Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 2, 2023 16:38:58 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. All you are doing here is virtue signaling, nothing more. Virtue signaling is a sign of emotional and intellectual immaturity which explains the adamant dedication to your fairy tale rather than looking at the facts objectively as I have. You should be ashamed of yourself for running away from the challenge posed to you on this thread repeatedly. It's a sign that you know very little about the history but you will vehemently and rabidly obey your handlers who have brainwashed you into thinking that these so called historians could ever back up their lies about the South. It’s obvious that you’re afraid to actually step up and post the alleged evidence from these unnamed historians that you revere. Instead, you just make stuff up instead of facing the ugly truth that you are clueless. The tactics that you've attempted are just sad and pathetic, as is your false narrative. 1) Of course, I've provided irrefutable evidence to you. Denying that just makes you look stupid; you've failed to refute any of it yourself, nor have you brought in any of this flock of historians to attempt the same. 2) There you go making stuff up again....secession instantly and clearly to all damaged slavery (isolation from other nations, no more chance for slavery in territories or recovering slaves from the North) , so what exactly did they "miscalculate"? There was no war going on when this severe damage was done to the institution by Southern secession, because this was peacetime damage that couldn't be "calculated" any other way, and Southerners knew it. Did you just miss this obvious fact or is this just more of your fiction that makes you look even more stupid? I think the latter. 3) Wow, you can’t be this ignorant IRL. The Corwin Amendment was designed to entice those seceded states back into the Union, at a time when each seceded states could vote to return to the Union. If slavery was the cause, Corwin would have been an irresistible victory…the easiest win imaginable, won without bloodshed or the loss of treasure and life. All through the war, the Union was trying to lure the seceded states back with this slavery lure…..Lincoln and his minions, in the 1865 Hampton Roads conference, even mentioned the possibility of Southern states blocking ratification of the second 13th amendment ending slavery if they agreed to return to the Union. Same ploy was used in 1861 with Corwin. Belittling Corwins obvious importance is yet another mistake that makes you look pretty stupid...and desperate. Dismissing vital evidence is never a refutation. 4) The word slavery was never mentioned in any of the thirteen Ordinances of Secession and only three contained the words “slaveholding states”, which is a regional, geographic descritot like “Border States”, “Gulf States”, Rustbelt States”. And Stephens, VP was still a lying politician making a private speech. It’s stupid to embrace the hyperbole of a lying politician as any kind of proof…just as Kamala Harris’s cackling and idiocy doesn’t reflect what our country stands for today. 5) So you claim, yet you can’t seem to provide any evidence from this dishonest gaggle of “historians” to bolster your claims. Perhaps that’s because their alleged proof is as easily refuted as yours has been. Once again, stop running and let’s see you post facts from these “experts” that seem to have your gonads in their firm academic grasp. 6) You’d have to regain quite a lot of lost credibility to ever be in a position to judge the worth of my evidence. As far as definitions, I’ll be glad to school you on any that confuse your tiny intelligence. No one claimed that you were running away from the forum or this thread, which makes your idea a strawman fallacy. What you have run away from is the challenge to provide evidence from these historians that lead your cult. As far as what makes one a cultist, here you go: What exactly is a cult? Destructive individuals and cults use deception and undue influence to make people dependent and obedient. A group should not be considered a cult merely because of its unorthodox beliefs. It is typically authoritarian, headed by a person or group of people with near complete control of followers. Cult influence is designed to disrupt a person’s authentic identity and replace it with a new identity. www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-mind/202106/understanding-cults-the-basicsNot thinking for oneself (follower) by blindly believing (dependent, obedient) the Northern lies about the South (deception, undue influence, control of narrative). When one embraces the Northern lies, they shed their old identity (normal) and get brainwashed into a lemming. Once again, the ACTIONS of Confederates shows that the cause was not slavery, while the hyperbole of lying politicians should be largely taken with a grain of salt just as we do with lying politicians today. You and your ilk really do look stupid when the only exception that you make for disbelieving lying politicians is the Southern Confederacy.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 2, 2023 16:50:31 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 ..
Well, step up, boy and let's see if you're capable of being anything more than HolyMoly's cheerleader. You've gotten your ass kicked on every War Between the States thread that's ever appeared on LNF; why should this one be any different.
But you're afraid to post anything substantive, aren't you, boy? Afraid that I'll reply and show everyone how stupid you are. Count on it, boy...you wouldn't have a chance.
I say, I say now.....go away, boy, you bother me. Or you'll get what I usually give you:
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 2, 2023 17:47:02 GMT
About a month before Fort Sumter surrendered, the Boston Transcript concluded on March 18, 1861 that the South did not secede to protect slavery, but did do because it wanted to become the North’s economic competitor.
"Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton States, but the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the seceding States are now for commercial independence. . . The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston and Philadelphia may be shorn . . . of their mercantile greatness by a revenue system verging upon free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the businesses of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured.
The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederacy that the entire Northwest [present day Midwest] must find it to their advantage to purchase imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition, Northern manufacturers will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties. . "
Oops. History is wonderfully complex, contradictory, ugly, nuanced and detailed.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Jun 2, 2023 18:56:05 GMT
About a month before Fort Sumter surrendered, the Boston Transcript concluded on March 18, 1861 that the South did not secede to protect slavery, but did do because it wanted to become the North’s economic competitor.
"Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton States, but the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the seceding States are now for commercial independence. . . The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston and Philadelphia may be shorn . . . of their mercantile greatness by a revenue system verging upon free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the businesses of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured.
The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederacy that the entire Northwest [present day Midwest] must find it to their advantage to purchase imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition, Northern manufacturers will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties. . "
Oops. History is wonderfully complex, contradictory, ugly, nuanced and detailed.
Whats the best way for the south to be "the North’s economic competitor"? With slavery
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 2, 2023 19:21:53 GMT
About a month before Fort Sumter surrendered, the Boston Transcript concluded on March 18, 1861 that the South did not secede to protect slavery, but did do because it wanted to become the North’s economic competitor.
"Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton States, but the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the seceding States are now for commercial independence. . . The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston and Philadelphia may be shorn . . . of their mercantile greatness by a revenue system verging upon free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the businesses of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured.
The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederacy that the entire Northwest [present day Midwest] must find it to their advantage to purchase imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition, Northern manufacturers will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties. . "
Oops. History is wonderfully complex, contradictory, ugly, nuanced and detailed.
Whats the best way for the south to be "the North’s economic competitor"? With slavery So opening ports, instituting a lower tariff, taking shipping routes from Northern interests and becoming a conduit of goods to the Midwest is still just "slavery", huh? Yes, you DO sound that stupid.
Seriously, how did you get this brainwashed, cultist?
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Jun 2, 2023 21:22:42 GMT
All you are doing here is virtue signaling, nothing more. Virtue signaling is a sign of emotional and intellectual immaturity which explains the adamant dedication to your fairy tale rather than looking at the facts objectively as I have. You should be ashamed of yourself for running away from the challenge posed to you on this thread repeatedly. It's a sign that you know very little about the history but you will vehemently and rabidly obey your handlers who have brainwashed you into thinking that these so called historians could ever back up their lies about the South. It’s obvious that you’re afraid to actually step up and post the alleged evidence from these unnamed historians that you revere. Instead, you just make stuff up instead of facing the ugly truth that you are clueless. The tactics that you've attempted are just sad and pathetic, as is your false narrative. 1) Of course, I've provided irrefutable evidence to you. Denying that just makes you look stupid; you've failed to refute any of it yourself, nor have you brought in any of this flock of historians to attempt the same. 2) There you go making stuff up again....secession instantly and clearly to all damaged slavery (isolation from other nations, no more chance for slavery in territories or recovering slaves from the North) , so what exactly did they "miscalculate"? There was no war going on when this severe damage was done to the institution by Southern secession, because this was peacetime damage that couldn't be "calculated" any other way, and Southerners knew it. Did you just miss this obvious fact or is this just more of your fiction that makes you look even more stupid? I think the latter. 3) Wow, you can’t be this ignorant IRL. The Corwin Amendment was designed to entice those seceded states back into the Union, at a time when each seceded states could vote to return to the Union. If slavery was the cause, Corwin would have been an irresistible victory…the easiest win imaginable, won without bloodshed or the loss of treasure and life. All through the war, the Union was trying to lure the seceded states back with this slavery lure…..Lincoln and his minions, in the 1865 Hampton Roads conference, even mentioned the possibility of Southern states blocking ratification of the second 13th amendment ending slavery if they agreed to return to the Union. Same ploy was used in 1861 with Corwin. Belittling Corwins obvious importance is yet another mistake that makes you look pretty stupid...and desperate. Dismissing vital evidence is never a refutation. 4) The word slavery was never mentioned in any of the thirteen Ordinances of Secession and only three contained the words “slaveholding states”, which is a regional, geographic descritot like “Border States”, “Gulf States”, Rustbelt States”. And Stephens, VP was still a lying politician making a private speech. It’s stupid to embrace the hyperbole of a lying politician as any kind of proof…just as Kamala Harris’s cackling and idiocy doesn’t reflect what our country stands for today. 5) So you claim, yet you can’t seem to provide any evidence from this dishonest gaggle of “historians” to bolster your claims. Perhaps that’s because their alleged proof is as easily refuted as yours has been. Once again, stop running and let’s see you post facts from these “experts” that seem to have your gonads in their firm academic grasp. 6) You’d have to regain quite a lot of lost credibility to ever be in a position to judge the worth of my evidence. As far as definitions, I’ll be glad to school you on any that confuse your tiny intelligence. No one claimed that you were running away from the forum or this thread, which makes your idea a strawman fallacy. What you have run away from is the challenge to provide evidence from these historians that lead your cult. As far as what makes one a cultist, here you go: What exactly is a cult? Destructive individuals and cults use deception and undue influence to make people dependent and obedient. A group should not be considered a cult merely because of its unorthodox beliefs. It is typically authoritarian, headed by a person or group of people with near complete control of followers. Cult influence is designed to disrupt a person’s authentic identity and replace it with a new identity. www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-mind/202106/understanding-cults-the-basicsNot thinking for oneself (follower) by blindly believing (dependent, obedient) the Northern lies about the South (deception, undue influence, control of narrative). When one embraces the Northern lies, they shed their old identity (normal) and get brainwashed into a lemming. Once again, the ACTIONS of Confederates shows that the cause was not slavery, while the hyperbole of lying politicians should be largely taken with a grain of salt just as we do with lying politicians today. You and your ilk really do look stupid when the only exception that you make for disbelieving lying politicians is the Southern Confederacy. I have to laugh at you bringing contemporary political phrases like trigger, snowflake, virtue signaling into the conversation. What do they have to do with the Civil War. Not much. Maybe it's just a way to pretend that 2023 politics is related to 1860s politics. Kind of silly. Running away from what challenge? The challenge of stale old LC propaganda. That's no challenge at all. Sorry, I don't have handlers. That is more of your misguided imagination. You already know the evidence for the slavery was the cause proposition. How can one dispute evidence if one is not already familiar with it. 1) Just because evidence seems irrefutable to you does not mean it is so to other people. It certainly isn't to me. 2) For the nth time, they miscalculated two things--that Lincoln would quickly abolish slavery and that they could win a defensive war against the north. Two pretty big miscalculations. They thought that the damage of seceding would be less than staying in the union. Another miscalculation, so make it three. 3) Corwin is nothing more than a footnote in Civil War history. It came too late to make any difference and the south clearly had no interest in going back into the union headed by supposed abolitionist Lincoln and an amendment that might not even be ratified. Lincoln had minions, but Davis didn't. Right. But it is sad that white supremacist Lincoln was always trying to dilute the abolition of slavery. 4) Yeah "slaveholding state" must mean that these states had slaves. No kidding. Bringing in Kamala Harris in a discussion of the Civil War. And then comparing her to slaver Stephens. How loony can one get? And even pols sometimes tell the truth as Stephens did on this occasion. He makes the case for the slavery cause so obvious that naturally the LC have to find an excuse to dismiss him, at which they fail every time. 5) Already covered this. How can you refute the slavery is thee cause idea if you didn't already know about it. Otherwise it's an absurdity. Gonads in their grasp or worshipping historians? Either is more irrelevancy. Of course they're actual historians and experts, no matter how many times you put quotes around the words. 6) Who worries about the lost "credibility" they have with some LC loony toon? Very few people. Your definition of a cult just goes to show that the slavery was the cause proposition is not one. One can think for oneself and still believe that slavery was the cause. There are no leaders who have complete control of their followers or people who change their authentic identity into something else. No brainwashing. This is laughable. It isn't history, it's science fiction. Talk about a lack of credibility. This is just more of your insanity--repeating the same things over and over again and expecting a different result. Ain't gonna happen.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,362
|
Post by thor on Jun 3, 2023 2:45:44 GMT
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?
But wait....there's more... Reverend Furman of South Carolina, warning that if Lincoln were elected, “every Negro in South Carolina and every other Southern state will be his own master; nay, more than that, will be the equal of every one of you. If you are tame enough to submit, abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.”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?
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,738
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 3, 2023 16:30:55 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 ..
Or you'll get what I usually give you: And as usual, when you dare cross me .. it blows up in your face ..
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 6, 2023 21:12:37 GMT
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?
But wait....there's more... Reverend Furman of South Carolina, warning that if Lincoln were elected, “every Negro in South Carolina and every other Southern state will be his own master; nay, more than that, will be the equal of every one of you. If you are tame enough to submit, abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.”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 do you keep peddling this lie, pussy boy? No where did I say that "it was totally OK for slavery to exist because it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s.
Keep coming back for more and I'll keep kicking your animal ass, boy.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 6, 2023 21:14:16 GMT
Or you'll get what I usually give you: And as usual, when you dare cross me .. it blows up in your face ..
Step up, boy and either post something substantive or get lost. You're a joke here because you're all hat an no cattle when the debate is raging.
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Jun 6, 2023 21:27:43 GMT
do they still recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the confederate states of america at scv meetings?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 6, 2023 21:43:14 GMT
I have to laugh at you bringing contemporary political phrases like trigger, snowflake, virtue signaling into the conversation. What do they have to do with the Civil War. Not much. Maybe it's just a way to pretend that 2023 politics is related to 1860s politics. Kind of silly. It’s now becoming sad and pathetic how clueless you are. The words "trigger, snowflake and virtue signaling" were never intended to be applied to the "Civil War"....they are being applied to YOU and what YOU are doing here. Running away from what challenge? The challenge of stale old LC propaganda. That's no challenge at all. Sorry, I don't have handlers. That is more of your misguided imagination. You already know the evidence for the slavery was the cause proposition. How can one dispute evidence if one is not already familiar with it. With your level of failures here, you need handlers. The challenge to you was and is clear. You claim that these "slavery was the cause" historians have the goods to back up their own constant lies about the CSA, yet you've produced none of this alleged proof, while exclaiming that it must be there. Not sure what you think that they have beyond the puny, weak effort that you’ve tried and failed with. Your narrative is meaningless and laughable unless you can produce something new and exciting from this imaginary cluster of alleged "historians". Your continued refusal to step up and provide evidence must lead us all to the assumption that you are afraid to attempt it. 1) Just because evidence seems irrefutable to you does not mean it is so to other people. It certainly isn't to me. You've failed to refute my evidence or offer anything that even challenges my evidence. What I have posted is irrefutable because it is factual All you seem to be doing is running away while bellowing about historians you never quote. What are you afraid of? . 2) For the nth time, they miscalculated two things--that Lincoln would quickly abolish slavery and that they could win a defensive war against the north. Two pretty big miscalculations. They thought that the damage of seceding would be less than staying in the union. Another miscalculation, so make it three. No matter how many times you peddle those fantasies, your "miscalculation" fiction is not supported by facts. It’s an uninformed guess on your part to hide the weakness of your narrative. Once again, the damage to slavery was done by secession ALONE and the damage was done before the war begin. If there had been no war and the North had let the South go, the damage to slavery would have been exactly the same. It’s just stupid to think that slavery was the cause when the Southerners were willing on the first day to damage the very institution that you claim was their primary goal in life. Just a few posts ago, I just proved to you that the South was offering to ABOLISH slavery in exchange for foreign intervention! 3) Corwin is nothing more than a footnote in Civil War history. It came too late to make any difference and the south clearly had no interest in going back into the union headed by supposed abolitionist Lincoln and an amendment that might not even be ratified. Lincoln had minions, but Davis didn't. Right. But it is sad that white supremacist Lincoln was always trying to dilute the abolition of slavery. Looks like this zealot believes that anything that damages his narrative is a "miscalculation" or a "footnote"; what a joke. Ratification of Corwin would have been easy if the seven seceded states had rejoined, and ratification would have meant that even the most staunch abolitionist president or radical congress could never touch slavery. That amendment was a huge concession and surrender by the North, but, ironically for you, the North's ploy didn’t work because they actually did “miscalculate” by falsely believing that slavery was the cause of the South. It’s logical to anyone thinking for themselves that the CSA expressed no interest in Corwin because their cause was not slavery. Why do you feeel the need to you have to concoct these faux excuses rather than ever consider anything that raises doubts about your cult's dogma. You're truly a dedicated follower of your cult to refuse to consider contradictory facts like Corwin. 4) Yeah "slaveholding state" must mean that these states had slaves. No kidding. Bringing in Kamala Harris in a discussion of the Civil War. And then comparing her to slaver Stephens. How loony can one get? And even pols sometimes tell the truth as Stephens did on this occasion. He makes the case for the slavery cause so obvious that naturally the LC have to find an excuse to dismiss him, at which they fail every time. So, you get to cherry pick which pols are being truthful and which aren't based on your own biases? That's what a cultist does. As far as Kamala, she lies and exaggerates regularly to bolster her tribe and stir up their emotions, which is exactly what the lies of Stephens were intended to do. 5) Already covered this. How can you refute the slavery is the cause idea if you didn't already know about it. Otherwise it's an absurdity. Gonads in their grasp or worshipping historians? Either is more irrelevancy. Of course they're actual historians and experts, no matter how many times you put quotes around the words. I never ask the question unless I already know the answer. Yes, I know what lies the likes of McPherson, Foner, Jaffa, Guelho have peddled because I actually know the history better than they do and better than you do. The point is not whether or not I know what they've said (I do), it's your failure produce any of their work to defend your embrace of their Northern lies. When I said that these "historians" had your gonads in their grasp, I assumed that you actually have gonads for them to cling to, but your intransigence casts doubts on that assumption. 6) Who worries about the lost "credibility" they have with some LC loony toon? Very few people. If you had any credibility worth considering, you wouldn’t feel compelled to spew your meretricious “LC loony toon” sophistry. Your definition of a cult just goes to show that the slavery was the cause proposition is not one. One can think for oneself and still believe that slavery was the cause. There are no leaders who have complete control of their followers or people who change their authentic identity into something else. No brainwashing. This is laughable. It isn't history, it's science fiction. Talk about a lack of credibility. You’ve been shown that your religion is false, yet you doggedly cling to it no matter what proof is shown to you. You refuse to be open-minded or objective in any way, instead preferring to act as a rabid zealot for a “slavery was the cause” narrative that defies logic, common sense, human nature and the evidence. When asked to cough up experts' proof of your religion’s veracity, you condemn anyone that dares challenge your dogma. Your intolerance of new ideas and information alone signify a cultism rooted in the “slavery was the cause” lie. Pretending that this cartoonish and false Yankee narrative is anything but a cult just elicits first laughter at and then pity for you. Bless your heart, you poor, ignorant fool. This is just more of your insanity--repeating the same things over and over again and expecting a different result. Ain't gonna happen. So, if anyone that cast doubts on your dogma and actually proves that your narrative is a lie, they must therefore be "insane"? With that kind of hyperbolic intolerance, your denials of being a cultist just took a mortal blow.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 6, 2023 21:50:15 GMT
do they still recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the confederate states of america at scv meetings? Poor little Elmer....do you feel left out of the conversation? Too stupid to make a substantive post, so you add garbage like this, imagining how clever you are in the eyes of the forum?
Bless your heart.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Jun 6, 2023 23:36:06 GMT
It’s now becoming sad and pathetic how clueless you are. The words "trigger, snowflake and virtue signaling" were never intended to be applied to the "Civil War"....they are being applied to YOU and what YOU are doing here. With your level of failures here, you need handlers. The challenge to you was and is clear. You claim that these "slavery was the cause" historians have the goods to back up their own constant lies about the CSA, yet you've produced none of this alleged proof, while exclaiming that it must be there. Not sure what you think that they have beyond the puny, weak effort that you’ve tried and failed with. Your narrative is meaningless and laughable unless you can produce something new and exciting from this imaginary cluster of alleged "historians". Your continued refusal to step up and provide evidence must lead us all to the assumption that you are afraid to attempt it. You've failed to refute my evidence or offer anything that even challenges my evidence. What I have posted is irrefutable because it is factual All you seem to be doing is running away while bellowing about historians you never quote. What are you afraid of? . No matter how many times you peddle those fantasies, your "miscalculation" fiction is not supported by facts. It’s an uninformed guess on your part to hide the weakness of your narrative. Once again, the damage to slavery was done by secession ALONE and the damage was done before the war begin. If there had been no war and the North had let the South go, the damage to slavery would have been exactly the same. It’s just stupid to think that slavery was the cause when the Southerners were willing on the first day to damage the very institution that you claim was their primary goal in life. Just a few posts ago, I just proved to you that the South was offering to ABOLISH slavery in exchange for foreign intervention! Looks like this zealot believes that anything that damages his narrative is a "miscalculation" or a "footnote"; what a joke. Ratification of Corwin would have been easy if the seven seceded states had rejoined, and ratification would have meant that even the most staunch abolitionist president or radical congress could never touch slavery. That amendment was a huge concession and surrender by the North, but, ironically for you, the North's ploy didn’t work because they actually did “miscalculate” by falsely believing that slavery was the cause of the South. It’s logical to anyone thinking for themselves that the CSA expressed no interest in Corwin because their cause was not slavery. Why do you feeel the need to you have to concoct these faux excuses rather than ever consider anything that raises doubts about your cult's dogma. You're truly a dedicated follower of your cult to refuse to consider contradictory facts like Corwin. So, you get to cherry pick which pols are being truthful and which aren't based on your own biases? That's what a cultist does. As far as Kamala, she lies and exaggerates regularly to bolster her tribe and stir up their emotions, which is exactly what the lies of Stephens were intended to do. I never ask the question unless I already know the answer. Yes, I know what lies the likes of McPherson, Foner, Jaffa, Guelho have peddled because I actually know the history better than they do and better than you do. The point is not whether or not I know what they've said (I do), it's your failure produce any of their work to defend your embrace of their Northern lies. When I said that these "historians" had your gonads in their grasp, I assumed that you actually have gonads for them to cling to, but your intransigence casts doubts on that assumption. If you had any credibility worth considering, you wouldn’t feel compelled to spew your meretricious “LC loony toon” sophistry. You’ve been shown that your religion is false, yet you doggedly cling to it no matter what proof is shown to you. You refuse to be open-minded or objective in any way, instead preferring to act as a rabid zealot for a “slavery was the cause” narrative that defies logic, common sense, human nature and the evidence. When asked to cough up experts' proof of your religion’s veracity, you condemn anyone that dares challenge your dogma. Your intolerance of new ideas and information alone signify a cultism rooted in the “slavery was the cause” lie. Pretending that this cartoonish and false Yankee narrative is anything but a cult just elicits first laughter at and then pity for you. Bless your heart, you poor, ignorant fool. So, if anyone that cast doubts on your dogma and actually proves that your narrative is a lie, they must therefore be "insane"? With that kind of hyperbolic intolerance, your denials of being a cultist just took a mortal blow.
I'm just discussing the cause of the Civil War. You're bringing in words like trigger and snowflake in a weak attempt to link this to current political terms, terms irrelevant to the discussion and to make it look like agreeing with the slavery as the cause is some kind of left-wing belief. Ain't working. The evidence is right there in the secession documents and in the timeline after Lincoln's election, and in the economic importance to the south of the system of slavery. There's very little that is new or exciting. This has been the consensus for a long time. Most of your evidence is unconvincing-- Corwin Amendment, what someone wrote to Lincoln, some one day conference that never did anything. This stuff is downright laughable. Yes, believe it or not, southerners could actually make mistakes and miscalculations, just as all people are capable of. Yeah, they would have done this, they would have done that in exchange for abolishing slavery. But they somehow never got around to it. Of course they didn't, slavery was one of the backbones of the southern economy. Even they weren't that clueless. Corwin Amendment--a worthless after the horse left the barn futility. Comparing Kamala to a slaveholder, how completely absurd. Sure, a loony toon LC knows more than professional Civil War historians. A bad case of (hilarious) narcissism. And since you already know these historians' arguments, why should I repeat them? Funny how much of your "evidence" is just childish name calling. Not to get too deep into the weeds, but intransigence could well be a sign of having gonads. Loony toon LC is just a description of the nutty beliefs of LC. Fits like a glove. It's not a religion of course, it's just a considered belief. I continue to believe in it because your so-called evidence is weak and very unconvincing. I've weighed it in the scales and found it wanting. If other people don't, that's up to them. It has nothing to do with not being open minded and ready to accept new ideas, again it has to do with your theory being ahistorical and nonsensical. Your ideas aren't new or exciting, they're old and dull and have been around for more than a century. This is just more insanity--repeating the same junk over again and expecting a different outcome. Not clinical insanity, just everyday stupidity.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,738
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 7, 2023 0:38:24 GMT
And as usual, when you dare cross me .. it blows up in your face ..
Step up, boy and either post something substantive or get lost. You're a joke here because you're all hat an no cattle when the debate is raging.
LMAO .. Son .. I have repeatedly folded, spindled and mutilated you in every possible way .. I've crushed you, bashed you, booted you, routed you, bested you, cowered you, and ultimately .. ruined you. .. and I did ALL of that WHILE I was correcting you.. I've done so time and time again.. across 2 maybe 3 forums .. so many times in fact that it has all become seriously boring ...you have absolutely nothing left..
And it was easy. All that everyone .. and there are many.. who has ground you under heel as I have needs to accomplish this are the documents drafted by the founders and leaders of the Confederacy and a willingness to believe people when they tell you who they are ..
You stand there a shivering child with your filled hands cupped in front of you offering me the same unreconstructed Southern Fried Turds you've always made from your not so secret old family recipe . equal parts Congenital Bullshit, Cowardice .. and the most essential ingredient .. Pure Fantasy.. all washed down with a nice tall glass of Fucking Loser Julep..
Someone else can spend time scrapping you off their boot ..
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,362
|
Post by thor on Jun 7, 2023 1:08:17 GMT
But wait....there's more... Reverend Furman of South Carolina, warning that if Lincoln were elected, “every Negro in South Carolina and every other Southern state will be his own master; nay, more than that, will be the equal of every one of you. If you are tame enough to submit, abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.”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 do you keep peddling this lie, pussy boy? No where did I say that "it was totally OK for slavery to exist because it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s.
Keep coming back for more and I'll keep kicking your animal ass, boy.
But wait....there's more... Georgia Constitution of 1861:"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves."
The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… Tell us again, filthy 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?
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Jun 7, 2023 1:10:00 GMT
do they still recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the confederate states of america at scv meetings? Depends on the county. The 3 up to date civilized counties in the south probably don't.
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Jun 7, 2023 1:42:20 GMT
the Smithsonian has the old, grayish, dishrag that Robert E. Lee used as a flag of truce on the occasion of his surrender at Appomattox. It has been referred to by some as the last flag of the Confederacy. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Jun 7, 2023 2:08:13 GMT
the Smithsonian has the old, grayish, dishrag that Robert E. Lee used as a flag of truce on the occasion of his surrender at Appomattox. It has been referred to by some as the last flag of the Confederacy. It's the best looking one.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,178
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 7, 2023 15:15:18 GMT
Step up, boy and either post something substantive or get lost. You're a joke here because you're all hat an no cattle when the debate is raging.
LMAO .. Son .. I have repeatedly folded, spindled and mutilated you in every possible way .. I've crushed you, bashed you, booted you, routed you, bested you, cowered you, and ultimately .. ruined you. .. and I did ALL of that WHILE I was correcting you.. I've done so time and time again.. across 2 maybe 3 forums .. so many times in fact that it has all become seriously boring ...you have absolutely nothing left..
And it was easy. All that everyone .. and there are many.. who has ground you under heel as I have needs to accomplish this are the documents drafted by the founders and leaders of the Confederacy and a willingness to believe people when they tell you who they are ..
You stand there a shivering child with your filled hands cupped in front of you offering me the same unreconstructed Southern Fried Turds you've always made from your not so secret old family recipe . equal parts Congenital Bullshit, Cowardice .. and the most essential ingredient .. Pure Fantasy.. all washed down with a nice tall glass of Fucking Loser Julep..
Someone else can spend time scrapping you off their boot .. It's always fun to watch you make an ass of yourself; it saves us the trouble of pointing out what a joke you are. You need to abandon lies like these if you ever wanted to stop being seen as childish and immature. We're 26 pages into this thread and you've added nothing intelligent nor substantive to the discussion. It's the same pattern you've displayed in the past.....intellectually, you're an empty vessel.
I've already kicked your stupid ass on the utter shallowness of your alleged evidence. Only three states out of eleven issued Declarations where slavery was the majority cause, and even those three listed other causes. And a private speech from one individual that occupied the do nothing office of VP.
But worst of all, you abandon logic and common sense. Our universal truism is that politicians use hyperbole and lies when they bloviate, yet cultists like Fiddler want us to selectively suspend that truism in only one case.....handful of Southern elitists in 1860-1861. Why? Because without carving out an exception, that truism really f*cks up their perverted "slavery was the cause" narrative. So we're all supposed to get stupid like Fiddler and pretend that Southerners, and only Southerners, were the exception to this universal politician rule.
Yes, these idiots are that dumb. But kicking their collective asses is the most fun reason to keep this thread alive. And my leg's not even tired yet.
|
|