look at the article shows reasons like Lincoln's election, and lines like: "central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society"
Just admit that you and your ilk are triggered by the word slavery and tailor your arguments around a predetermined conclusion instead of looking objectively at the facts. That's exactly what both of these articles and the alleged historians that you worship have done. it's the worst way to look at history....fully invested in a conclusion before you even know the facts. It's amazing how these Northern Lie Cultists abandon any skepticism so that they can protect their juvenile, cartoonish narrative.
You must be desperate now to start pretending that my evidence is thin when you know that's not true. You lost credibility on this thread when your argument became "the Confederates must have been too dumb to know better". That's as thin as it ever gets and that's when you became a joke and you haven't' recovered from that ailment. I use analogies because facts and evidence evidently have no effect on the simplistic brainwashing of a liberal cultist. I have to explain the truth using comparable examples to those cultists who are indoctrinated with Northern lies.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 29, 2023 14:43:32 GMT
One thing that is also hilarious about our generational racist's babbling about the importation of slaves is that he too stupid to realize that banning their importation was unnecessary given the sheer number of slaves that his shitcan ancestors owned. Slaves were self-perpetuating at that point. The bottom line is that this moral degenerate is defending the practices of human trafficking and the breeding and selling of slave labor for fun and profit. Yes, slaves were to some extent reproducing more slaves the natural way and also the Confederate Constitution still allowed slaves to be imported by certain states and territories outside the Confederacy. You do have to wonder why the Lost Causers are so adamant about refusing to recognize the importance of slavery to the act of secession. And yet secession damaged the institution of slavery far more than helping or protecting it. You're in stupid, dishonest company if you agree with an animal like thor, so be careful of the company that you keep.
Secession ended any chance to expand slavery into any territory and certainly ended any hope that escaped slaves would be returned. Slaves were already finding ways to escape to the North and secession made that possibility far more likely. Globally, the Confederacy became a pariah because of secession and slavery. And what is your response to the irrefutable proof that damaging the institution means that slavery was not the cause? Per HM: "Southerners must have been too dumb to know better".
Come to think of it, perhaps thor is your forum soulmate.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,587
|
Post by Fiddler on May 29, 2023 16:05:15 GMT
HolyMoly .. Your "I Kicked Paleo's Ass and All I Got Was This Tee shirt" .. tee shirt is in the mail ..
Welcome to the group ..
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 29, 2023 16:08:34 GMT
HolyMoly .. Your "I Kicked Paleo's Ass and All I Got Was This Tee shirt" .. tee shirt is in the mail ..
Welcome to the group .. Holy, make sure you get instructions from Fiddler on how he uses his tee-shirt. He stuffs it down his britches to help soften the blow when I kick his ass.
And why join a group with zero qualified members, including you?
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 16,783
|
Post by thor on May 29, 2023 17:15:55 GMT
HolyMoly .. Your "I Kicked Paleo's Ass and All I Got Was This Tee shirt" .. tee shirt is in the mail ..
Welcome to the group .. This entire thread reminds me of Paleo in this scene, well-played by Jim Carrey:
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 29, 2023 19:29:09 GMT
HolyMoly .. Your "I Kicked Paleo's Ass and All I Got Was This Tee shirt" .. tee shirt is in the mail ..
Welcome to the group .. This entire thread reminds me of Paleo in this scene, well-played by Jim Carrey: Bless your heart. You're a very special kind of stupid, aren't you, boy? Learn to take your ass kicking like a man instead of this incessant whining like a child.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 29, 2023 21:36:21 GMT
What garbage, but that's what we've come to expect form this poster. The three unique clauses in the Confederate Constitution were little more than the right to transport freely across all geographic locations and a complete ban on the importation of slaves. The author of that article that you posted about the importation ban failed to recall this clause in the Confederate Constitution which refutes the entire premise of that idiotic screed: 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.”
That language is just a strong as the original prohibition of slave importation in the U.S Constitution, yet it was ignored for the sake of the narrative.
And once again, you show us that your opinions are so weak that you feel compelled to continue attacking the Abbeville Institute rather than addressing what they have to say. That's the logical fallacy of a loser who has little evidence to back up his claims; that's borne out in the tired repetition of your "secession documents" article full of cherry picking rather than a look at each document that showed many other reasons for secession as well as the fact that so few where issued in the first place. it adds nothing new and is still as painfully thin and unconvincing as before. One look at the article shows reasons like Lincoln's election, and lines like: "central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society"
Just admit that you and your ilk are triggered by the word slavery and tailor your arguments around a predetermined conclusion instead of looking objectively at the facts. That's exactly what both of these articles and the alleged historians that you worship have done. it's the worst way to look at history....fully invested in a conclusion before you even know the facts. It's amazing how these Northern Lie Cultists abandon any skepticism so that they can protect their juvenile, cartoonish narrative.
You must be desperate now to start pretending that my evidence is thin when you know that's not true. You lost credibility on this thread when your argument became "the Confederates must have been too dumb to know better". That's as thin as it ever gets and that's when you became a joke and you haven't' recovered from that ailment. I use analogies because facts and evidence evidently have no effect on the simplistic brainwashing of a liberal cultist. I have to explain the truth using comparable examples to those cultists who are indoctrinated with Northern lies.
And 1.9.1 forbids the importation of slaves from Africa, but it doesn't also ban the importation of slaves from slaveholding states or territories outside the Confederacy. And Congress having the power to ban importation of slaves from other parts of the U.S. is different from Congress actually doing so. The two clauses about slavery go far beyond any rights granted to slaveholders in the U.S. Constitution, which is what one would expect from a slaveholding gov't. There is no logical fallacy. The Abbeville Institute parrots the Lost Cause narrative, so it's only logical to take that into account when looking at their writings. I don't expect you to accept any evidence that runs counter to the LC narrative, that's what LCers are all about--deny the evidence, no matter how strong, because the fake LC narrative must be maintained at all costs. Maybe it's some kind of southern tradition thing, who knows. The main point is it's a mass of claptrap masquerading as history. There's no reason to be triggered by the word slavery, anymore than there is to be triggered by words Pearl Harbor or unrestricted submarine warfare. They're just the names of the facts in each case. The great majority of Civil War historians know the facts better than you do. That's why they have come to their conclusions about slavery as the cause of secession. It wasn't a predetermined conclusion or a cartoonish narrative, it was conclusions reached after a careful examination of the facts. But LCers can't admit that so they stick to their own loony toon theories. Yes, your evidence is thin and threadbare. Lost credibility to whom? Your imaginary audience where I became an imaginary joke in your own mind? How devastating. You could explain the truth by having the truth, but you lack that, so explanation will always be futile. It's not my fault that the gov't pledged to the preservation of slavery ended slavery in four years. Not exactly a sign of smarts. These dumb goobers miscalculated twice--in thinking that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery and starting a war they though they could win. Wrong on both accounts. They lost again.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 29, 2023 22:01:50 GMT
And yet secession damaged the institution of slavery far more than helping or protecting it. You're in stupid, dishonest company if you agree with an animal like thor, so be careful of the company that you keep.
Secession ended any chance to expand slavery into any territory and certainly ended any hope that escaped slaves would be returned. Slaves were already finding ways to escape to the North and secession made that possibility far more likely. Globally, the Confederacy became a pariah because of secession and slavery. And what is your response to the irrefutable proof that damaging the institution means that slavery was not the cause? Per HM: "Southerners must have been too dumb to know better".
Come to think of it, perhaps thor is your forum soulmate.
Yep and Napoleon and Hitler invading Russia turned out to be a disastrous idea, but they did it anyway. So was idea of starting a war with the U.S., but the Confederates did it anyway. It's called history. And Thor seems fine to me. The results point to the fact that the Confederate gov't was too dumb, ignorant, arrogant, clueless, take your pick. Being stupid is part of history too. And perhaps you're just making shit up because you've got nothing better to show for all your efforts on behalf of the LC.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 30, 2023 0:45:12 GMT
And yet secession damaged the institution of slavery far more than helping or protecting it. You're in stupid, dishonest company if you agree with an animal like thor, so be careful of the company that you keep.
Secession ended any chance to expand slavery into any territory and certainly ended any hope that escaped slaves would be returned. Slaves were already finding ways to escape to the North and secession made that possibility far more likely. Globally, the Confederacy became a pariah because of secession and slavery. And what is your response to the irrefutable proof that damaging the institution means that slavery was not the cause? Per HM: "Southerners must have been too dumb to know better".
Come to think of it, perhaps thor is your forum soulmate.
Yep and Napoleon and Hitler invading Russia turned out to be a disastrous idea, but they did it anyway. So was idea of starting a war with the U.S., but the Confederates did it anyway. It's called history. And Thor seems fine to me. The results point to the fact that the Confederate gov't was too dumb, ignorant, arrogant, clueless, take your pick. Being stupid is part of history too. And perhaps you're just making shit up because you've got nothing better to show for all your efforts on behalf of the LC. The only one "making shit up" is this ignorant fool with no credibility that keeps peddling the idiotic excuse for his lack of evidence by saying that the Confederates were just too dumb to know better.
You have so little but Northern lies to back up your tale, you have to make up these excuses that fit your narrative. But they are not rooted in historical facts, just the guesses of a cultist. Taking risks against long odds doesn't mean that you're "too dumb, ignorant, arrogant, clueless" about what those risks are, but you don't have the critical thinking skill to discern the difference, do you?
Thor is an animal mentally and emotionally, so I'm not surprised that he's "fine to you".
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 30, 2023 1:29:48 GMT
What garbage, but that's what we've come to expect form this poster. The three unique clauses in the Confederate Constitution were little more than the right to transport freely across all geographic locations and a complete ban on the importation of slaves. The author of that article that you posted about the importation ban failed to recall this clause in the Confederate Constitution which refutes the entire premise of that idiotic screed: 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.”
That language is just a strong as the original prohibition of slave importation in the U.S Constitution, yet it was ignored for the sake of the narrative.
And once again, you show us that your opinions are so weak that you feel compelled to continue attacking the Abbeville Institute rather than addressing what they have to say. That's the logical fallacy of a loser who has little evidence to back up his claims; that's borne out in the tired repetition of your "secession documents" article full of cherry picking rather than a look at each document that showed many other reasons for secession as well as the fact that so few where issued in the first place. it adds nothing new and is still as painfully thin and unconvincing as before. One look at the article shows reasons like Lincoln's election, and lines like: "central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society"
Just admit that you and your ilk are triggered by the word slavery and tailor your arguments around a predetermined conclusion instead of looking objectively at the facts. That's exactly what both of these articles and the alleged historians that you worship have done. it's the worst way to look at history....fully invested in a conclusion before you even know the facts. It's amazing how these Northern Lie Cultists abandon any skepticism so that they can protect their juvenile, cartoonish narrative.
You must be desperate now to start pretending that my evidence is thin when you know that's not true. You lost credibility on this thread when your argument became "the Confederates must have been too dumb to know better". That's as thin as it ever gets and that's when you became a joke and you haven't' recovered from that ailment. I use analogies because facts and evidence evidently have no effect on the simplistic brainwashing of a liberal cultist. I have to explain the truth using comparable examples to those cultists who are indoctrinated with Northern lies.
And 1.9.1 forbids the importation of slaves from Africa, but it doesn't also ban the importation of slaves from slaveholding states or territories outside the Confederacy. And Congress having the power to ban importation of slaves from other parts of the U.S. is different from Congress actually doing so. The two clauses about slavery go far beyond any rights granted to slaveholders in the U.S. Constitution, which is what one would expect from a slaveholding gov't. There is no logical fallacy. The Abbeville Institute parrots the Lost Cause narrative, so it's only logical to take that into account when looking at their writings. I don't expect you to accept any evidence that runs counter to the LC narrative, that's what LCers are all about--deny the evidence, no matter how strong, because the fake LC narrative must be maintained at all costs. Maybe it's some kind of southern tradition thing, who knows. The main point is it's a mass of claptrap masquerading as history. There's no reason to be triggered by the word slavery, anymore than there is to be triggered by words Pearl Harbor or unrestricted submarine warfare. They're just the names of the facts in each case. The great majority of Civil War historians know the facts better than you do. That's why they have come to their conclusions about slavery as the cause of secession. It wasn't a predetermined conclusion or a cartoonish narrative, it was conclusions reached after a careful examination of the facts. But LCers can't admit that so they stick to their own loony toon theories. Yes, your evidence is thin and threadbare. Lost credibility to whom? Your imaginary audience where I became an imaginary joke in your own mind? How devastating. You could explain the truth by having the truth, but you lack that, so explanation will always be futile. It's not my fault that the gov't pledged to the preservation of slavery ended slavery in four years. Not exactly a sign of smarts. These dumb goobers miscalculated twice--in thinking that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery and starting a war they though they could win. Wrong on both accounts. They lost again. Clause 1.9.1 ALONE shows a stronger stance AGAINST slavery than what is listed in the U.S. Constitution, which mirrored 1.9.2 in giving Congress the option of stopping the slave trade after 1808 rather than an outright ban. By your supposed logic, wit ha provision weaker and more pro-slavery than the Confederate Constitution, I guess the Union itself must have fought to preserve and defend slavery all along, right?
It's just unintelligent, shallow and cartoonish to hang your hat on these provisions and falsely claim that "the two clauses about slavery go far beyond any rights granted to slaveholders in the U.S. Constitution", when one of them has stronger anti-slavery provisions than the U.S. Constitution! Your claim is just not true, but when has the truth ever mattered to these cultists.
And if you believe that it's proper to take into account the biases of the source, as you have indicated about the Abbeville Institute, this alleged "logic" of yours, if applied equally and fairly, also refutes most of the lies peddled by the biased "Righteous Myth Cut" historians that you worship and adore.
Oops....nice job damaging your own sources with fallacious logic. But you seem the type to squeak about the speck is an opponent's eye without noticing the log in your own.
Yes, triggered like a snowflake...only the historically and intellectually lazy are triggered by the word slavery instead of looking for the whole truth.
You've stopped looking/searching/digging because of that one word, slavery; I've shown you the bigger picture, the larger context, the contradictory complexity of the very documents that you've referenced and the fatal problems with your tale. And what have you done in return? Sucked on the slavery idea like your own personal pacifier, refusing to hear anything that might soil your safe space. Never, ever pretend that you're open minded on this subject; nothing could be further from the truth. Only a truly dedicated zealot clings to his "slavery as the cause" fairy tale with so many doubts cast by the actual historical evidence.
There was no examination of the facts when coming to the erroneous conclusion that slavery was the cause....that idea is nothing revenge porn and winner's spite, not historical truth. It's confirmation biases intended to sway the gullible and naive, not an accurate representation of the history of that era. But, rather than run away again without posting anything but your "Lost Causer" smear, please feel free to post what these historians have to say and watch me shred it and embarrass you at the same time. And it'll be easy, no matter what you try. THAT is how weak and thin your narrative is.
I have the evidence and I have the truth and you do not; that's not gonna change no matter how many posts you make here. I've proven that slavery was not the cause repeatedly and all you've got is the whisper thin handful of paragraphs inside a few declarations and a private speech. That's the same diaphanous and ridiculous evidence that your huckster historians have as well, but you're still welcome to take up my challenge despite the fact that you've run away repeatedly: show us this alleged proof in your vast cache of magical historians and I'll listen. But if you post their perverted, hateful, dishonest and unsupported opinions and I'll destroy each of them with the truth.
Are you afraid to try it? You should be.
So, as before, I'm still here in the ring waiting, wondering if you'll show up instead of running away. Again. A joke? I'm afraid you did that to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 30, 2023 3:08:28 GMT
The only one "making shit up" is this ignorant fool with no credibility that keeps peddling the idiotic excuse for his lack of evidence by saying that the Confederates were just too dumb to know better.
You have so little but Northern lies to back up your tale, you have to make up these excuses that fit your narrative. But they are not rooted in historical facts, just the guesses of a cultist. Taking risks against long odds doesn't mean that you're "too dumb, ignorant, arrogant, clueless" about what those risks are, but you don't have the critical thinking skill to discern the difference, do you?
Thor is an animal mentally and emotionally, so I'm not surprised that he's "fine to you".
I've repeatedly explained the ignorance of the Confederate gov't. Not going to do it again. Waste of time. "Northern lies"=the accepted consensus of Civil War historians from all parts of the country. "Critical thinking skills"=Anyone who agrees with Paleoconjob's LC claptrap has them; anyone who disagrees with him doesn't. What foolishness. You're entitled to your opinion about Thor, I'm entitled to mine.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 30, 2023 3:25:52 GMT
Clause 1.9.1 ALONE shows a stronger stance AGAINST slavery than what is listed in the U.S. Constitution, which mirrored 1.9.2 in giving Congress the option of stopping the slave trade after 1808 rather than an outright ban. By your supposed logic, wit ha provision weaker and more pro-slavery than the Confederate Constitution, I guess the Union itself must have fought to preserve and defend slavery all along, right?
It's just unintelligent, shallow and cartoonish to hang your hat on these provisions and falsely claim that "the two clauses about slavery go far beyond any rights granted to slaveholders in the U.S. Constitution", when one of them has stronger anti-slavery provisions than the U.S. Constitution! Your claim is just not true, but when has the truth ever mattered to these cultists.
And if you believe that it's proper to take into account the biases of the source, as you have indicated about the Abbeville Institute, this alleged "logic" of yours, if applied equally and fairly, also refutes most of the lies peddled by the biased "Righteous Myth Cut" historians that you worship and adore.
Oops....nice job damaging your own sources with fallacious logic. But you seem the type to squeak about the speck is an opponent's eye without noticing the log in your own.
Yes, triggered like a snowflake...only the historically and intellectually lazy are triggered by the word slavery instead of looking for the whole truth.
You've stopped looking/searching/digging because of that one word, slavery; I've shown you the bigger picture, the larger context, the contradictory complexity of the very documents that you've referenced and the fatal problems with your tale. And what have you done in return? Sucked on the slavery idea like your own personal pacifier, refusing to hear anything that might soil your safe space. Never, ever pretend that you're open minded on this subject; nothing could be further from the truth. Only a truly dedicated zealot clings to his "slavery as the cause" fairy tale with so many doubts cast by the actual historical evidence.
There was no examination of the facts when coming to the erroneous conclusion that slavery was the cause....that idea is nothing revenge porn and winner's spite, not historical truth. It's confirmation biases intended to sway the gullible and naive, not an accurate representation of the history of that era. But, rather than run away again without posting anything but your "Lost Causer" smear, please feel free to post what these historians have to say and watch me shred it and embarrass you at the same time. And it'll be easy, no matter what you try. THAT is how weak and thin your narrative is.
I have the evidence and I have the truth and you do not; that's not gonna change no matter how many posts you make here. I've proven that slavery was not the cause repeatedly and all you've got is the whisper thin handful of paragraphs inside a few declarations and a private speech. That's the same diaphanous and ridiculous evidence that your huckster historians have as well, but you're still welcome to take up my challenge despite the fact that you've run away repeatedly: show us this alleged proof in your vast cache of magical historians and I'll listen. But if you post their perverted, hateful, dishonest and unsupported opinions and I'll destroy each of them with the truth.
Are you afraid to try it? You should be.
So, as before, I'm still here in the ring waiting, wondering if you'll show up instead of running away. Again. A joke? I'm afraid you did that to yourself.
Same old word salad of LC nonsense and silly irrelevant off topic junk--revenge porn and winner's spite. You sound more loony toon in each new post. Can't you figure out by now you have no evidence to offer, no truth to proclaim, no challenge to offer. All you've got is your LC fantasies, which is evidence of nothing. How am I running away? Not believing in your LC nonsense is not running away, it's LOL at your cluelessness on this topic. As I've said before, you have no interest in the evidence, you're a LC addict who cannot stand to see the evidence and has to deny the obvious at every step. You couldn't destroy a piece of half torn paper. Afraid of an idiot like you? You've got to be kidding. Stand in the ring, I'll send in an eight grader who will beat the crap out of your LC garbage.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 16,783
|
Post by thor on May 30, 2023 3:53:25 GMT
This entire thread reminds me of Paleo in this scene, well-played by Jim Carrey: Bless your heart. You're a very special kind of stupid, aren't you, boy? Learn to take your ass kicking like a man instead of this incessant whining like a child. But wait.....there's more.... “We must go before the nation with the Bible as the text, and ‘thus sayeth the lord’ as the answer.” . “We know that on the Bible argument the abolition party will be driven to unveil their true infidel tendencies. The Bible being bound to stand on our side, they have to come out and array themselves against the Bible.” - Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney, explaining to his fellow racist priests how to defend the primary issue. The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… 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? Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 30, 2023 15:39:01 GMT
I've repeatedly explained the ignorance of the Confederate gov't. Not going to do it again. Waste of time. "Northern lies"=the accepted consensus of Civil War historians from all parts of the country. "Critical thinking skills"=Anyone who agrees with Paleoconjob's LC claptrap has them; anyone who disagrees with him doesn't. What foolishness. You're entitled to your opinion about Thor, I'm entitled to mine. Thor is an animal and that's not an opinion. Not surprised that you adopted a pet here. Just so any newcomers get the gist of what's going on here: 1) I've provided irrefutable evidence showing the strength of the causes other than slavery. Protective tariffs alone got a brand new clause in the Confederate Constitution as did an absolute ban on the importation of slaves from other countries (the U.S. Constitution has much weaker language). 2) I've provided irrefutable evidence that secession and war harmed the very institution that HolyMoly claims was the South's primary motivation. 3) I've shown that the South rejected a Constitutional Amendment so brutally strong that it would have prohibited Congress in perpetuity from passing any future amendments related to slavery. 4) And what is the alleged proof to the contrary by HM and his fellow cultists? Three measly Declarations of Causes (all of which still list other causes) out of eleven seceded states and a private speech by the CSA VP. 5) HolyMoly claims that there is a hoard, flock, stampede, orgy of alleged historians whom he worships as THE EXPERTS, but he refuses the challenge of quoting any of them. 6) When shown irrefutable evidence that slavery was not the cause based the actions of Southerners, HolyMoly's imaginary, baseless and unproven excuse? "They must have all just been too dumb to know better". So, here's the question..... this poster has based his entire "slavery was the cause" opinion on the fiery blovations of a bunch of lying politicians and elitists in 1861, even though we would never swallow the bloviations of lying politicians and elitists today as a root cause for anything. Most of us know that it would be exceedingly stupid to judge motivations in the past or present based on the dishonest rhetoric of politicians rather than the actions taken or the results or the entirety and complexity of the situation. But like all cultists, HM suspends the clear logic, common sense that tells us to ignore and scorn the lies of politicians and he ignores actual contradictory evidence in just this one case....the Southern Confederacy. And yes, that sounds stupid because it is stupid, but the alternative for them would be to acknowledge that the South was right and the Union was wrong, and they will not accept that fact. Their hatred of the South and what the Confederates really stood for (not slavery) blinds these Northern lie cultists to the contradictory, ugly truth that the Confederacy and the war were not motivated by slavery, but by the North's lust for power and control. Abe and his minions was the latest iteration of King George II and his filth, while the Confederates rightly thought of themselves as the direct heirs of the American Patriots of the Revolutionary War. The Great Seal of the Confederacy is centered on an image of George Washington as General, not a bunch of slaves and cotton. Same old word salad of LC nonsense and silly irrelevant off topic junk--revenge porn and winner's spite. You sound more loony toon in each new post. Can't you figure out by now you have no evidence to offer, no truth to proclaim, no challenge to offer. All you've got is your LC fantasies, which is evidence of nothing. How am I running away? Not believing in your LC nonsense is not running away, it's LOL at your cluelessness on this topic. As I've said before, you have no interest in the evidence, you're a LC addict who cannot stand to see the evidence and has to deny the obvious at every step. You couldn't destroy a piece of half torn paper. Afraid of an idiot like you? You've got to be kidding. Stand in the ring, I'll send in an eight grader who will beat the crap out of your LC garbage. You claim no fear, yet you still run away every time...quite a few of the liberals here do the same when challenged. If you are so confident, then step up....you claim a shitpile of historians in the wings, yet you flee when challenged to put up or shut up and post this alleged proof from these historians. I suspect that that those alleged historians have nothing beyond the refuted crap that you've attempted here, so it boils down to just their unsupported opinion. I'm here, still waiting. When you get tired of running, you're welcome to try if you'd like, but you will lose, just as you already have on this thread.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 30, 2023 15:51:30 GMT
Bless your heart. You're a very special kind of stupid, aren't you, boy? Learn to take your ass kicking like a man instead of this incessant whining like a child. But wait.....there's more.... “We must go before the nation with the Bible as the text, and ‘thus sayeth the lord’ as the answer.” . “We know that on the Bible argument the abolition party will be driven to unveil their true infidel tendencies. The Bible being bound to stand on our side, they have to come out and array themselves against the Bible.” - Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney, explaining to his fellow racist priests how to defend the primary issue. The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… 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? Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy? Why does your lying ass keep asking a question based on YOUR own lie? Feel free to quote where I ever said it was "totally OK for slavery to exist" or admit that you're a f*cking liar.
And not a single word about slavery from Dabney, just a truthful commentary on the despicable tactics of the abolition party.
Anything else, boy?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 5,987
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on May 30, 2023 21:01:35 GMT
On July 12, 1862, Lincoln met with border state congressmen to discuss his proposal for compensated emancipation, a ploy to keep them from considering secession. On July 15, 1862, these Congressmen sent two letters to Lincoln with their reply. In the "minority" letter, a statement was made that might cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among those who falsely believe that slavery was the cause:
That in order to carry out these views, we will so far as may be in our power ask the people of the border states, calmly, deliberately,and fairly, to consider your recommendations. We are the more emboldened to assume this position from the fact, now become history, that the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation.
If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.
As early as 1862, the Southerners were offering to give up slavery in exchange for help gaining their independence. If slavery was the cause, why were they so willing to give that up?
The "majority" letter from the same group was sent to Lincoln on July 14, 1862 and contained these statements:
The rebellion derives its strength from the union of all classes in the insurgent states; and while that union lasts, it the war will never end, until they are utterly exhausted. We know that at the inception of these troubles Southern Society was divided, and that a large portion, probably a majority, were opposed to secession. Now the great mass of Southern people are united. To discover why they are so, we must glance at Southern Society, and notice the classes into which it has been divided, and which still distinguish it. They are in arms but not for the same object; they are moved to a common end but by different, and even inconsistent reasons. The leaders, which comprehend what was previously known as the State rights party, (which is much the lesser class) seek to break down national independence, and set up State domination. With them it is a war against nationality. The other class is fighting, as it supposes, to maintain and preserve its rights of property and domestic Safety, which, it has been made to believe, are assailed by this government. This latter class are not disunionists per se. They are so, only because they have been made to believe, that your administration is inimical to their rights, & is making war on their domestic institutions.
Nor do we, permit us to say Mr President with all respect for you, agree that the institution of slavery is “the lever of their power” but we are of the opinion that “the lever of their power” is the apprehension that the powers of a common government created for common and equal protection to the interests of all will be wielded against the institutions of the Southern States.
According to these UNION Congressmen from border states, the "apprehension that the powers of a common government....will be wielded against the institutions of the Southern states" was the actual cause of the CSA and they made clear that the LEADERS of the Confederacy were the advocates of state's rights and independence, and these border congressmen clearly differentiated the leaders of the CSA from the almost pro-Union elitists who wanted slavery protected.
Modern historians (post 1960s) have chronic cases of "presentism" (judging the past through the lens of present day biases) that have blinded them with hatred rather than blessing them with objectivity. While folks like HM are worshiping these neo-propagandists, I bypass that parasitic filth from academia and go directly to the writings of those who actually participated. This is the result.
That's just a taste of the knowledge that I can yield here on this subject and it either surpasses what those neo-"historians" know or more likely reveals details that they have omitted because those details contradict their "slavery was the cause" lies.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on May 31, 2023 3:36:51 GMT
Thor is an animal and that's not an opinion. Not surprised that you adopted a pet here. Just so any newcomers get the gist of what's going on here: 1) I've provided irrefutable evidence showing the strength of the causes other than slavery. Protective tariffs alone got a brand new clause in the Confederate Constitution as did an absolute ban on the importation of slaves from other countries (the U.S. Constitution has much weaker language). 2) I've provided irrefutable evidence that secession and war harmed the very institution that HolyMoly claims was the South's primary motivation. 3) I've shown that the South rejected a Constitutional Amendment so brutally strong that it would have prohibited Congress in perpetuity from passing any future amendments related to slavery. 4) And what is the alleged proof to the contrary by HM and his fellow cultists? Three measly Declarations of Causes (all of which still list other causes) out of eleven seceded states and a private speech by the CSA VP. 5) HolyMoly claims that there is a hoard, flock, stampede, orgy of alleged historians whom he worships as THE EXPERTS, but he refuses the challenge of quoting any of them. 6) When shown irrefutable evidence that slavery was not the cause based the actions of Southerners, HolyMoly's imaginary, baseless and unproven excuse? "They must have all just been too dumb to know better". So, here's the question..... this poster has based his entire "slavery was the cause" opinion on the fiery blovations of a bunch of lying politicians and elitists in 1861, even though we would never swallow the bloviations of lying politicians and elitists today as a root cause for anything. Most of us know that it would be exceedingly stupid to judge motivations in the past or present based on the dishonest rhetoric of politicians rather than the actions taken or the results or the entirety and complexity of the situation. But like all cultists, HM suspends the clear logic, common sense that tells us to ignore and scorn the lies of politicians and he ignores actual contradictory evidence in just this one case....the Southern Confederacy. And yes, that sounds stupid because it is stupid, but the alternative for them would be to acknowledge that the South was right and the Union was wrong, and they will not accept that fact. Their hatred of the South and what the Confederates really stood for (not slavery) blinds these Northern lie cultists to the contradictory, ugly truth that the Confederacy and the war were not motivated by slavery, but by the North's lust for power and control. Abe and his minions was the latest iteration of King George II and his filth, while the Confederates rightly thought of themselves as the direct heirs of the American Patriots of the Revolutionary War. The Great Seal of the Confederacy is centered on an image of George Washington as General, not a bunch of slaves and cotton. You claim no fear, yet you still run away every time...quite a few of the liberals here do the same when challenged. If you are so confident, then step up....you claim a shitpile of historians in the wings, yet you flee when challenged to put up or shut up and post this alleged proof from these historians. I suspect that that those alleged historians have nothing beyond the refuted crap that you've attempted here, so it boils down to just their unsupported opinion. I'm here, still waiting. When you get tired of running, you're welcome to try if you'd like, but you will lose, just as you already have on this thread. Sure, it's an opinion, your opinion. People have different opinions. Agreeing with someone does not make them your pet. It's just more wingnut hyperbole. 1) The only place where your evidence is irrefutable is in your own mind. ITRW, it's very unconvincing. 2) I agree. The reason: Confederates and their serious miscalculations. 3) If you're talking about the Corwin Amendment, six states had already seceded by the time the amendment passed. How do the seceded states reject an amendment by a gov't they are no longer part of? The Corwin Amendment is an interesting historical footnote, but that's about all it is in the larger scheme of things. It proves zip about the Civil War. 4) Slavery is also mentioned in some of the secession ordinances, right there in black and white. Yeah, the Confederate VP, what would he know, right? 5) There is a consensus among actual Civil War historians that slavery was the cause of secession. Not a horde of alleged historians, but actual historians who have studied the subject. In the internet age it is simple to find out who they are and order their books. 6) Again, your evidence is pretty worthless, which is why I don't take it seriously. Didn't you ever hear that well known definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's why your whole LC project is insane. I believe you're thinking of filthy George III, not filthy George II. Yep, George Washington, a slaveholder. Slaveholders fighting for freedom. How absurd. The Revolutionary War comparison works both way--northerners spun it as the North fighting for freedom against the slaveocrats of the South, as the revolutionaries fought for their freedom against the oppressive British. Take your pick. You have some rather strange definitions. If I was running away, that means I wouldn't come back, but I do, so how am I running away? I'm guessing even you know that most historians of the Civil War believe that slavery was the cause. You must have come across that observation at some point. And their beliefs are hardly unsupported. You probably know that too, but can't admit it. Gets in the way of the LC nuttiness. If you're waiting for me to change my mind and adopt the LC looniness, you're going to have a very long wait. I've lost only in your own narrow mind. Oh, how can I ever survive? And please look up the definition of cult. You're still getting it all wrong. The only thing we don't have to fear is wingnutism itself.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,587
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 1, 2023 15:11:09 GMT
Bump ..
Let's not allow this "Paleo receives yet another enema" to fall off the first page ..
I just ordered another case of popcorn . .. Orville Redenbacher's Tender White ..
|
|