Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 7, 2023 15:45:53 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. No, let's be clear.....you're not discussing the cause of the Civil War, you're defending the lies of others about the alleged, but false cause of secession and the War Between the States. And when discussing someone like you who clearly requires little more than the word "slavery" to make you stop looking for any other cogent details, "triggered", "snowflake", "cultist" are not just applicable, they accurately reflect your shallow narrative and outlook.
By the way, if it "ain't working", why is this the second time that you've protested the use of those words? Oops. The truth tends to sting a little, don't it?
You're not even bright enough to see how little there is in the "secession documents" as you call them. You stupidly dismiss real evidence because it shows that your narrative always has been wrong. You're a slave to the consensus without even understanding the details of the consensus, so you've reverted to defending your false narrative no matter how many facts I array against it.
You didn't know that the Confederates were offering to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign intervention as early as 1862, did you? You should be ashamed that you have so little depth of knowledge on this subject and ashamed that you lack the objectivity to evaluate all of the facts.
You just made up your mind the moment the word slavery appeared in print rather than doing the hard work and critical thinking required to find out what these "historians" have been hiding from you. But only a mindless zealot dismisses out of hand what I've given to you.
Once again, you make lame excuses for never posting anything from this consensus of historians, this time pretending that it's OK for you to run away with your tail between your legs because I "already know these historians' arguments", as if it's somehow impossible to challenge the lies of those historians.
What are you afraid of? Your case is already weak; why make it even more so by fleeing in the face of this challenge? If the consensus is as strong as you say, why not "finish me off". Are you too scared to see what happens if you try that tactic? Run, little leftist, run!
Do I know more than these historians? Probably not, but I DO know of things that these historians have hidden from you to protect their lies. Unlike you, I know the WHOLE story, not just the cartoon that you've been indoctrinated with.
Whether or not you accept what I'm saying is irrelevant to the reality that what I have provided to you are undeniable, irrefutable facts that breaks your shallow narrative. It reflects badly on you and you alone when you continue to embrace these Northern lies when the truth has been given to you repeatedly.
Of course your cult is a religion, with Lincoln as your god. A thoughtful person would see the contradictory complexity of the history of that time, the multiple layers of causes and the larger cause that drove them all. Conversely, an intellectually lazy cultist, triggered by a word, brainwashed by his handlers and rabidly intolerant of any dissenting facts, embraces and worships the lie that slavery was the Southern cause. It never was.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Jun 7, 2023 21:57:34 GMT
No, let's be clear.....you're not discussing the cause of the Civil War, you're defending the lies of others about the alleged, but false cause of secession and the War Between the States. And when discussing someone like you who clearly requires little more than the word "slavery" to make you stop looking for any other cogent details, "triggered", "snowflake", "cultist" are not just applicable, they accurately reflect your shallow narrative and outlook.
By the way, if it "ain't working", why is this the second time that you've protested the use of those words? Oops. The truth tends to sting a little, don't it?
You're not even bright enough to see how little there is in the "secession documents" as you call them. You stupidly dismiss real evidence because it shows that your narrative always has been wrong. You're a slave to the consensus without even understanding the details of the consensus, so you've reverted to defending your false narrative no matter how many facts I array against it.
You didn't know that the Confederates were offering to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign intervention as early as 1862, did you? You should be ashamed that you have so little depth of knowledge on this subject and ashamed that you lack the objectivity to evaluate all of the facts.
You just made up your mind the moment the word slavery appeared in print rather than doing the hard work and critical thinking required to find out what these "historians" have been hiding from you. But only a mindless zealot dismisses out of hand what I've given to you.
Once again, you make lame excuses for never posting anything from this consensus of historians, this time pretending that it's OK for you to run away with your tail between your legs because I "already know these historians' arguments", as if it's somehow impossible to challenge the lies of those historians.
What are you afraid of? Your case is already weak; why make it even more so by fleeing in the face of this challenge? If the consensus is as strong as you say, why not "finish me off". Are you too scared to see what happens if you try that tactic? Run, little leftist, run!
Do I know more than these historians? Probably not, but I DO know of things that these historians have hidden from you to protect their lies. Unlike you, I know the WHOLE story, not just the cartoon that you've been indoctrinated with.
Whether or not you accept what I'm saying is irrelevant to the reality that what I have provided to you are undeniable, irrefutable facts that breaks your shallow narrative. It reflects badly on you and you alone when you continue to embrace these Northern lies when the truth has been given to you repeatedly.
Of course your cult is a religion, with Lincoln as your god. A thoughtful person would see the contradictory complexity of the history of that time, the multiple layers of causes and the larger cause that drove them all. Conversely, an intellectually lazy cultist, triggered by a word, brainwashed by his handlers and rabidly intolerant of any dissenting facts, embraces and worships the lie that slavery was the Southern cause. It never was. I can't help it if you live in some kind of alternative universe where the consensus of Civil War historians is that slavery was the cause of secession doesn't seep through. Not my problem. Nah, it's just your silly strategy to make it seem like slavery as the cause is some kind of left-wing belief. Still ain't working. The evidence is in the secession documents, even down to the word slavery Why be so bothered about the word slavery? Even you have used it. It's a accurate term. You don't have many facts on your side, that's why your arguments are so unpersuasive. There's nothing wrong in the word consensus either. It just defines the agreed upon opinion of professionals. It isn't always right, but it isn't always wrong either. In this case I agree with the consensus and you don't. Big deal. Like I've said, the Confederates always seemed to be offering something in return for abolishing slavery, but somehow they never got around to doing it. Talk is cheap and these guys were pretty cheap. I've forgotten the details of the supposed exchange of abolishing slavery for foreign intervention. Probably another non-starter. It's not impossible to challenge the Civil War slavery consensus. Whack away, but no one is forced to accept your opinions either. Critical thinking, mindless zealot=anyone who disagrees with the LC narrative. Slavery appearing in print is hardly how one first learns about the Civil War. There are more details than just the word slavery. Since you already know the slavery is the cause narrative, why bother to repeat it. And it's being 2023, any interested party can find loads of info on or off the internet. No one can finish anyone off. This isn't armed combat, it's just two differing beliefs. "Run, little leftist, run." You gave yourself away on that one. More concerned with contemporary political positions than the Civil War, which isn't much of a surprise. Yeah, you know the whole story, the whole story of the nutty LC narrative, which is knowing not much of anything. And that nutty LC narrative is the only thing you've provided me with, and it's more laughable than persuasive. It reflects badly on me that I don't believe in the LC fantasy? I don't think so. The Illinois slavehound is hardly my god, and I don't worship historians either. You couldn't post on this topic without a thick layer of exaggeration and silly hyperbole. It's really hilarious reading matter.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Jun 7, 2023 22:16:47 GMT
27 pages of stubborn ignorance. Amazing. As a Tennessean, I can't imagine Nathan Bedford Forrest fighting for anything but his own interest...slavery. It's what made him rich. He didn't want to not be rich.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Jun 7, 2023 22:44:24 GMT
27 pages of stubborn ignorance. Amazing. As a Tennessean, I can't imagine Nathan Bedford Forrest fighting for anything but his own interest...slavery. It's what made him rich. He didn't want to not be rich. No, people didn't mind losing money back then (sarcasm). The south stood behind the slaves and saw them as people, not money (sarcasm).
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 8, 2023 0:01:01 GMT
No, let's be clear.....you're not discussing the cause of the Civil War, you're defending the lies of others about the alleged, but false cause of secession and the War Between the States. And when discussing someone like you who clearly requires little more than the word "slavery" to make you stop looking for any other cogent details, "triggered", "snowflake", "cultist" are not just applicable, they accurately reflect your shallow narrative and outlook.
By the way, if it "ain't working", why is this the second time that you've protested the use of those words? Oops. The truth tends to sting a little, don't it?
You're not even bright enough to see how little there is in the "secession documents" as you call them. You stupidly dismiss real evidence because it shows that your narrative always has been wrong. You're a slave to the consensus without even understanding the details of the consensus, so you've reverted to defending your false narrative no matter how many facts I array against it.
You didn't know that the Confederates were offering to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign intervention as early as 1862, did you? You should be ashamed that you have so little depth of knowledge on this subject and ashamed that you lack the objectivity to evaluate all of the facts.
You just made up your mind the moment the word slavery appeared in print rather than doing the hard work and critical thinking required to find out what these "historians" have been hiding from you. But only a mindless zealot dismisses out of hand what I've given to you.
Once again, you make lame excuses for never posting anything from this consensus of historians, this time pretending that it's OK for you to run away with your tail between your legs because I "already know these historians' arguments", as if it's somehow impossible to challenge the lies of those historians.
What are you afraid of? Your case is already weak; why make it even more so by fleeing in the face of this challenge? If the consensus is as strong as you say, why not "finish me off". Are you too scared to see what happens if you try that tactic? Run, little leftist, run!
Do I know more than these historians? Probably not, but I DO know of things that these historians have hidden from you to protect their lies. Unlike you, I know the WHOLE story, not just the cartoon that you've been indoctrinated with.
Whether or not you accept what I'm saying is irrelevant to the reality that what I have provided to you are undeniable, irrefutable facts that breaks your shallow narrative. It reflects badly on you and you alone when you continue to embrace these Northern lies when the truth has been given to you repeatedly.
Of course your cult is a religion, with Lincoln as your god. A thoughtful person would see the contradictory complexity of the history of that time, the multiple layers of causes and the larger cause that drove them all. Conversely, an intellectually lazy cultist, triggered by a word, brainwashed by his handlers and rabidly intolerant of any dissenting facts, embraces and worships the lie that slavery was the Southern cause. It never was. I can't help it if you live in some kind of alternative universe where the consensus of Civil War historians is that slavery was the cause of secession doesn't seep through. Not my problem. Nah, it's just your silly strategy to make it seem like slavery as the cause is some kind of left-wing belief. Still ain't working. The evidence is in the secession documents, even down to the word slavery Why be so bothered about the word slavery? Even you have used it. It's a accurate term. You don't have many facts on your side, that's why your arguments are so unpersuasive. There's nothing wrong in the word consensus either. It just defines the agreed upon opinion of professionals. It isn't always right, but it isn't always wrong either. In this case I agree with the consensus and you don't. Big deal. Like I've said, the Confederates always seemed to be offering something in return for abolishing slavery, but somehow they never got around to doing it. Talk is cheap and these guys were pretty cheap. I've forgotten the details of the supposed exchange of abolishing slavery for foreign intervention. Probably another non-starter. It's not impossible to challenge the Civil War slavery consensus. Whack away, but no one is forced to accept your opinions either. Critical thinking, mindless zealot=anyone who disagrees with the LC narrative. Slavery appearing in print is hardly how one first learns about the Civil War. There are more details than just the word slavery. Since you already know the slavery is the cause narrative, why bother to repeat it. And it's being 2023, any interested party can find loads of info on or off the internet. No one can finish anyone off. This isn't armed combat, it's just two differing beliefs. "Run, little leftist, run." You gave yourself away on that one. More concerned with contemporary political positions than the Civil War, which isn't much of a surprise. Yeah, you know the whole story, the whole story of the nutty LC narrative, which is knowing not much of anything. And that nutty LC narrative is the only thing you've provided me with, and it's more laughable than persuasive. It reflects badly on me that I don't believe in the LC fantasy? I don't think so. The Illinois slavehound is hardly my god, and I don't worship historians either. You couldn't post on this topic without a thick layer of exaggeration and silly hyperbole. It's really hilarious reading matter. And there he is still running away, blabbering mindlessly away about conforming to the consensus, but can never seem to post what that consensus says.
And get this, folks....his entire body of evidence is three measly documents that happen to fit his fictional narrative....and why is he so enamored with these three magical documents? Because he's been indoctrinated to see only those three and to stop looking at anything else. And he's mighty intolerant of any dissent form his cult's narrative, which is evidence enough to call him a leftist; after all, that's what they do.
With real history and evidence, I've easily countered and overwhelmed his meager little pile of three whole documents, all of which were the hyperbolic ravings of lying politicians, not the cause of secession or war.
But to the ears of a cultist like this poor fellow, these three documents, so sacred to his religion, show that there has been only one case in the history of the whole universe where the lying politicians weren't lying.
Oh my, what an incredible coincidence! What a stroke of luck! How could that be when all politicians lie?
By some miracle never seen before or since, the only politicians in recorded history who allegedly weren't lying happen to be the Southerners who wrote those three secession documents! Wow! Isn't that fantastic? Just in time to save his fictional narrative, logic, common sense and human nature were suspended in this single case just so that HolyMoly's narrative wouldn't look like sh*t! Build a shrine to celebrate the miracle that saved HolyMoly from looking more stupid than usual! Huzzah!
But the miracle on which his religion was founded has been sullied because there's lots of undeniable proof that they were lying politicians after all! Oh, poor HolyMoly, he's become so terrified that he runs away when challenged to defend his religion.
What a joke. You lost before you ever posted on this thread because you're clearly a conformist that can't think for yourself and can't even defend what you've claimed on this thread. The "slavery was the cause" was, is and will forever be a Northern lie. Let's see you stop running and defend what you claim. Get relevant or get lost.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 8, 2023 0:04:21 GMT
27 pages of stubborn ignorance. Amazing. As a Tennessean, I can't imagine Nathan Bedford Forrest fighting for anything but his own interest...slavery. It's what made him rich. He didn't want to not be rich. No, people didn't mind losing money back then (sarcasm). The south stood behind the slaves and saw them as people, not money (sarcasm). And yet they gave up everything in their fight for independence. Don't be stupid like that other fellow and pretend that Southerners were too dumb to realize what they were risking.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 8, 2023 0:08:18 GMT
27 pages of stubborn ignorance. Amazing. As a Tennessean, I can't imagine Nathan Bedford Forrest fighting for anything but his own interest...slavery. It's what made him rich. He didn't want to not be rich. Oh my, you found one guy out of five million Southerners who might have been fighting for slavery. Forrest could have stayed out of the fight if it was slavery that he loved most. He gave up that life to risk everything he had and was to fight against the Union invaders and their authoritarian governmental ideas. Just as the American Patriots gave up everything to fight for their independence.
Sorry, you lose. Liberals usually do.
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Jun 8, 2023 0:19:54 GMT
Mr. Paleo, your undeniable, irrefutable facts are only that in the fantasyland of the Lost Cause, membership of which so closely parallels membership of Trumpworld that a venn diagram would almost be one circle.(If you don't know what a venn diagram is, look it up.) I know that debating the cause of the civil war with a Lost Cause believer is a fool's errand, and not being a fool I will probably let this be my last post on the subject. But here are a couple of links for inquiring minds, a group that has few Lost Cause believers in it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speechothers have been shared already. In a nutshell, the civil war arose due to secession. Secession's primary cause was the fear of slaveholders that the party of A. Lincoln would abolish slavery. That A. Lincoln had plainly stated he would not, he would only limit it to where it already existed, did not matter to them. And I can understand why. That was a promise A. Lincoln could not keep if Congress decided, in sufficient numbers, to abolish it. And if non-slave states continued to be admitted with no possibility of slave states also being admitted to keep it even, it's a virtual certainty that Congress would have done that at some point. The rank and file Johnny Rebs did fight valiantly. But it was a rich man's war spilling poor man's blood. The average Johnny Reb was ill led by his officers and ill used by the fire eaters that led the southern states to secede. Desertions were high on both sides, but much more easily justified on the side of the Johnny Rebs. After a year or so, it became plain that the CSA could not feed, clothe, and arm them adequately, much less lead them effectively. So it's surprising that desertions as a percent of soldiers was not much higher in the case of the south. And it may have been. Real numbers are not known, only educated estimates. The north did not prosecute the war to free slaves. It prosecuted the war to preserve the union. It's quite likely that states DID have a right to secede, but the framers of the constitution did not address it because, smart as they were, they did not consider that a state might ever want to do that. Or maybe they figured it was a given that they could do it and it need not be addressed. Whatever, the question was settled by that awful war. The Emancipation Proclamation was done to stiffen some Northern spines and give a moral reason to continue the war when spirits were flagging. Many would have liked the south to be recognized, take their slaves, and go their merry way and good riddance. But A. Lincoln did not want that, and following a victory or two dropped the EP as additional incentive to pursue the war. It worked! And the rest, as they say, is history. Freeing slaves was not the original goal of the north. Preserving the union was. The overwhelming primary reason the union was in danger was slavery. It's as plain as the nose on your face. That you deny it is sad. But you are not alone. I live in the deep South, born and reared here, will die here, and Lost Causers are a dime a dozen. I have talked to some who even deny that slavery had ANYTHING to do with that war and get red-eyed about it. I just smile at them and make no response, discretion being the better part of valor. But I do occasionally hand them copies of historical documents that show how ridiculous it is to believe that. I doubt it does any good other than to make me feel good. Ciao.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Jun 8, 2023 4:25:21 GMT
And there he is still running away, blabbering mindlessly away about conforming to the consensus, but can never seem to post what that consensus says.
And get this, folks....his entire body of evidence is three measly documents that happen to fit his fictional narrative....and why is he so enamored with these three magical documents? Because he's been indoctrinated to see only those three and to stop looking at anything else. And he's mighty intolerant of any dissent form his cult's narrative, which is evidence enough to call him a leftist; after all, that's what they do.
With real history and evidence, I've easily countered and overwhelmed his meager little pile of three whole documents, all of which were the hyperbolic ravings of lying politicians, not the cause of secession or war.
But to the ears of a cultist like this poor fellow, these three documents, so sacred to his religion, show that there has been only one case in the history of the whole universe where the lying politicians weren't lying.
Oh my, what an incredible coincidence! What a stroke of luck! How could that be when all politicians lie?
By some miracle never seen before or since, the only politicians in recorded history who allegedly weren't lying happen to be the Southerners who wrote those three secession documents! Wow! Isn't that fantastic? Just in time to save his fictional narrative, logic, common sense and human nature were suspended in this single case just so that HolyMoly's narrative wouldn't look like sh*t! Build a shrine to celebrate the miracle that saved HolyMoly from looking more stupid than usual! Huzzah!
But the miracle on which his religion was founded has been sullied because there's lots of undeniable proof that they were lying politicians after all! Oh, poor HolyMoly, he's become so terrified that he runs away when challenged to defend his religion.
What a joke. You lost before you ever posted on this thread because you're clearly a conformist that can't think for yourself and can't even defend what you've claimed on this thread. The "slavery was the cause" was, is and will forever be a Northern lie. Let's see you stop running and defend what you claim. Get relevant or get lost.
You have a strange vocabulary--running away means replying, which is somehow running away. What? I thought it was very obvious what the consensus is--the early seceding states thought that Abe was going to end slavery fairly soon and got out of the union before that happened. If only they had heard his inaugural address stating he had no intention of doing so, but they were already gone by then. The rest is history. How can actual documents be fictional? And that's three reasons for secession documents out of the four produced. But there are also references to slavery in some of the ordinances of secession. Indoctrinated=doesn't agree with the nutty LC narrative. Guilty. Leftist is about one's political beliefs, not about whether one agrees with some dumb LC narrative. And get this folks. Are you doing some kind of lecture tour? Maybe one taking place only in your mind? Lying politicians. Yes, when you disagree with politicians they are liars, when you agree with them they're as honest as the day is long. Got it. Sorry, believing that slavery is the cause theory is not a religion, it's just a conclusion I and many other folks came to after looking at the evidence. No supernaturalism needed. No miracles required. And once again, believing in slavery as the cause does mean one can't think for yourself or is a conformist. It only means one has come to a conclusion that rejects the crazy LC narrative. Slavery was the cause was the truth and the LC fanatics can never accept that. Who knows why and who cares why. I don't want to be relevant in your loony toon world of fantasy. No thanks, you'll have to keep the crazy all to yourself.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 8, 2023 13:34:41 GMT
And there he is still running away, blabbering mindlessly away about conforming to the consensus, but can never seem to post what that consensus says.
And get this, folks....his entire body of evidence is three measly documents that happen to fit his fictional narrative....and why is he so enamored with these three magical documents? Because he's been indoctrinated to see only those three and to stop looking at anything else. And he's mighty intolerant of any dissent form his cult's narrative, which is evidence enough to call him a leftist; after all, that's what they do.
With real history and evidence, I've easily countered and overwhelmed his meager little pile of three whole documents, all of which were the hyperbolic ravings of lying politicians, not the cause of secession or war.
But to the ears of a cultist like this poor fellow, these three documents, so sacred to his religion, show that there has been only one case in the history of the whole universe where the lying politicians weren't lying.
Oh my, what an incredible coincidence! What a stroke of luck! How could that be when all politicians lie?
By some miracle never seen before or since, the only politicians in recorded history who allegedly weren't lying happen to be the Southerners who wrote those three secession documents! Wow! Isn't that fantastic? Just in time to save his fictional narrative, logic, common sense and human nature were suspended in this single case just so that HolyMoly's narrative wouldn't look like sh*t! Build a shrine to celebrate the miracle that saved HolyMoly from looking more stupid than usual! Huzzah!
But the miracle on which his religion was founded has been sullied because there's lots of undeniable proof that they were lying politicians after all! Oh, poor HolyMoly, he's become so terrified that he runs away when challenged to defend his religion.
What a joke. You lost before you ever posted on this thread because you're clearly a conformist that can't think for yourself and can't even defend what you've claimed on this thread. The "slavery was the cause" was, is and will forever be a Northern lie. Let's see you stop running and defend what you claim. Get relevant or get lost.
You have a strange vocabulary--running away means replying, which is somehow running away. What? I thought it was very obvious what the consensus is--the early seceding states thought that Abe was going to end slavery fairly soon and got out of the union before that happened. If only they had heard his inaugural address stating he had no intention of doing so, but they were already gone by then. The rest is history. How can actual documents be fictional? And that's three reasons for secession documents out of the four produced. But there are also references to slavery in some of the ordinances of secession. Indoctrinated=doesn't agree with the nutty LC narrative. Guilty. Leftist is about one's political beliefs, not about whether one agrees with some dumb LC narrative. And get this folks. Are you doing some kind of lecture tour? Maybe one taking place only in your mind? Lying politicians. Yes, when you disagree with politicians they are liars, when you agree with them they're as honest as the day is long. Got it. Sorry, believing that slavery is the cause theory is not a religion, it's just a conclusion I and many other folks came to after looking at the evidence. No supernaturalism needed. No miracles required. And once again, believing in slavery as the cause does mean one can't think for yourself or is a conformist. It only means one has come to a conclusion that rejects the crazy LC narrative. Slavery was the cause was the truth and the LC fanatics can never accept that. Who knows why and who cares why. I don't want to be relevant in your loony toon world of fantasy. No thanks, you'll have to keep the crazy all to yourself. I enjoy it when these cultists reach the truth with an unforced error: "believing in slavery as the cause does mean one can't think for yourself or is a conformist."
I agree, HolyMoly. A epic, if unintentional, self own on your part.
And please point out where I ever said that the documents were fictional, or is looking stupid for using a strawman fallacy part of your new strategy? There were five declarations issued by four states out of eleven seceded states, and only three were more about slavery than anything else (none at 100% about slavery). Three out of eleven is a losing percentage for you...yet another reality that you run from.
There were thirteen Ordinances of Secession and not a single one mentioned the word slavery. Only three out of the thirteen mentioned the phrase "slaveholding states" without any commentary about a cause of secession. Another losing percentage for HolyMoly. I've noticed that, under full disclosure, you lose every single time.
Only a weak minded fool blindly follows the "consensus" without really knowing if that consensus is based in facts and evidence. Your replies on this thread have failed to provide any evidence beyond three "declarations", and when I ask that you provide something more credible from the historians you hide behind, you run away.
Only seven states were seceded at the time of Lincoln's inaugural speech and his endorsement of the Corwin amendment and any one of those states could have reversed their secession as easily as they had seceded. If slavery had been the cause such gestures of total capitulation by the North would have logically swayed a Confederacy, if they were motivated by slavery and nothing else as you claim.
Every time the whole picture is revealed, you lose. That must be very painful for you, to see your holy, sacred narrative diminished and challenged.
Once again, stop running and let's see you step up and provide proof directly from your consensus of historians. I contend that their opinions are dishonest and not based on facts or the evidence; I can successfully defend that contention and I believe that you know that.
And that, dear pupils, is why HolyMoly runs away when I issue that challenge to him. He knows I'll take apart anything that he attempts, regardless of the source.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,844
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 8, 2023 19:08:24 GMT
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 .. And my leg's not even tired yet.
Fool.. You haven't had a leg to stand on since you first encountered a proto-Fiddler who.. like me.. systematically dismembered your alternate history using the South's own words. You were what.. about 11 or 12 .. old enough to start regurgitating the lost cause crap you heard toothlessly mumbled around the dinner table..
Look.. What I did to you isn't that difficult.. I'm sure I wasn't the first nor will I be the last. I've had a bunch of laughs fucking over you and I'm happy to see others pick up your leash and bring you to heel as I have .. You weren't THE most fun I've every had leading some wannabe slaver around by his 'knows nothing' but rest assured, you were just as ineffective as the other goobers at selling your revisionist bullshit ..
You should thank me for helping you to know yourself ..
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Jun 8, 2023 20:58:46 GMT
I enjoy it when these cultists reach the truth with an unforced error: "believing in slavery as the cause does mean one can't think for yourself or is a conformist."
I agree, HolyMoly. A epic, if unintentional, self own on your part.
And please point out where I ever said that the documents were fictional, or is looking stupid for using a strawman fallacy part of your new strategy? There were five declarations issued by four states out of eleven seceded states, and only three were more about slavery than anything else (none at 100% about slavery). Three out of eleven is a losing percentage for you...yet another reality that you run from.
There were thirteen Ordinances of Secession and not a single one mentioned the word slavery. Only three out of the thirteen mentioned the phrase "slaveholding states" without any commentary about a cause of secession. Another losing percentage for HolyMoly. I've noticed that, under full disclosure, you lose every single time.
Only a weak minded fool blindly follows the "consensus" without really knowing if that consensus is based in facts and evidence. Your replies on this thread have failed to provide any evidence beyond three "declarations", and when I ask that you provide something more credible from the historians you hide behind, you run away.
Only seven states were seceded at the time of Lincoln's inaugural speech and his endorsement of the Corwin amendment and any one of those states could have reversed their secession as easily as they had seceded. If slavery had been the cause such gestures of total capitulation by the North would have logically swayed a Confederacy, if they were motivated by slavery and nothing else as you claim.
Every time the whole picture is revealed, you lose. That must be very painful for you, to see your holy, sacred narrative diminished and challenged.
Once again, stop running and let's see you step up and provide proof directly from your consensus of historians. I contend that their opinions are dishonest and not based on facts or the evidence; I can successfully defend that contention and I believe that you know that.
And that, dear pupils, is why HolyMoly runs away when I issue that challenge to him. He knows I'll take apart anything that he attempts, regardless of the source.
Yes it was unintentional as I left out a not after the does. Being a typo hardly makes it epic. One can believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor led to the entry of the U.S. into WWII. Believing that doesn't mean one can't think for oneself or is a conformist. It simply means one agrees with the consensus position. You said the three documents were part of my fictional narrative. A fictional narrative based on actual documents. Hmmm. I wasn't talking about the four states that gave reasons for their secession. I was talking about the separate ordinances of secession, some of which mention slavery. It's right there in black and white. I just gave a very brief summary of the consensus in my last post, a consensus based on facts. It's not my problem if you don't like those facts. But then again not liking the facts is really the foundation of the LC tale. Seven out of eleven is almost two-thirds of the eventual Confederacy. Having gone to all the trouble of seceding, likely not trusting Lincoln, why would they suddenly decide to do a quick U-turn with no guarantee that Lincoln would keep his word. Remember those lying politicians? By March of 1861 the bus had left the station and there was no turning back. The losing die had been cast, so to speak. Painful? You've got to be kidding. Can't you ever get outside your own delusions? Whole picture? Another LC joke. It's a secular narrative, not a holy or sacred one. And you have not diminished or challenged it with your unpersuasive LC fairy tale. Your so-called evidence can't even put a small dent in it. Of course you contend that the opinions of Civil War historians are dishonest and not fact based. That's the scam the whole LC narrative is based on. And you think I know your contentions are correct? Again, don't you have any awareness outside of your delusions? You keep attributing things to people that are false. Dear pupils. Addressing that imaginary audience again? The one that keeps laughing at your idiocy? You can't take a paper clip apart with your LC story. More insanity--repeating the same nonsense over and over again and expecting a different result.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 9, 2023 14:15:21 GMT
I enjoy it when these cultists reach the truth with an unforced error: "believing in slavery as the cause does mean one can't think for yourself or is a conformist."
I agree, HolyMoly. A epic, if unintentional, self own on your part.
And please point out where I ever said that the documents were fictional, or is looking stupid for using a strawman fallacy part of your new strategy? There were five declarations issued by four states out of eleven seceded states, and only three were more about slavery than anything else (none at 100% about slavery). Three out of eleven is a losing percentage for you...yet another reality that you run from.
There were thirteen Ordinances of Secession and not a single one mentioned the word slavery. Only three out of the thirteen mentioned the phrase "slaveholding states" without any commentary about a cause of secession. Another losing percentage for HolyMoly. I've noticed that, under full disclosure, you lose every single time.
Only a weak minded fool blindly follows the "consensus" without really knowing if that consensus is based in facts and evidence. Your replies on this thread have failed to provide any evidence beyond three "declarations", and when I ask that you provide something more credible from the historians you hide behind, you run away.
Only seven states were seceded at the time of Lincoln's inaugural speech and his endorsement of the Corwin amendment and any one of those states could have reversed their secession as easily as they had seceded. If slavery had been the cause such gestures of total capitulation by the North would have logically swayed a Confederacy, if they were motivated by slavery and nothing else as you claim.
Every time the whole picture is revealed, you lose. That must be very painful for you, to see your holy, sacred narrative diminished and challenged.
Once again, stop running and let's see you step up and provide proof directly from your consensus of historians. I contend that their opinions are dishonest and not based on facts or the evidence; I can successfully defend that contention and I believe that you know that.
And that, dear pupils, is why HolyMoly runs away when I issue that challenge to him. He knows I'll take apart anything that he attempts, regardless of the source.
Yes it was unintentional as I left out a not after the does. Being a typo hardly makes it epic. One can believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor led to the entry of the U.S. into WWII. Believing that doesn't mean one can't think for oneself or is a conformist. It simply means one agrees with the consensus position. You said the three documents were part of my fictional narrative. A fictional narrative based on actual documents. Hmmm. I wasn't talking about the four states that gave reasons for their secession. I was talking about the separate ordinances of secession, some of which mention slavery. It's right there in black and white. I just gave a very brief summary of the consensus in my last post, a consensus based on facts. It's not my problem if you don't like those facts. But then again not liking the facts is really the foundation of the LC tale. Seven out of eleven is almost two-thirds of the eventual Confederacy. Having gone to all the trouble of seceding, likely not trusting Lincoln, why would they suddenly decide to do a quick U-turn with no guarantee that Lincoln would keep his word. Remember those lying politicians? By March of 1861 the bus had left the station and there was no turning back. The losing die had been cast, so to speak. Painful? You've got to be kidding. Can't you ever get outside your own delusions? Whole picture? Another LC joke. It's a secular narrative, not a holy or sacred one. And you have not diminished or challenged it with your unpersuasive LC fairy tale. Your so-called evidence can't even put a small dent in it. Of course you contend that the opinions of Civil War historians are dishonest and not fact based. That's the scam the whole LC narrative is based on. And you think I know your contentions are correct? Again, don't you have any awareness outside of your delusions? You keep attributing things to people that are false. Dear pupils. Addressing that imaginary audience again? The one that keeps laughing at your idiocy? You can't take a paper clip apart with your LC story. More insanity--repeating the same nonsense over and over again and expecting a different result. Epic is the fact that you subconsciously stumbled onto the truth with your error, as if your mind is rebelling (pardon the pun) against the willful ignorance that you have embraced.
Not a single Ordinance of Secession out of thirteen mentions the word slavery. Not one. To a thinking person, it would seem odd that the word slavery remained unmentioned if slavery was their utmost cause. All of the five Declarations of Causes mentioned other causes, including the unfair tariffs/protectionism/taxation that resulted in a brand new clause of the Confederate Constitution that prohibited protective tariffs. A thinking person would have taken an objective look at such complexities and weighed them against the fact that Lincoln made it clear that he would compromise all day on slavery but wouldn't budge on the revenue question. The Georgia Declaration goes into great depth on fishing bounties paid by the government to help maintain a Northern monopoly.
Let me repeat that....FISHING BOUNTIES....if I use your "logic", I'll declare that because I was triggered by the words "fishing bounties" and that "fishing bounties" is absolutely, positively, without any doubt, the primary cause of secession! And yes, I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd.
The Georgia Declaration even indicated that the anti-slavery sentiment being groomed in the North was ultimately a power grab tactic to gain central government power, but I guess that's just a "footnote" to the likes of you. It takes a might shallow fellow to just stop looking deeper when he is triggered by the word "slavery"; that foolish fellow misses so much more of the details that he should have paid attention to before making a knee jerk judgement.
A thinking person would pull back the veil of hyperbole that the the fire-eaters used as propaganda and see the deeper and larger issues of which slavery was only a part, not the whole. The actions of the Confederates proves that slavery was not the cause and that what you have embraced was the passionate noise of elitist and lying politicians and nothing more.
But you'll never, ever be mistaken for a critical thinker.
And stop pretending that you've presented anything from your "consensus" of historians. You've regurgitated the ritualistic litany of your cult, that same old handful of cherry picked lines from a handful of documents. It's like you've looked only at a square centimeter in the corner of the Mona Lisa and pronounced it ugly. Stop trying to hide the fact that you have very little that supports your narrative, which makes it largely fictional.
You really don't understand how constitutional amendments work, do you? Corwin was not in Lincoln's control or that of the "lying politicians", it was given over to the states to ratify and it would have been a permanent restriction against any changes to slavery. It was Northern surrender on a silver platter IF slavery had been the South's cause, but it wasn't their cause. A year later, as I have proven to you in OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT records, the Confederacy was offering to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign intervention (they did it again in 1864). There's some thought that Lincoln, upon hearing of this Confederate effort, accelerated his plans for the Emancipation Proclamation to try to head off this Southern effort.
A government willing to give up slavery is not a government or a country whose cause was slavery. Actions, not words, are the foundation of the truth.
So, there it is. all in black and white, yet you refuse to consider anything but your own brainwashing and your own "slavery was the cause" religion.
And, yes, the opinions of your sacred historians are dishonest and not fact based and, yes, you seem impotent to produce any of the alleged proof that they are supposed to have. Challenge still stands....show us what this mighty saints of your religion have that you claim is definitive.
In my hands, your narrative is a smoking hulk, twisted and broken....and that will never change.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 9, 2023 14:32:30 GMT
And my leg's not even tired yet.
Fool.. You haven't had a leg to stand on since you first encountered a proto-Fiddler who.. like me.. systematically dismembered your alternate history using the South's own words. You were what.. about 11 or 12 .. old enough to start regurgitating the lost cause crap you heard toothlessly mumbled around the dinner table..
Look.. What I did to you isn't that difficult.. I'm sure I wasn't the first nor will I be the last. I've had a bunch of laughs fucking over you and I'm happy to see others pick up your leash and bring you to heel as I have .. You weren't THE most fun I've every had leading some wannabe slaver around by his 'knows nothing' but rest assured, you were just as ineffective as the other goobers at selling your revisionist bullshit ..
You should thank me for helping you to know yourself ..
Yes, I've run across a "proto-Fiddler" in the past...although I called them by their proper title...the "Missing Evolutionary Link".
You were bred (hatched) to get your ass kicked, and you're fulfilling your role splendidly. Everyone's had a turn at giving you the boot....it's an orgy of butt kicking fun!
Anyone notice that there's never anything substantive in Fiddler's posts? He lays claim to victory without ever engaging in the struggle. It's his M.O.
If it was so easy for you before as you claim, step up and show the newcomers how it's done. Now watch him equivocate and spew nastiness to hide the fact that he's always been the loser when he's attempted to engage in any debate with me.
Rule of thumb: Fiddler was, is and always will be all hat and no cattle.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,623
|
Post by thor on Jun 9, 2023 14:39:49 GMT
Fool.. You haven't had a leg to stand on since you first encountered a proto-Fiddler who.. like me.. systematically dismembered your alternate history using the South's own words. You were what.. about 11 or 12 .. old enough to start regurgitating the lost cause crap you heard toothlessly mumbled around the dinner table..
Look.. What I did to you isn't that difficult.. I'm sure I wasn't the first nor will I be the last. I've had a bunch of laughs fucking over you and I'm happy to see others pick up your leash and bring you to heel as I have .. You weren't THE most fun I've every had leading some wannabe slaver around by his 'knows nothing' but rest assured, you were just as ineffective as the other goobers at selling your revisionist bullshit ..
You should thank me for helping you to know yourself ..
Yes, I've run across a "proto-Fiddler" in the past...although I called them by their proper title...the "Missing Evolutionary Link".
You were bred (hatched) to get your ass kicked, and you're fulfilling your role splendidly. Everyone's had a turn at giving you the boot....it's an orgy of butt kicking fun!
Anyone notice that there's never anything substantive in Fiddler's posts? He lays claim to victory without ever engaging in the struggle. It's his M.O.
If it was so easy for you before as you claim, step up and show the newcomers how it's done. Now watch him equivocate and spew nastiness to hide the fact that he's always been the loser when he's attempted to engage in any debate with me.
Rule of thumb: Fiddler was, is and always will be all hat and no cattle.
But wait....there's more... From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country."
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?
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,844
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 9, 2023 14:59:41 GMT
Fool.. You haven't had a leg to stand on since you first encountered a proto-Fiddler who.. like me.. systematically dismembered your alternate history using the South's own words. You were what.. about 11 or 12 .. old enough to start regurgitating the lost cause crap you heard toothlessly mumbled around the dinner table..
Look.. What I did to you isn't that difficult.. I'm sure I wasn't the first nor will I be the last. I've had a bunch of laughs fucking over you and I'm happy to see others pick up your leash and bring you to heel as I have .. You weren't THE most fun I've every had leading some wannabe slaver around by his 'knows nothing' but rest assured, you were just as ineffective as the other goobers at selling your revisionist bullshit ..
You should thank me for helping you to know yourself ..
He lays claim to victory without ever engaging in the struggle.
This is obviously not true no matter how much you'd like for it to be.
It's simply a matter of record. This very forum has dozens of pages detailing the merciless beat-down I've given you.
As I said.. I'm bored with you. For months now, you haven't produced a single point that hasn't been eviscerated.
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Jun 9, 2023 15:34:04 GMT
He lays claim to victory without ever engaging in the struggle.
This is obviously not true no matter how much you'd like for it to be.
It's simply a matter of record. This very forum has dozens of pages detailing the merciless beat-down I've given you.
As I said.. I'm bored with you. For months now, you haven't produced a single point that hasn't been eviscerated.
there are no groups who cling more tenaciously to the veil of ignorance than Lost Causers and Trumpies. None. There is a lot of overlap between the two as well, especially in the deep south. It is truly mystifying. Well, maybe Flat Earthers, too. I suspect they're mostly Trumpies as well. There are, amazingly, more of them than you'd think. And people who still think the moon landing was faked. There are a lot of Flat Earthers among that group as well. I enlarged your last sentence for emphasis. People like Paleo et al make it very easy to become bored in any discussion.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Jun 9, 2023 21:42:22 GMT
Epic is the fact that you subconsciously stumbled onto the truth with your error, as if your mind is rebelling (pardon the pun) against the willful ignorance that you have embraced.
Not a single Ordinance of Secession out of thirteen mentions the word slavery. Not one. To a thinking person, it would seem odd that the word slavery remained unmentioned if slavery was their utmost cause. All of the five Declarations of Causes mentioned other causes, including the unfair tariffs/protectionism/taxation that resulted in a brand new clause of the Confederate Constitution that prohibited protective tariffs. A thinking person would have taken an objective look at such complexities and weighed them against the fact that Lincoln made it clear that he would compromise all day on slavery but wouldn't budge on the revenue question. The Georgia Declaration goes into great depth on fishing bounties paid by the government to help maintain a Northern monopoly.
Let me repeat that....FISHING BOUNTIES....if I use your "logic", I'll declare that because I was triggered by the words "fishing bounties" and that "fishing bounties" is absolutely, positively, without any doubt, the primary cause of secession! And yes, I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd.
The Georgia Declaration even indicated that the anti-slavery sentiment being groomed in the North was ultimately a power grab tactic to gain central government power, but I guess that's just a "footnote" to the likes of you. It takes a might shallow fellow to just stop looking deeper when he is triggered by the word "slavery"; that foolish fellow misses so much more of the details that he should have paid attention to before making a knee jerk judgement.
A thinking person would pull back the veil of hyperbole that the the fire-eaters used as propaganda and see the deeper and larger issues of which slavery was only a part, not the whole. The actions of the Confederates proves that slavery was not the cause and that what you have embraced was the passionate noise of elitist and lying politicians and nothing more.
But you'll never, ever be mistaken for a critical thinker.
And stop pretending that you've presented anything from your "consensus" of historians. You've regurgitated the ritualistic litany of your cult, that same old handful of cherry picked lines from a handful of documents. It's like you've looked only at a square centimeter in the corner of the Mona Lisa and pronounced it ugly. Stop trying to hide the fact that you have very little that supports your narrative, which makes it largely fictional.
You really don't understand how constitutional amendments work, do you? Corwin was not in Lincoln's control or that of the "lying politicians", it was given over to the states to ratify and it would have been a permanent restriction against any changes to slavery. It was Northern surrender on a silver platter IF slavery had been the South's cause, but it wasn't their cause. A year later, as I have proven to you in OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT records, the Confederacy was offering to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign intervention (they did it again in 1864). There's some thought that Lincoln, upon hearing of this Confederate effort, accelerated his plans for the Emancipation Proclamation to try to head off this Southern effort.
A government willing to give up slavery is not a government or a country whose cause was slavery. Actions, not words, are the foundation of the truth.
So, there it is. all in black and white, yet you refuse to consider anything but your own brainwashing and your own "slavery was the cause" religion.
And, yes, the opinions of your sacred historians are dishonest and not fact based and, yes, you seem impotent to produce any of the alleged proof that they are supposed to have. Challenge still stands....show us what this mighty saints of your religion have that you claim is definitive.
In my hands, your narrative is a smoking hulk, twisted and broken....and that will never change.
Your amateurish psychology is no better than your Civil War knowledge. A thinking person with knowledge of the era can read most of the ordinances of secession and figure out what their real complaint against the federal gov't is, even if they don't used the word slavery. And slavery played a much more significant role in the south than fishing boundaries. The Georgia Declaration is one that goes into great detail about slavery. A political party trying to gain control in the federal gov't. No shit, who could believe a political party would do that. I doubt outright abolitionists were even a majority in the north. Fire-eaters were the leaders of much of the secessionist movement. Why should we not pay attention to what they said and did? You'll never be mistaken for any kind of thinker. You're just a LC endlessly repeating the LC it's not about slavery fantasy. That's why your arguments are so unpersuasive. Heard them all before. Already presented, very briefly, the consensus of Civil War historians. It's readily available for anyone who wants to look at it. They can form their own judgment about the subject. Mona Lisa. This is really dumb, even for you. The consensus covers the whole of the Civil War, not one tiny portion. Before it is given over to the states, it has to be passed by 2/3 of the "lying politicians" in Congress. For the nth time, it came too late in the day to make any difference. Actions, the Confederacy kept on going, not words. Yeah, a gov't that never gave up slavery is a gov't whose cause was preserving slavery. Action, not words. Again, it's not a religion and has nothing to do saints or with brainwashing. It's simply an opinion based on the overwhelming evidence that slavery was the cause. Can you ever make points without your silly hyperbole? In your fantasy world mind no doubt the consensus is a smoking hulk, but your mind has only a tenuous connection to the real world, so who cares?
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,623
|
Post by thor on Jun 11, 2023 16:46:32 GMT
You have a strange vocabulary--running away means replying, which is somehow running away. What? I thought it was very obvious what the consensus is--the early seceding states thought that Abe was going to end slavery fairly soon and got out of the union before that happened. If only they had heard his inaugural address stating he had no intention of doing so, but they were already gone by then. The rest is history. How can actual documents be fictional? And that's three reasons for secession documents out of the four produced. But there are also references to slavery in some of the ordinances of secession. Indoctrinated=doesn't agree with the nutty LC narrative. Guilty. Leftist is about one's political beliefs, not about whether one agrees with some dumb LC narrative. And get this folks. Are you doing some kind of lecture tour? Maybe one taking place only in your mind? Lying politicians. Yes, when you disagree with politicians they are liars, when you agree with them they're as honest as the day is long. Got it. Sorry, believing that slavery is the cause theory is not a religion, it's just a conclusion I and many other folks came to after looking at the evidence. No supernaturalism needed. No miracles required. And once again, believing in slavery as the cause does mean one can't think for yourself or is a conformist. It only means one has come to a conclusion that rejects the crazy LC narrative. Slavery was the cause was the truth and the LC fanatics can never accept that. Who knows why and who cares why. I don't want to be relevant in your loony toon world of fantasy. No thanks, you'll have to keep the crazy all to yourself. I enjoy it when these cultists reach the truth with an unforced error: "believing in slavery as the cause does mean one can't think for yourself or is a conformist."
I agree, HolyMoly. A epic, if unintentional, self own on your part.
And please point out where I ever said that the documents were fictional, or is looking stupid for using a strawman fallacy part of your new strategy? There were five declarations issued by four states out of eleven seceded states, and only three were more about slavery than anything else (none at 100% about slavery). Three out of eleven is a losing percentage for you...yet another reality that you run from.
There were thirteen Ordinances of Secession and not a single one mentioned the word slavery. Only three out of the thirteen mentioned the phrase "slaveholding states" without any commentary about a cause of secession. Another losing percentage for HolyMoly. I've noticed that, under full disclosure, you lose every single time.
Only a weak minded fool blindly follows the "consensus" without really knowing if that consensus is based in facts and evidence. Your replies on this thread have failed to provide any evidence beyond three "declarations", and when I ask that you provide something more credible from the historians you hide behind, you run away.
Only seven states were seceded at the time of Lincoln's inaugural speech and his endorsement of the Corwin amendment and any one of those states could have reversed their secession as easily as they had seceded. If slavery had been the cause such gestures of total capitulation by the North would have logically swayed a Confederacy, if they were motivated by slavery and nothing else as you claim.
Every time the whole picture is revealed, you lose. That must be very painful for you, to see your holy, sacred narrative diminished and challenged.
Once again, stop running and let's see you step up and provide proof directly from your consensus of historians. I contend that their opinions are dishonest and not based on facts or the evidence; I can successfully defend that contention and I believe that you know that.
And that, dear pupils, is why HolyMoly runs away when I issue that challenge to him. He knows I'll take apart anything that he attempts, regardless of the source.
But wait.....therer's more....
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 12, 2023 13:42:13 GMT
He lays claim to victory without ever engaging in the struggle.
This is obviously not true no matter how much you'd like for it to be.
It's simply a matter of record. This very forum has dozens of pages detailing the merciless beat-down I've given you.
As I said.. I'm bored with you. For months now, you haven't produced a single point that hasn't been eviscerated.
You've gotten your ass kicked all over this forum and I've done most of it. Let's see a link to any of this alleged record, or did you just prove that all you do us claim victory without ever engaging in the struggle. That stung you a little, didn't it, boy?
You've eviscerated nothing here except your own reputation.
Step up, boy, and show us examples. Hell, I'd settle for a single substantive contribution on this one thread.
|
|