Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 13:26:03 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. Put up or shut up. Point out where I've called this the first battle or just admit that it's just your desperate straw man. There were many confrontations, but they didn't trigger the war. Star of the West, Fort Pickens, or any others were not the first battles OF THE WAR. Hell, I can give you an eyewitness who says that the Union troops in Fort Sumter fired the first shot of the war when they test fired their 10 inch Columbiad set up as a mortar. They aimed it at Charleston and the Confederates were so "warlike" that they rowed a boat to the Fort asking for an explanation rather than return fire.
Are you beginning to understand how ignorant you are or do I need to keep reminding you?
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,301
|
Post by thor on Apr 13, 2023 13:38:44 GMT
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!"
Paleo....bitch-slapped by Alexander Stephens....again.... "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Cry for mercy, Paleo, and the beatings will stop.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 13:41:46 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. It's three documents out of eleven STATES. And you look stupid assuming that states rights meant "the right to own other human beings" when the Confederate Constitution prominently added a clause prohibiting protective tariffs....a clause even more different when compared to the U.S. Constitution, but these leftist dumbasses don't want anyone to notice that convincing evidence that secession and war were about many complex issues centered around Northern violations of the Constitutional compact.
As far a consensus on the cause of the war, do you really want to follow the lemmings over the cliff? Every Soviet historian was convinced that the USSR singlehandedly won WW2 because there were consequences that were not pleasant. While not as extreme, most historians are followers because they don't dare challenge the historical lies dictated by the Northern victors.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 16:00:16 GMT
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!"
Paleo....bitch-slapped by Alexander Stephens....again.... "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Cry for mercy, Paleo, and the beatings will stop. Oh my! One private speech by one person! Out of five million Southerners. The evidence is just overwhelming! (eye roll implied) The evidence IS overwhelming that you are a dumbass that getting his ass kicked.
Your narrative is so weak that you stupidly repeat the same measly three declarations and the one speech as if that's not as ridiculous as it sounds.
So let's apply your rule to the Union side.....this is what Lincoln said:
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Based on your "logic", the entire Union war effort and every soul that wore the blue, and the goal of the entire U.S. at that time fought only and primarily for the cause expressed in this one Lincoln speech.
Yes, you really are that stupid.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,301
|
Post by thor on Apr 13, 2023 18:04:04 GMT
Paleo....bitch-slapped by Alexander Stephens....again.... "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Cry for mercy, Paleo, and the beatings will stop. Oh my! One private speech by one person! Out of five million Southerners. The evidence is just overwhelming! (eye roll implied) The evidence IS overwhelming that you are a dumbass that getting his ass kicked.
Your narrative is so weak that you stupidly repeat the same measly three declarations and the one speech as if that's not as ridiculous as it sounds.
So let's apply your rule to the Union side.....this is what Lincoln said:
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Based on your "logic", the entire Union war effort and every soul that wore the blue, and the goal of the entire U.S. at that time fought only and primarily for the cause expressed in this one Lincoln speech.
Yes, you really are that stupid.
'Only one guy.' The #2 guy in the CSA - whose speech was met with rousing cheers. Poor Paleo....still hasn't gotten over his great-grandpappy losing his slaves....
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 19:15:22 GMT
Oh my! One private speech by one person! Out of five million Southerners. The evidence is just overwhelming! (eye roll implied) The evidence IS overwhelming that you are a dumbass that getting his ass kicked.
Your narrative is so weak that you stupidly repeat the same measly three declarations and the one speech as if that's not as ridiculous as it sounds.
So let's apply your rule to the Union side.....this is what Lincoln said:
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Based on your "logic", the entire Union war effort and every soul that wore the blue, and the goal of the entire U.S. at that time fought only and primarily for the cause expressed in this one Lincoln speech.
Yes, you really are that stupid.
'Only one guy.' The #2 guy in the CSA - whose speech was met with rousing cheers. Poor Paleo....still hasn't gotten over his great-grandpappy losing his slaves.... Still the opinion of one person and not codified in the Confederate government. As far as #2, everybody ignores Kamala and thinks she's a moron, yet you stupidly pretend that Stephens has some magical importance that no other VP has ever had.
Truly, you make other liberal dumbasses look smart by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 13, 2023 21:01:12 GMT
It's three documents out of eleven STATES. And you look stupid assuming that states rights meant "the right to own other human beings" when the Confederate Constitution prominently added a clause prohibiting protective tariffs....a clause even more different when compared to the U.S. Constitution, but these leftist dumbasses don't want anyone to notice that convincing evidence that secession and war were about many complex issues centered around Northern violations of the Constitutional compact.
As far a consensus on the cause of the war, do you really want to follow the lemmings over the cliff? Every Soviet historian was convinced that the USSR singlehandedly won WW2 because there were consequences that were not pleasant. While not as extreme, most historians are followers because they don't dare challenge the historical lies dictated by the Northern victors. Only four states put out additional documents to their secession declarations. Seven states choose not to do so, so they aren't members of that subset and are not counted as such. And out of those four, three mention slavery as the prime reason for secession. Who cares what the Confederate Constitution said after the fact? Tariffs are just the go to excuse of Lost Cause partisans. They aren't even in the secession documents. So the reason contemporary southern historians say that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War is that they will be somehow be punished by nasty Yankee history profs if they don't? You're living in a nutjob fantasy land. mises.org/wire/did-tariffs-really-cause-american-civil-war
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 13, 2023 21:02:06 GMT
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.
So far I've not left the ground. But you're high as hell on bullshit. Let's review; you said all this US union stuff was just peachy until about 1850. There were three states admitted to the union between 1850 and 1860; California (1850), Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859). The population of CA in 1850 was 92,000. In 1860 the population was 287,000 and I'd say most of those people were white or Chinese....Oregon, just 12,000 in 1850. Here again, almost certainly all white or Chinese. Minnesota in 1850, only 6,000, again, almost certainly all white. So, it looks like the 3/5 of a person concept didn't really matter during the ten years preceding the civil war. Each of those new states got two US Senators, but I bet they got more than two US House representatives. So which is more important? And if there were a thousand states there would still be more House members than the two thousand Senators. Here's 1850 US census data. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1850_United_States_census#State_rankings Show me how the designation of slaves as 3/5 of a person is in any way a "northern interest." Notice the population figures. The north had more population even if slaves were counted as whole persons. The 3/5 thing is a southern interest, not a northern one. Your attempt to make it one is laughable. Have you forgotten that this 3/5 thing had been around since before the ratification of the Constitution? I'm not embarrassed at all. I just proved again that House members are more important than Senators, except in places like Rhode Island, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland.....all northern states. What about that? Looks like Senators are an advantage way up north. Not so much down south. Are you embarrassed yet? Sure. You just keep on believing that.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 13, 2023 21:37:31 GMT
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. Put up or shut up. Point out where I've called this the first battle or just admit that it's just your desperate straw man. There were many confrontations, but they didn't trigger the war. Star of the West, Fort Pickens, or any others were not the first battles OF THE WAR. Hell, I can give you an eyewitness who says that the Union troops in Fort Sumter fired the first shot of the war when they test fired their 10 inch Columbiad set up as a mortar. They aimed it at Charleston and the Confederates were so "warlike" that they rowed a boat to the Fort asking for an explanation rather than return fire.
Are you beginning to understand how ignorant you are or do I need to keep reminding you?
So glad that you have an actual eyewitness. Was he also an eyewitness to trump's account to Washington taking the British controlled airports?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 21:44:30 GMT
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.
So far I've not left the ground. But you're high as hell on bullshit. Let's review; you said all this US union stuff was just peachy until about 1850. There were three states admitted to the union between 1850 and 1860; California (1850), Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859). The population of CA in 1850 was 92,000. In 1860 the population was 287,000 and I'd say most of those people were white or Chinese....Oregon, just 12,000 in 1850. Here again, almost certainly all white or Chinese. Minnesota in 1850, only 6,000, again, almost certainly all white. So, it looks like the 3/5 of a person concept didn't really matter during the ten years preceding the civil war. Each of those new states got two US Senators, but I bet they got more than two US House representatives. So which is more important? And if there were a thousand states there would still be more House members than the two thousand Senators. Here's 1850 US census data. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1850_United_States_census#State_rankings Show me how the designation of slaves as 3/5 of a person is in any way a "northern interest." Notice the population figures. The north had more population even if slaves were counted as whole persons. The 3/5 thing is a southern interest, not a northern one. Your attempt to make it one is laughable. Have you forgotten that this 3/5 thing had been around since before the ratification of the Constitution? I'm not embarrassed at all. I just proved again that House members are more important than Senators, except in places like Rhode Island, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland.....all northern states. What about that? Looks like Senators are an advantage way up north. Not so much down south. Are you embarrassed yet? Sure. You just keep on believing that. So, you just destroyed your own argument by adding these details. I am actually proud that you are flexible enough to kick your own butt and I encourage you to keep practicing. It'll let me take a break from doing it for you.
The House was not in jeopardy in that era. Democrats controlled that body for almost the entire decade. The extra House seats from the new states made no difference at all. The extra SENATORS, however made a huge difference. THAT'S why you're wrong. The 3/5ths compromise was a Northern interest when drafted and Northern interests will forever own that.
So, when you leave your comfort/safe zone by pulling your head out of your ass, Google it and be embarrassed (if that's even possible for a liberal)
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Apr 13, 2023 21:47:31 GMT
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. Put up or shut up. Point out where I've called this the first battle or just admit that it's just your desperate straw man. There were many confrontations, but they didn't trigger the war. Star of the West, Fort Pickens, or any others were not the first battles OF THE WAR. Hell, I can give you an eyewitness who says that the Union troops in Fort Sumter fired the first shot of the war when they test fired their 10 inch Columbiad set up as a mortar. They aimed it at Charleston and the Confederates were so "warlike" that they rowed a boat to the Fort asking for an explanation rather than return fire.
Are you beginning to understand how ignorant you are or do I need to keep reminding you?
The slavers were opposed by people thousands of miles away, in barely-better conditions than slaves, because right and wrong matter. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21057494
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 13, 2023 22:05:16 GMT
So far I've not left the ground. But you're high as hell on bullshit. Let's review; you said all this US union stuff was just peachy until about 1850. There were three states admitted to the union between 1850 and 1860; California (1850), Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859). The population of CA in 1850 was 92,000. In 1860 the population was 287,000 and I'd say most of those people were white or Chinese....Oregon, just 12,000 in 1850. Here again, almost certainly all white or Chinese. Minnesota in 1850, only 6,000, again, almost certainly all white. So, it looks like the 3/5 of a person concept didn't really matter during the ten years preceding the civil war. Each of those new states got two US Senators, but I bet they got more than two US House representatives. So which is more important? And if there were a thousand states there would still be more House members than the two thousand Senators. Here's 1850 US census data. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1850_United_States_census#State_rankings Show me how the designation of slaves as 3/5 of a person is in any way a "northern interest." Notice the population figures. The north had more population even if slaves were counted as whole persons. The 3/5 thing is a southern interest, not a northern one. Your attempt to make it one is laughable. Have you forgotten that this 3/5 thing had been around since before the ratification of the Constitution? I'm not embarrassed at all. I just proved again that House members are more important than Senators, except in places like Rhode Island, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland.....all northern states. What about that? Looks like Senators are an advantage way up north. Not so much down south. Are you embarrassed yet? Sure. You just keep on believing that. So, you just destroyed your own argument by adding these details. I am actually proud that you are flexible enough to kick your own butt and I encourage you to keep practicing. It'll let me take a break from doing it for you.
The House was not in jeopardy in that era. Democrats controlled that body for almost the entire decade. The extra House seats from the new states made no difference at all. The extra SENATORS, however made a huge difference. THAT'S why you're wrong. The 3/5ths compromise was a Northern interest when drafted and Northern interests will forever own that.
So, when you leave your comfort/safe zone by pulling your head out of your ass, Google it and be embarrassed (if that's even possible for a liberal)
Still in denial i see. I made reference to those states that were admitted to the union during the decade prior to the civil war because the 3/5 concept had no real relevance to those states. Only in that sense was the 3/5 concept a "northern advantage" because none of those three states had any slaves. So, just as the additional House members from those states made no difference in any of this, neither did the six Senators that resulted from it. Try again. Hell, you yourself said that the north didn't want to count slaves at all as part of a states' population. So how in hell is counting them as 60% of a person an "advantage" to them when they wanted 0%? You're starting to flounder again..... Again, the 3/5 concept became a thing in 1787, before this nation was officially established. And you want me or anyone else to believe that "northern interests" were behind the establishment of this policy? That's like asking someone to believe that the trump tariffs placed on Chinese imports added anything to the US treasury. They didn't add a cent. I've been in my comfortable zone for several years and don't plan to leave it. Especially for something like you. I can do that from here.
|
|
johnnybgood
Legend
Free Israel
Posts: 6,216
Member is Online
|
Post by johnnybgood on Apr 13, 2023 22:07:54 GMT
Good job Lincoln and Grant. Thank you for taking those slave trade honkies out of commission.
But you could shown them how to run a state without slaves. They still haven't figured that part out yet.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 22:07:56 GMT
It's three documents out of eleven STATES. And you look stupid assuming that states rights meant "the right to own other human beings" when the Confederate Constitution prominently added a clause prohibiting protective tariffs....a clause even more different when compared to the U.S. Constitution, but these leftist dumbasses don't want anyone to notice that convincing evidence that secession and war were about many complex issues centered around Northern violations of the Constitutional compact.
As far a consensus on the cause of the war, do you really want to follow the lemmings over the cliff? Every Soviet historian was convinced that the USSR singlehandedly won WW2 because there were consequences that were not pleasant. While not as extreme, most historians are followers because they don't dare challenge the historical lies dictated by the Northern victors. Only four states put out additional documents to their secession declarations. Seven states choose not to do so, so they aren't members of that subset and are not counted as such. And out of those four, three mention slavery as the prime reason for secession. Who cares what the Confederate Constitution said after the fact? Tariffs are just the go to excuse of Lost Cause partisans. They aren't even in the secession documents. So the reason contemporary southern historians say that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War is that they will be somehow be punished by nasty Yankee history profs if they don't? You're living in a nutjob fantasy land. mises.org/wire/did-tariffs-really-cause-american-civil-war But their were eleven states were in the group that you are currently smearing, not just the subset. And the secession documents were only about secession, not the war. But an elitist tirade in the form of a declaration has no power in law....it's just politics. When the actual founding documents were created by the representatives of all of the Southern states, a far different picture emerged.
Of course modern historians are punished. This historian was pounded for simply arguing that "an unsettling number of academic historians have allowed their political views in the present to shape and distort their interpretations of the past." THAT'S ALL HE DID....and he was attacked by the leftist authoritarian brats that want to do just that and forced to apologize.
Sweet offered a gentle criticism of the New York Times’s 1619 Project as evidence of this pattern. Many historians embraced the 1619 Project for its political messages despite substantive flaws of fact and interpretation in its content. Sweet thus asked: “As journalism, the project is powerful and effective, but is it history?”
Within moments of his column appearing online, all hell broke loose on Twitter.
Incensed at even the mildest suggestion that politicization is undermining the integrity of historical scholarship, the activist wing of the history profession showed up on the AHA’s thread and began demanding Sweet’s cancellation.
One day after the offending article went live, the AHA tweeted out a “public apology” from Sweet. It reads like a forced confession statement, acknowledging the “harm” and “damage” allegedly caused by simply raising questions about the politicization of scholarship toward overtly ideological activist ends.
Only an idiot thinks that the punishment wouldn't be worse if any historian failed to worship the Northern lies about the South. Stop being so stupidly naive and ignorant.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 22:14:05 GMT
Put up or shut up. Point out where I've called this the first battle or just admit that it's just your desperate straw man. There were many confrontations, but they didn't trigger the war. Star of the West, Fort Pickens, or any others were not the first battles OF THE WAR. Hell, I can give you an eyewitness who says that the Union troops in Fort Sumter fired the first shot of the war when they test fired their 10 inch Columbiad set up as a mortar. They aimed it at Charleston and the Confederates were so "warlike" that they rowed a boat to the Fort asking for an explanation rather than return fire.
Are you beginning to understand how ignorant you are or do I need to keep reminding you?
The slavers were opposed by people thousands of miles away, in barely-better conditions than slaves, because right and wrong matter. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21057494British shipping interests, and English colonizers of North America are the ones who bought and transported the slaves to the world. And bought those slaves from Africans selling their own people.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 13, 2023 22:14:43 GMT
I think I'm starting to get a handle on this.....you have to follow twitter to understand the civil war and its causes and effects. I'll be damned.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 22:18:41 GMT
So, you just destroyed your own argument by adding these details. I am actually proud that you are flexible enough to kick your own butt and I encourage you to keep practicing. It'll let me take a break from doing it for you.
The House was not in jeopardy in that era. Democrats controlled that body for almost the entire decade. The extra House seats from the new states made no difference at all. The extra SENATORS, however made a huge difference. THAT'S why you're wrong. The 3/5ths compromise was a Northern interest when drafted and Northern interests will forever own that.
So, when you leave your comfort/safe zone by pulling your head out of your ass, Google it and be embarrassed (if that's even possible for a liberal)
Still in denial i see. I made reference to those states that were admitted to the union during the decade prior to the civil war because the 3/5 concept had no real relevance to those states. Only in that sense was the 3/5 concept a "northern advantage" because none of those three states had any slaves. So, just as the additional House members from those states made no difference in any of this, neither did the six Senators that resulted from it. Try again. Hell, you yourself said that the north didn't want to count slaves at all as part of a states' population. So how in hell is counting them as 60% of a person an "advantage" to them when they wanted 0%? You're starting to flounder again..... Again, the 3/5 concept became a thing in 1787, before this nation was officially established. And you want me or anyone else to believe that "northern interests" were behind the establishment of this policy? That's like asking someone to believe that the trump tariffs placed on Chinese imports added anything to the US treasury. They didn't add a cent. I've been in my comfortable zone for several years and don't plan to leave it. Especially for something like you. I can do that from here. I've already proven to you that those six Senators tipped the balance in the Senate, while you've failed to show any such disruption in the House. Give it up...you lost and you will continue to lose when I engage. No exceptions.
I didn't call 3/5ths an "advantage" to them, only the Northern interests are equally to blame for that compromise. Are you too dense to understand that fact?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 22:20:18 GMT
I think I'm starting to get a handle on this.....you have to follow twitter to understand the civil war and its causes and effects. I'll be damned. As ignorant as you seem to be, that is likely where you've learned about "history". You don't have a clue.
|
|
johnnybgood
Legend
Free Israel
Posts: 6,216
Member is Online
|
Post by johnnybgood on Apr 13, 2023 22:20:35 GMT
After bringing the Southern trash to heel, 3.9 million human beings were freed from bondage in forced labor camps. Greg No, 3.9 million human beings were left behind by the Yankees to fend for themselves. More blacks died under Union control than ever did under the Confederates. The only trash in this story are the minions of the Union and those still supporting that disgusting Lincoln filth today.
Did you realize that almost all of the ex-slaves were forced to stay in the South until the early 20th century because the racist North wouldn't allow them to move North?
Tyrant Lincoln would have loved mindless, brainwashed followers like you, Greg. Just his type.
White officers controlling a black brigade wearing Union uniforms were put to death along with the black soldiers. No POW option. Sure the north was racist. But I wouldn't compare it with the south.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,165
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2023 22:21:57 GMT
Good job Lincoln and Grant. Thank you for taking those slave trade honkies out of commission. But you could shown them how to run a state without slaves. They still haven't figured that part out yet. Everybody else in the world did just that. Our war wasn't about slavery, it was about centralized governmentcontrol....and the villains who supported that evil concept won. The rest of us lost.
|
|