thor
Legend
Posts: 17,311
|
Post by thor on Apr 12, 2023 16:57:11 GMT
You sure get spun up when you're stupidly wrong, don't you? I mentioned senators because that was highly important in a sparsely populated new state that might get ONE House member total, but would still get EQUAL representation in the Senate regardless of population.
You brought up the inane 3/5ths argument as one of your famous strawmen, pretending that that rule was the motivator for Southerners bringing their slaves to new states.
You'd have to be a lot less stupid to have a chance to help anyone else. And since being a liberal requires being stupid, there's not much hope for your recovery. Get well soon.
The only one spun up on this is you. You get particularly spun up when anyone points out the errors in your revisionism. Which is more important in the number of electoral votes a state (new or old) gets? Is it the number of non voting slaves in a state or is it the two Senators that each state gets? Take your time.....imagine 100,000 slaves living in a territory about to become a state and that those slaves count as 60,000 "people" for the purposes of establishing how many US House members that state gets. Now imagine another territory about to become a state but it has only 100,000 people living there, all white. Now, the territory with all those slaves plus the white people that owned them plus the white people who didn't own slaves gives that territory more clout as a state than the all white state that has less population. Here's the nut: population affects the number of US House members a state gets.....population does not affect the number of US Senators a state gets. Presidential elections are decided by the number of electoral votes they win. Now what is more "critical" in this scenario? You still think it's the Senators? Really? Strawman? Bullshit. the 3/5 thing was the critical factor. There was no "incentive" to bring slaves anywhere; they would have gone where their owners took them anyway. This is why it was southern interests that this 3/5 thing benefited. It's not a strawman; it's the main issue. The strawman is the one you brough here with the Senators nonsense. yeah, right Paleo got owned.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,311
|
Post by thor on Apr 12, 2023 17:03:24 GMT
The only one spun up on this is you. You get particularly spun up when anyone points out the errors in your revisionism. Which is more important in the number of electoral votes a state (new or old) gets? Is it the number of non voting slaves in a state or is it the two Senators that each state gets? Take your time.....imagine 100,000 slaves living in a territory about to become a state and that those slaves count as 60,000 "people" for the purposes of establishing how many US House members that state gets. Now imagine another territory about to become a state but it has only 100,000 people living there, all white. Now, the territory with all those slaves plus the white people that owned them plus the white people who didn't own slaves gives that territory more clout as a state than the all white state that has less population. Here's the nut: population affects the number of US House members a state gets.....population does not affect the number of US Senators a state gets. Presidential elections are decided by the number of electoral votes they win. Now what is more "critical" in this scenario? You still think it's the Senators? Really? Strawman? Bullshit. the 3/5 thing was the critical factor. There was no "incentive" to bring slaves anywhere; they would have gone where their owners took them anyway. This is why it was southern interests that this 3/5 thing benefited. It's not a strawman; it's the main issue. The strawman is the one you brough here with the Senators nonsense. yeah, right There's no revisionism, just teaching you to be less stupid and you're a poor student.
From 1812 through 1850, maintaining the balance of free and slave state votes in the Senate was considered of paramount importance if the Union were to be preserved, and states were typically admitted in pairs
The balance was maintained until 1850, when California was admitted as a free state. Three more free states were admitted in the final years before the Civil War, disrupting the balance that the slave states had tried to maintain.
I hope you enjoyed your free ass kicking and please come visit us again.
Paleo derps about Senators, and then admits that the crux of the Civil War slavery, to wit: " From 1812 through 1850, maintaining the balance of free and slave state votes in the Senate was considered of paramount importance if the Union were to be preserved, "
In other words, Stupid Boy, the slavers saw the writing on the wall and were terrified about their 'peculiar institution' being legislated out of existence.
Another masterful Self-own.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,722
|
Post by Fiddler on Apr 12, 2023 17:03:49 GMT
Never happened slaver.. Just like every other time you've tried to pawn off your revisionist history you got beat like a rented mule.. .
You know.. if it wasn't for history books.. you might get away with your bullshit. . You don't.
Step up or shut up, little racist boy. Not a soul, including you or any of these other leftists, has ever stood a chance on this subject. You, especially, are notorious for contributing nothing while claiming credit when it's not due to you.
Engage and lose, run away and lose....those are your only options and a pretty good history of your past failures.
LMAO.. With the possible exception of stu(pid) .. . and even he may not be stupid enough.. . no one is buying your alternate reality..
You aren't the first wannabe slaver I've brought to tears and I was the first to pound facts up your ignorant ass here followed by every other individual that had had enough of your unreconstructed bullshit ..
Nothing will change. Just like your traitorous ancestors.. you are and will always be on the wrong side of history and I will be laughing at you every moment .
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,167
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 17:19:07 GMT
There's no revisionism, just teaching you to be less stupid and you're a poor student.
From 1812 through 1850, maintaining the balance of free and slave state votes in the Senate was considered of paramount importance if the Union were to be preserved, and states were typically admitted in pairs
The balance was maintained until 1850, when California was admitted as a free state. Three more free states were admitted in the final years before the Civil War, disrupting the balance that the slave states had tried to maintain.
I hope you enjoyed your free ass kicking and please come visit us again.
Paleo derps about Senators, and then admits that the crux of the Civil War slavery, to wit: " From 1812 through 1850, maintaining the balance of free and slave state votes in the Senate was considered of paramount importance if the Union were to be preserved, "
In other words, Stupid Boy, the slavers saw the writing on the wall and were terrified about their 'peculiar institution' being legislated out of existence.
Another masterful Self-own.
No, it was yet another one of my masterful kicks that connected with your unwashed fat ass, pussy boy.
Slavery was not under threat at any time in this era. It was the possibility of a Northern legislative majority that would legislate on tariffs and intrastructure projects that were already being unequally funded by the South. It was an economic imbalance, not any threat to slavery (there was none).
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,722
|
Post by Fiddler on Apr 12, 2023 17:23:40 GMT
The only one spun up on this is you. You get particularly spun up when anyone points out the errors in your revisionism. Which is more important in the number of electoral votes a state (new or old) gets? Is it the number of non voting slaves in a state or is it the two Senators that each state gets? Take your time.....imagine 100,000 slaves living in a territory about to become a state and that those slaves count as 60,000 "people" for the purposes of establishing how many US House members that state gets. Now imagine another territory about to become a state but it has only 100,000 people living there, all white. Now, the territory with all those slaves plus the white people that owned them plus the white people who didn't own slaves gives that territory more clout as a state than the all white state that has less population. Here's the nut: population affects the number of US House members a state gets.....population does not affect the number of US Senators a state gets. Presidential elections are decided by the number of electoral votes they win. Now what is more "critical" in this scenario? You still think it's the Senators? Really? Strawman? Bullshit. the 3/5 thing was the critical factor. There was no "incentive" to bring slaves anywhere; they would have gone where their owners took them anyway. This is why it was southern interests that this 3/5 thing benefited. It's not a strawman; it's the main issue. The strawman is the one you brough here with the Senators nonsense. yeah, right Paleo got owned. Fitting for a wannabe slaver.. I heard he was bought for Confederate Greyback and a shit stained MAGA hat ..
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,167
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 17:25:49 GMT
Step up or shut up, little racist boy. Not a soul, including you or any of these other leftists, has ever stood a chance on this subject. You, especially, are notorious for contributing nothing while claiming credit when it's not due to you.
Engage and lose, run away and lose....those are your only options and a pretty good history of your past failures.
LMAO.. With the possible exception of stu(pid) .. . and even he may not be stupid enough.. . no one is buying your alternate reality..
You aren't the first wannabe slaver I've brought to tears and I was the first to pound facts up your ignorant ass here followed by every other individual that had had enough of your unreconstructed bullshit ..
Nothing will change. Just like your traitorous ancestors.. you are and will always be on the wrong side of history and I will be laughing at you every moment . Only intelligent folks will accept the truth that I present, so that leaves you out completely, boy.
I've kicked your stupid ass all over this forum on the subject and I'll never stop. Like I said, step up or shut up; you've failed because you've added nothing to this or any other discussion on this topic. You were nothing but an ugly cheerleader for TL's stupidity on the old monument thread and you looked very much the fool for making that mistake.
Just face the fact that you're going to get your ass kicked every time....you're the Kevin Bacon of the forum, bent over and squealing "THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!"
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,167
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 17:27:06 GMT
The only one spun up on this is you. You get particularly spun up when anyone points out the errors in your revisionism. Which is more important in the number of electoral votes a state (new or old) gets? Is it the number of non voting slaves in a state or is it the two Senators that each state gets? Take your time.....imagine 100,000 slaves living in a territory about to become a state and that those slaves count as 60,000 "people" for the purposes of establishing how many US House members that state gets. Now imagine another territory about to become a state but it has only 100,000 people living there, all white. Now, the territory with all those slaves plus the white people that owned them plus the white people who didn't own slaves gives that territory more clout as a state than the all white state that has less population. Here's the nut: population affects the number of US House members a state gets.....population does not affect the number of US Senators a state gets. Presidential elections are decided by the number of electoral votes they win. Now what is more "critical" in this scenario? You still think it's the Senators? Really? Strawman? Bullshit. the 3/5 thing was the critical factor. There was no "incentive" to bring slaves anywhere; they would have gone where their owners took them anyway. This is why it was southern interests that this 3/5 thing benefited. It's not a strawman; it's the main issue. The strawman is the one you brough here with the Senators nonsense. yeah, right Paleo got owned. Notice that runs with scissors shut the hell up after I proved that it was the Senate that was most critical. YOU just got owned, pussy boy.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,722
|
Post by Fiddler on Apr 12, 2023 17:31:08 GMT
LMAO.. With the possible exception of stu(pid) .. . and even he may not be stupid enough.. . no one is buying your alternate reality..
You aren't the first wannabe slaver I've brought to tears and I was the first to pound facts up your ignorant ass here followed by every other individual that had had enough of your unreconstructed bullshit ..
Nothing will change. Just like your traitorous ancestors.. you are and will always be on the wrong side of history and I will be laughing at you every moment . Only intelligent folks will accept the truth that I present,
Fool .. You don't have any truth to present and I've repeatedly destroyed your slaver bullshit ..
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,311
|
Post by thor on Apr 12, 2023 18:21:29 GMT
Paleo derps about Senators, and then admits that the crux of the Civil War slavery, to wit: " From 1812 through 1850, maintaining the balance of free and slave state votes in the Senate was considered of paramount importance if the Union were to be preserved, "
In other words, Stupid Boy, the slavers saw the writing on the wall and were terrified about their 'peculiar institution' being legislated out of existence.
Another masterful Self-own.
No, it was yet another one of my masterful kicks that connected with your unwashed fat ass, pussy boy.
Slavery was not under threat at any time in this era. It was the possibility of a Northern legislative majority that would legislate on tariffs and intrastructure projects that were already being unequally funded by the South. It was an economic imbalance, not any threat to slavery (there was none).
Much of the drivel in the various Articles of Secession say you are lying, Stupid Boy. Your slave-owning heroes were kind enough to write the shit down. Actual historian on this matter, Stupid Boy.... Cry for mercy, and the beating will stop, Stupid Boy....
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,167
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 19:02:46 GMT
Only intelligent folks will accept the truth that I present,
Fool .. You don't have any truth to present and I've repeatedly destroyed your slaver bullshit ..
You've destroyed nothing but your own reputation and credibility. You just don't have the intellectual horsepower to compete on this forum, so you snarl and bite at our ankles hoping we don't swat you away too quickly.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,167
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 20:39:13 GMT
No, it was yet another one of my masterful kicks that connected with your unwashed fat ass, pussy boy.
Slavery was not under threat at any time in this era. It was the possibility of a Northern legislative majority that would legislate on tariffs and intrastructure projects that were already being unequally funded by the South. It was an economic imbalance, not any threat to slavery (there was none).
Much of the drivel in the various Articles of Secession say you are lying, Stupid Boy. Your slave-owning heroes were kind enough to write the shit down. Actual historian on this matter, Stupid Boy.... Cry for mercy, and the beating will stop, Stupid Boy.... Ty Seidule? The Cueball Progressive General/Alleged Historian? What a f*cking joke....he's been debunked and his R.E. Lee book is a mess.
And are you stupidly confusing the "Articles" with either Ordinances of Secession or the measly three Declarations out of Eleven states.
Damn, if you weren't such an animal, you'd surely be a dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 12, 2023 20:45:51 GMT
The only thing "simple here is your weak minded understanding of that era. Your narrative is like a cartoon, made worse by the injection of your sad little Trump obsession when I've said nothing about him.
Just three documents prominently mentioning slavery out of how many seceded states? You lose at math and history and wouldn't recognize "objective" history if it was right in front of you. You've been suckered in (or brainwashed) by the lies of the "Righteous Cause" narrative that mandates absolute belief of the lie that slavery was the cause....and go to any lengths to protect that lie. Care to guess what percentage of Southerners were slave owners? Hoe many families owned slaves? How few were plantation owners?
You just foolishly helped prove that slavery was NOT the cause. Do you actually think the Southerners didn't know that slavery would be ended if they lost an inevitable war, yet they went ahead with secession anyway? They knew that after secession, escaped slaves could no longer be requested from Nortern states nor would they ever have any chance of taking slaves into U.S. territories. THEY KNEW ALL OF THAT. They KNEW slavery as an institution would be damaged by leaving the Union.
In March 1861, the U.S. Congress passed the Corwin Amendment, the original 13th amendment, and sent it to the states for ratification. It was passed by Northen interests, since seven states had already seceded and were no longer represented. Here's what it said:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
All the seceded Southern states had to do was end their secession and pass this amendment in their state legislatures....IF slavery was the issue, the South had just won what they wanted. But it wasn't about slavery and they didn't take this bait.
Every step made was damaging to slavery and it would be stupid to think that they didn't know that it would be. Slavery was not the cause.
I know that you can't help it that you are ignorant on this subject, but that's no reason to remain so.
I only mentioned Donny because you were talking about lying leftists. Who has lied more as POTUS than wingnut Donny? No one. It's not three documents out of eleven, it's three out of four. Only four of the seceding states put out documents in addition to their secession declarations. Of those four three mention slavery as the main cause of secession. Might as well add a large chunk of states rights too, as the right they were worried about was the right to own other humans. The big wheel slave owners were stupid enough to think they could win the war and thereby keep it alive. Big mistake. Sure, most southerners did not own slaves, so they were doubly stupid for letting the big wheels get them into a war where they had no interest. Rich man's war, poor man's fight. I would guess that even most southern historians would now agree that slavery was the main cause by far of the Civil War. Now it's only a few sad neo-Confeds who try to hide the obvious. You're like the flat earth society of Civil War history.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 12, 2023 21:58:40 GMT
The only one spun up on this is you. You get particularly spun up when anyone points out the errors in your revisionism. Which is more important in the number of electoral votes a state (new or old) gets? Is it the number of non voting slaves in a state or is it the two Senators that each state gets? Take your time.....imagine 100,000 slaves living in a territory about to become a state and that those slaves count as 60,000 "people" for the purposes of establishing how many US House members that state gets. Now imagine another territory about to become a state but it has only 100,000 people living there, all white. Now, the territory with all those slaves plus the white people that owned them plus the white people who didn't own slaves gives that territory more clout as a state than the all white state that has less population. Here's the nut: population affects the number of US House members a state gets.....population does not affect the number of US Senators a state gets. Presidential elections are decided by the number of electoral votes they win. Now what is more "critical" in this scenario? You still think it's the Senators? Really? Strawman? Bullshit. the 3/5 thing was the critical factor. There was no "incentive" to bring slaves anywhere; they would have gone where their owners took them anyway. This is why it was southern interests that this 3/5 thing benefited. It's not a strawman; it's the main issue. The strawman is the one you brough here with the Senators nonsense. yeah, right There's no revisionism, just teaching you to be less stupid and you're a poor student.
From 1812 through 1850, maintaining the balance of free and slave state votes in the Senate was considered of paramount importance if the Union were to be preserved, and states were typically admitted in pairs
The balance was maintained until 1850, when California was admitted as a free state. Three more free states were admitted in the final years before the Civil War, disrupting the balance that the slave states had tried to maintain.
I hope you enjoyed your free ass kicking and please come visit us again.
Hilarious. You miss the point. Your quote only addresses states admitted IN PAIRS. And..."disrupting the balance the slave states had tried to maintain." That sure sounds to me like southern interests....not northern ones. This whole thing was about how slaves equal three fifths of a person, remember? You're the one who keeps bringing up Senators while I keep telling you that even if there were a thousand states, there would still be only two thousand Senators. But there might be a hell of a lot more House members if even half those thousand states were slave states. Yet you refuse to see this. And whip out "northern interests" initially and when that falls flat you bring out Senators, accuse me of bringing them out, and keep on talking about them. You're only kicking yourself in the balls like some loon standing still and executing knee jerks into his own groin. Keep up the good work. Yeah, around 1850 a lot of the country became more progressive. Slavers resisted it.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 12, 2023 22:10:25 GMT
Notice that runs with scissors shut the hell up after I proved that it was the Senate that was most critical. YOU just got owned, pussy boy. Take another look, grasshopper. I've been taking leisure here in TN. Sort of in the vein of how a genteel southern gentleman would do so back in the day. And you've been frantically searching for something to try and "prove" your initial idiotic assertion in all this about US Senators. You've already lost this back when you blamed me for bringing up Senators. At that point I knew you were floundering. You're the last person in the world to make a claim to have shut me up. Ask monster dancer.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 12, 2023 22:15:05 GMT
I think 3/5ths of Ted Cruz is too much.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,722
|
Post by Fiddler on Apr 13, 2023 0:04:07 GMT
The only thing "simple here is your weak minded understanding of that era. Your narrative is like a cartoon, made worse by the injection of your sad little Trump obsession when I've said nothing about him.
Just three documents prominently mentioning slavery out of how many seceded states? You lose at math and history and wouldn't recognize "objective" history if it was right in front of you. You've been suckered in (or brainwashed) by the lies of the "Righteous Cause" narrative that mandates absolute belief of the lie that slavery was the cause....and go to any lengths to protect that lie. Care to guess what percentage of Southerners were slave owners? Hoe many families owned slaves? How few were plantation owners?
You just foolishly helped prove that slavery was NOT the cause. Do you actually think the Southerners didn't know that slavery would be ended if they lost an inevitable war, yet they went ahead with secession anyway? They knew that after secession, escaped slaves could no longer be requested from Nortern states nor would they ever have any chance of taking slaves into U.S. territories. THEY KNEW ALL OF THAT. They KNEW slavery as an institution would be damaged by leaving the Union.
In March 1861, the U.S. Congress passed the Corwin Amendment, the original 13th amendment, and sent it to the states for ratification. It was passed by Northen interests, since seven states had already seceded and were no longer represented. Here's what it said:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
All the seceded Southern states had to do was end their secession and pass this amendment in their state legislatures....IF slavery was the issue, the South had just won what they wanted. But it wasn't about slavery and they didn't take this bait.
Every step made was damaging to slavery and it would be stupid to think that they didn't know that it would be. Slavery was not the cause.
I know that you can't help it that you are ignorant on this subject, but that's no reason to remain so.
You're like the flat earth society of Civil War history.
LMAO .. Nice ..
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 13, 2023 4:28:13 GMT
Well, why don't you enlighten us if you think an error has been made. You seem to know it all, so let's see what you've got. Why should I? Are you too stupid to use Google? As I clearly said,you don't know when the 1st battle took place, or where it happened. Just more sloppy history from the right.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,311
|
Post by thor on Apr 13, 2023 5:16:25 GMT
Much of the drivel in the various Articles of Secession say you are lying, Stupid Boy. Your slave-owning heroes were kind enough to write the shit down. Actual historian on this matter, Stupid Boy.... Cry for mercy, and the beating will stop, Stupid Boy.... Ty Seidule? The Cueball Progressive General/Alleged Historian? What a f*cking joke....he's been debunked and his R.E. Lee book is a mess.
And are you stupidly confusing the "Articles" with either Ordinances of Secession or the measly three Declarations out of Eleven states.
Damn, if you weren't such an animal, you'd surely be a dumbass.
Abbeville Institute? Apologists a country founded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery (that is you and the Cuck in the video) have yet to refute the simple fact of why the CSA was established. They wrote that shit down, Stupid Boy. Cry for mercy, and the beatings will stop.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,167
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 12:21:17 GMT
There's no revisionism, just teaching you to be less stupid and you're a poor student.
From 1812 through 1850, maintaining the balance of free and slave state votes in the Senate was considered of paramount importance if the Union were to be preserved, and states were typically admitted in pairs
The balance was maintained until 1850, when California was admitted as a free state. Three more free states were admitted in the final years before the Civil War, disrupting the balance that the slave states had tried to maintain.
I hope you enjoyed your free ass kicking and please come visit us again.
Hilarious. You miss the point. Your quote only addresses states admitted IN PAIRS. And..."disrupting the balance the slave states had tried to maintain." That sure sounds to me like southern interests....not northern ones. This whole thing was about how slaves equal three fifths of a person, remember? You're the one who keeps bringing up Senators while I keep telling you that even if there were a thousand states, there would still be only two thousand Senators. But there might be a hell of a lot more House members if even half those thousand states were slave states. Yet you refuse to see this. And whip out "northern interests" initially and when that falls flat you bring out Senators, accuse me of bringing them out, and keep on talking about them. You're only kicking yourself in the balls like some loon standing still and executing knee jerks into his own groin. Keep up the good work. Yeah, around 1850 a lot of the country became more progressive. Slavers resisted it. Wow, you are a glutton for getting your ass launched skyward, aren't you?
I destroyed your 3/5ths assertion by pointing out correctly that the populations of those new state were small, thus making Senators far more important in that era. Your thousand states fantasy is meaningless in this context.
And the 3/5ths WAS a Northern interest....it was their agreement to a compromise after SOUTHERN INTERESTS wanted to count slaves as a whole person while NORTHERN INTERESTS wanted slaves not to count as people at all.
But I do understand your whiny tantrum above.....I embarrassed you by proving what you had stupidly denied.....that the number of Senators, not the U.S. house members was the primary issue in the era before the War Between the States.
Looks like the balls that are getting kicked are yours after all.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,167
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 12:32:27 GMT
Ty Seidule? The Cueball Progressive General/Alleged Historian? What a f*cking joke....he's been debunked and his R.E. Lee book is a mess.
And are you stupidly confusing the "Articles" with either Ordinances of Secession or the measly three Declarations out of Eleven states.
Damn, if you weren't such an animal, you'd surely be a dumbass.
Abbeville Institute? Apologists a country founded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery (that is you and the Cuck in the video) have yet to refute the simple fact of why the CSA was established. They wrote that shit down, Stupid Boy. Cry for mercy, and the beatings will stop. No, just a tiny handful wrote such things down and they were the tiny minority elitists. The Jeff Bezos/Jack Dorsey/Elon Musk characters of that time. And I can give you Lincoln quotes that are as bad or worse than anything in those documents.
And it's still the lie of a dumbass to claim that the CSA was "founded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery". You can't look any more stupid than when you repeat that lie.
I'm trying to teach you to be less stupid so I'm sorry that it feel like a beating to you, but I'm not planning to stop. I could try a different tactic....."BAD THOR! BAD! STOP SHITTING ALL OVER THAT FORUM! GOOD BOY!"
|
|