Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 19, 2023 2:13:44 GMT
And yet, you don't seem to have the brains or the courage to share the alleged "good reason(s)" that you claim that those historians were supposed to have. Your evasive tactics are a joke as is your narrative. The great Northern lie is that the South wanted its independence so it could preserve slavery and this cultist craps it out like he has a bad case of rhetorical diarrhea, but never seems capable of supporting that fabrication.
No, it is stupid to think that Northern legislators somehow knew Southerners better than the Southerners knew themselves. You've shown how desperate you are with a hilariously goofy tactic like that. Those Yankees knew nothing, considering their complete failure with Corwin. And once again, show us where it was too late for any of the seceded states to reverse their decision. If slavery had been their cause, Southerners would have flocked to the amendment, but none did except Kentucky.
You don't have the intelligence to discuss the tariff cause with me or anyone else, do you? All you do is issue empty dismissals without ever offering anything substantive to the conversation. Only a simpleton calls a legitimate point of contention "nonsense", but complex causes don't fit your childish little narrative. You're like all of the other cultists that I've run across on this subject. You don't have the mental horsepower to ever be a real challenge, but it's fun to watch you squirm when I keep repeating it.
And no, I called those men elitists and Fire EATERS who were not honest about slavery being their actual cause. You don't retain historical details very well, do you? That's likely why you can only process a cartoonish lie like slavery was the cause rather than the kind of complicated and contradictory evidence that I've sent your way.
You're the one cowering behind those historians, and I say that not a one of them can offer support for the slavery was the cause lie that I can't tear apart. That's really what you're afraid of. But, if those historians are so numerous and easy to find, it should be a piece of cake for you to step up and make your case by drawing from that vast array of historians.
Hitler's camps started out as camps for holding prisoners (most were German before the war) just like Elmira. Both morphed into death camps due to intentional neglect primarily. The more you squeak about the differences, the more that you help show the similarities.
New York's a dump just like all of the blue cities. Make like the Yankees at First Manassas and skedaddle back up there where you belong, carpetbagger.
Not a lie at all. Preserving slavery came before everything else. I'm sure northern legislators who were right there in the middle of things had a good idea of what might please the south--the permanent legalization of slavery, though as in the Constitution the word slavery is not used. Too gentlemanly to actually use the word perhaps. The die was already cast and there was no interest in going back. The Morrill Tariff was another occasion when southerners managed to shoot themselves in the foot. It had passed the House but was still stalled in the Senate. But then the early states seceded leaving them without any senators to vote against the tariff. So if the tariff was the reason for secession, why leave before having the opportunity of voting against it and not having it become law? Because it was slavery not the tariff that was the reason for secession. I admit it. I didn't remember a few sentences from a post from months ago. Have discussed the historians before. If anyone wants to look at them, they can. No need to hide behind something that is right out there in the open for anyone to consult. Go for it. Hitler's camps usually started out as camps for political prisoners, not POWs. German POW camps were separate from the other camps. You sound absurd pretending that firing squads, hangings, and gas chambers were intentional neglect. Totally loony toon. The war is over so I can go anywhere I want. And few people today even know what a carpetbagger is. The mental horsepower needed to refute the Lost Cause narrative is at the minimum range of the scale. An average teenage could likely do it. NYC, it's a hell of a town. Compared to other large cities, NYC has a relatively low violent crime rate. It's not even in the top twenty. I've easily proven that the idea that "preserving slavery came before everything else" is a lie, but a brainwashed cultist like you is incapable of recognizing the truth, no matter how much evidence is set before you. After this thread, anyone still clinging to that Northern lie is just pathetic....but, hey, that's the kind of suckers that those alleged historians attract as their groupies. Slavery as the Southern cause will always be a fabrication, groupie.
Those Northern gentlemen failed because they guessed wrong about the South's motivations. To pretend that those Yankees has some kind of edge in knowing what Southerners themselves wanted is stupid on its face and laughably erroneous based on the outcome. Corwin didn't please the South at all, including seven of the eight slave states still in the Union and none of the seceded states, yet you claim that the Yankees knew what would "please the South"? What a joke. You're just too easy.
Yeah, you don't do logic, do you? The Republicans gained EIGHT Senate seats in the 1860 election before there was any secession, which meant that it was only a matter of time before the tariff passed regardless of Southern opposition. The North had bankrupted the government (another economic reason to get out) and was desperate for money. In case you didn't notice, secession freed Southerners from ALL U.S. tariffs and opened the door for direct importation of goods from places like Britain that despised the tariffs. Why stay and keep struggling against an ever stronger foe in the Congress, when you can leave and be free of all of the tariffs. Once again, look to the Confederate Constitution. A brand spanking new clause was added to...wait for it..... prohibit protective tariffs. Tariffs, taxation and economic issues, combined with the North's turn toward unconstitutional centralization were the real causes of the rift. Only a childish simpleton embraces slavery as the cause.
Still running away, I see. You're the one who made the claim about the historians, not us. Since you can't produce anything from these "experts" after you repeatedly brought them into the conversation, why should anyone trust what you're saying at all on any of this. Cowering behind the "it's settled because experts" excuse without producing evidence is intellectually lazy.
Intentional neglect was a large and primary cause of death in the German camps. Elmira had deaths from the same kind of neglect. It's stupid to pretend that "firing squads, hangings, and gas chambers" were the only, or even the primary causes of death. The Union was evil long before Hitler had his turn.
I doubt that YOU knew what a carpetbagger was until I used the word. You don't have the depth to be in this conversation; you're the king of whining and excuses, not substantive counterpoints.
Let's recap. Slavery as the Southern cause was, is and always will be a Northern lie.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 19, 2023 21:45:21 GMT
Not a lie at all. Preserving slavery came before everything else. I'm sure northern legislators who were right there in the middle of things had a good idea of what might please the south--the permanent legalization of slavery, though as in the Constitution the word slavery is not used. Too gentlemanly to actually use the word perhaps. The die was already cast and there was no interest in going back. The Morrill Tariff was another occasion when southerners managed to shoot themselves in the foot. It had passed the House but was still stalled in the Senate. But then the early states seceded leaving them without any senators to vote against the tariff. So if the tariff was the reason for secession, why leave before having the opportunity of voting against it and not having it become law? Because it was slavery not the tariff that was the reason for secession. I admit it. I didn't remember a few sentences from a post from months ago. Have discussed the historians before. If anyone wants to look at them, they can. No need to hide behind something that is right out there in the open for anyone to consult. Go for it. Hitler's camps usually started out as camps for political prisoners, not POWs. German POW camps were separate from the other camps. You sound absurd pretending that firing squads, hangings, and gas chambers were intentional neglect. Totally loony toon. The war is over so I can go anywhere I want. And few people today even know what a carpetbagger is. The mental horsepower needed to refute the Lost Cause narrative is at the minimum range of the scale. An average teenage could likely do it. NYC, it's a hell of a town. Compared to other large cities, NYC has a relatively low violent crime rate. It's not even in the top twenty. I've easily proven that the idea that "preserving slavery came before everything else" is a lie, but a brainwashed cultist like you is incapable of recognizing the truth, no matter how much evidence is set before you. After this thread, anyone still clinging to that Northern lie is just pathetic....but, hey, that's the kind of suckers that those alleged historians attract as their groupies. Slavery as the Southern cause will always be a fabrication, groupie.
Those Northern gentlemen failed because they guessed wrong about the South's motivations. To pretend that those Yankees has some kind of edge in knowing what Southerners themselves wanted is stupid on its face and laughably erroneous based on the outcome. Corwin didn't please the South at all, including seven of the eight slave states still in the Union and none of the seceded states, yet you claim that the Yankees knew what would "please the South"? What a joke. You're just too easy.
Yeah, you don't do logic, do you? The Republicans gained EIGHT Senate seats in the 1860 election before there was any secession, which meant that it was only a matter of time before the tariff passed regardless of Southern opposition. The North had bankrupted the government (another economic reason to get out) and was desperate for money. In case you didn't notice, secession freed Southerners from ALL U.S. tariffs and opened the door for direct importation of goods from places like Britain that despised the tariffs. Why stay and keep struggling against an ever stronger foe in the Congress, when you can leave and be free of all of the tariffs. Once again, look to the Confederate Constitution. A brand spanking new clause was added to...wait for it..... prohibit protective tariffs. Tariffs, taxation and economic issues, combined with the North's turn toward unconstitutional centralization were the real causes of the rift. Only a childish simpleton embraces slavery as the cause.
Still running away, I see. You're the one who made the claim about the historians, not us. Since you can't produce anything from these "experts" after you repeatedly brought them into the conversation, why should anyone trust what you're saying at all on any of this. Cowering behind the "it's settled because experts" excuse without producing evidence is intellectually lazy.
Intentional neglect was a large and primary cause of death in the German camps. Elmira had deaths from the same kind of neglect. It's stupid to pretend that "firing squads, hangings, and gas chambers" were the only, or even the primary causes of death. The Union was evil long before Hitler had his turn.
I doubt that YOU knew what a carpetbagger was until I used the word. You don't have the depth to be in this conversation; you're the king of whining and excuses, not substantive counterpoints.
Let's recap. Slavery as the Southern cause was, is and always will be a Northern lie.
You're so deep in the Lost Cause craziness that you don't understand how unformidable your evidence is. That's why calling it a challenge is so hilarious. You can repeatedly call the conclusions of most historians a northern lie, but at this point it's nothing more than meaningless name calling and evidence of nothing. Talk about something that is shallow and simplistic. The northern legislators didn't have an edge on the south, but they were right there and their conclusions as to what he south truly wanted were valid and not abstractions. The Corwin Amendment turned out to be an irrelevancy that had no effect on secession. And seven states seceded before the tariff was even voted on. Why not wait to see if they could block the tariff and if not, secede then. Because slavery was the cause of secession not the tariff. What's truly stupid is to pretend that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers is somehow neglect. How do you shoot or hang someone through neglect? Trying to say these things happened at Elmira is absurd, as is the idea that the Union was evil. This is just typical Lost Cause hyperbole. Recap. Lost Causers live in an alternative reality that grows more absurd with each post.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 21, 2023 15:20:49 GMT
I've easily proven that the idea that "preserving slavery came before everything else" is a lie, but a brainwashed cultist like you is incapable of recognizing the truth, no matter how much evidence is set before you. After this thread, anyone still clinging to that Northern lie is just pathetic....but, hey, that's the kind of suckers that those alleged historians attract as their groupies. Slavery as the Southern cause will always be a fabrication, groupie.
Those Northern gentlemen failed because they guessed wrong about the South's motivations. To pretend that those Yankees has some kind of edge in knowing what Southerners themselves wanted is stupid on its face and laughably erroneous based on the outcome. Corwin didn't please the South at all, including seven of the eight slave states still in the Union and none of the seceded states, yet you claim that the Yankees knew what would "please the South"? What a joke. You're just too easy.
Yeah, you don't do logic, do you? The Republicans gained EIGHT Senate seats in the 1860 election before there was any secession, which meant that it was only a matter of time before the tariff passed regardless of Southern opposition. The North had bankrupted the government (another economic reason to get out) and was desperate for money. In case you didn't notice, secession freed Southerners from ALL U.S. tariffs and opened the door for direct importation of goods from places like Britain that despised the tariffs. Why stay and keep struggling against an ever stronger foe in the Congress, when you can leave and be free of all of the tariffs. Once again, look to the Confederate Constitution. A brand spanking new clause was added to...wait for it..... prohibit protective tariffs. Tariffs, taxation and economic issues, combined with the North's turn toward unconstitutional centralization were the real causes of the rift. Only a childish simpleton embraces slavery as the cause.
Still running away, I see. You're the one who made the claim about the historians, not us. Since you can't produce anything from these "experts" after you repeatedly brought them into the conversation, why should anyone trust what you're saying at all on any of this. Cowering behind the "it's settled because experts" excuse without producing evidence is intellectually lazy.
Intentional neglect was a large and primary cause of death in the German camps. Elmira had deaths from the same kind of neglect. It's stupid to pretend that "firing squads, hangings, and gas chambers" were the only, or even the primary causes of death. The Union was evil long before Hitler had his turn.
I doubt that YOU knew what a carpetbagger was until I used the word. You don't have the depth to be in this conversation; you're the king of whining and excuses, not substantive counterpoints.
Let's recap. Slavery as the Southern cause was, is and always will be a Northern lie.
You're so deep in the Lost Cause craziness that you don't understand how unformidable your evidence is. That's why calling it a challenge is so hilarious. You can repeatedly call the conclusions of most historians a northern lie, but at this point it's nothing more than meaningless name calling and evidence of nothing. Talk about something that is shallow and simplistic. The northern legislators didn't have an edge on the south, but they were right there and their conclusions as to what he south truly wanted were valid and not abstractions. The Corwin Amendment turned out to be an irrelevancy that had no effect on secession. And seven states seceded before the tariff was even voted on. Why not wait to see if they could block the tariff and if not, secede then. Because slavery was the cause of secession not the tariff. What's truly stupid is to pretend that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers is somehow neglect. How do you shoot or hang someone through neglect? Trying to say these things happened at Elmira is absurd, as is the idea that the Union was evil. This is just typical Lost Cause hyperbole. Recap. Lost Causers live in an alternative reality that grows more absurd with each post. Claiming that my evidence is "unformidable" is pretty moronic after you've failed to PROVE that any of my evidence isn't formidable. This is just your "uncourageous" way of skulking off from a challenge that based on YOU forever throwing up these unnamed, unquoted historians that allegedly have some magical information that you refuse to share. When your narrative is so weak that you have to concoct something stupid like Southerners were too dumb to know better, you get laughed at and rightly so.
Yep, logic's not your thing. Corwin failed miserably and completely, which would lead someone who thinks for himself and is even moderately objective to conclude that Corwin didn't address what the South wanted at all. But a fanatic, especially one stupid enough to believe the Northern lies, runs away at the first sign of logic, evidence or common sense. Only their false narrative matters. Do you not realize how monumental Corwin was? Amending the founding document was a rarely used remedy for the most important measures, with a permanency that regular legislation did not have. If slavery was the South's cause (a lie), Corwin was the strongest protection that the nation can offer and would have been a total victory without bloodshed.Iit failed spectacularly because the North failed to understand that slavery was not the cause of the rift, but just a tipping point Claiming that Corwin was an irrelevancy is yet another unfounded excuse that you peddle to defend your false narrative, and another reason you are laughed at.
“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.” - Karl Marx, 1861
Lincoln met secretly on April 4, 1861, with Colonel John Baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention. Baldwin, like a majority of that convention would have preferred to keep Virginia in the Union. But Baldwin learned at that meeting that Lincoln was already committed to taking some military action at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. He desperately tried to persuade Lincoln that military action against South Carolina would mean war and also result in Virginia’s secession. Baldwin tried to persuade Lincoln that if the Gulf States were allowed to secede peacefully, historical and economic ties would eventually persuade them to reunite with the North. Lincoln’s decisive response was,
“And open Charleston, etc. as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff? What then would become of my tariff?”
The Chicago Daily Times, on 10 December 1860, saw the pending disaster Southern free port's would bring to Northern commerce:
“In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturies would be an utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”
Let's do the math....secede and trade under a Confederacy without a tariff, screwing Lincoln out of his precious rapine of the South, or stay to beat the Morrill tariff and still live under the 15% tariff that primarily benefited the Northern states? With Republican election gains, staying and fighting Morrill might have bought them two years before the 37%-47% tariff was passed anyway. Once again, even a fanatic of the Northern lies would have to be pretty stupid to ignore the very prominent clause added to the Confederate Constitution that banned the protective tariff. The South's cause was not slavery, it was over federal power/control and the North's economic stranglehold. It really is "shallow and simplistic" to think otherwise.
No, what's really stupid is pretending that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers were the only or even the primary causes of death in the Nazi camps. What's even more stupid is your strawman fallacy that I've been "trying to say these things happened at Elmira" when I've done no such thing. Intentional neglect was a primary cause of death at BOTH camps, but even if it was just at Elmira, it still shows that the Union and Lincoln were evil.
Your "reality" is a cartoon based on brainwashing, simplistic propaganda/misinformation and the intolerance of any dissent against the sacred Northern lie filled "Righteous Cause" narrative. My reality is the whole truth no matter where it leads or how messy and contradictory it might get. "Alternative" doesn't mean wrong.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,646
|
Post by thor on Aug 21, 2023 17:22:58 GMT
You're so deep in the Lost Cause craziness that you don't understand how unformidable your evidence is. That's why calling it a challenge is so hilarious. You can repeatedly call the conclusions of most historians a northern lie, but at this point it's nothing more than meaningless name calling and evidence of nothing. Talk about something that is shallow and simplistic. The northern legislators didn't have an edge on the south, but they were right there and their conclusions as to what he south truly wanted were valid and not abstractions. The Corwin Amendment turned out to be an irrelevancy that had no effect on secession. And seven states seceded before the tariff was even voted on. Why not wait to see if they could block the tariff and if not, secede then. Because slavery was the cause of secession not the tariff. What's truly stupid is to pretend that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers is somehow neglect. How do you shoot or hang someone through neglect? Trying to say these things happened at Elmira is absurd, as is the idea that the Union was evil. This is just typical Lost Cause hyperbole. Recap. Lost Causers live in an alternative reality that grows more absurd with each post. Claiming that my evidence is "unformidable" is pretty moronic after you've failed to PROVE that any of my evidence isn't formidable. This is just your "uncourageous" way of skulking off from a challenge that based on YOU forever throwing up these unnamed, unquoted historians that allegedly have some magical information that you refuse to share. When your narrative is so weak that you have to concoct something stupid like Southerners were too dumb to know better, you get laughed at and rightly so.
Yep, logic's not your thing. Corwin failed miserably and completely, which would lead someone who thinks for himself and is even moderately objective to conclude that Corwin didn't address what the South wanted at all. But a fanatic, especially one stupid enough to believe the Northern lies, runs away at the first sign of logic, evidence or common sense. Only their false narrative matters. Do you not realize how monumental Corwin was? Amending the founding document was a rarely used remedy for the most important measures, with a permanency that regular legislation did not have. If slavery was the South's cause (a lie), Corwin was the strongest protection that the nation can offer and would have been a total victory without bloodshed.Iit failed spectacularly because the North failed to understand that slavery was not the cause of the rift, but just a tipping point Claiming that Corwin was an irrelevancy is yet another unfounded excuse that you peddle to defend your false narrative, and another reason you are laughed at.
“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.” - Karl Marx, 1861
Lincoln met secretly on April 4, 1861, with Colonel John Baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention. Baldwin, like a majority of that convention would have preferred to keep Virginia in the Union. But Baldwin learned at that meeting that Lincoln was already committed to taking some military action at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. He desperately tried to persuade Lincoln that military action against South Carolina would mean war and also result in Virginia’s secession. Baldwin tried to persuade Lincoln that if the Gulf States were allowed to secede peacefully, historical and economic ties would eventually persuade them to reunite with the North. Lincoln’s decisive response was,
“And open Charleston, etc. as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff? What then would become of my tariff?”
The Chicago Daily Times, on 10 December 1860, saw the pending disaster Southern free port's would bring to Northern commerce:
“In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturies would be an utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”
Let's do the math....secede and trade under a Confederacy without a tariff, screwing Lincoln out of his precious rapine of the South, or stay to beat the Morrill tariff and still live under the 15% tariff that primarily benefited the Northern states? With Republican election gains, staying and fighting Morrill might have bought them two years before the 37%-47% tariff was passed anyway. Once again, even a fanatic of the Northern lies would have to be pretty stupid to ignore the very prominent clause added to the Confederate Constitution that banned the protective tariff. The South's cause was not slavery, it was over federal power/control and the North's economic stranglehold. It really is "shallow and simplistic" to think otherwise.
No, what's really stupid is pretending that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers were the only or even the primary causes of death in the Nazi camps. What's even more stupid is your strawman fallacy that I've been "trying to say these things happened at Elmira" when I've done no such thing. Intentional neglect was a primary cause of death at BOTH camps, but even if it was just at Elmira, it still shows that the Union and Lincoln were evil.
Your "reality" is a cartoon based on brainwashing, simplistic propaganda/misinformation and the intolerance of any dissent against the sacred Northern lie filled "Righteous Cause" narrative. My reality is the whole truth no matter where it leads or how messy and contradictory it might get. "Alternative" doesn't mean wrong.
But wait....there's more... The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail." It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass. 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? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 21, 2023 18:11:11 GMT
Claiming that my evidence is "unformidable" is pretty moronic after you've failed to PROVE that any of my evidence isn't formidable. This is just your "uncourageous" way of skulking off from a challenge that based on YOU forever throwing up these unnamed, unquoted historians that allegedly have some magical information that you refuse to share. When your narrative is so weak that you have to concoct something stupid like Southerners were too dumb to know better, you get laughed at and rightly so.
Yep, logic's not your thing. Corwin failed miserably and completely, which would lead someone who thinks for himself and is even moderately objective to conclude that Corwin didn't address what the South wanted at all. But a fanatic, especially one stupid enough to believe the Northern lies, runs away at the first sign of logic, evidence or common sense. Only their false narrative matters. Do you not realize how monumental Corwin was? Amending the founding document was a rarely used remedy for the most important measures, with a permanency that regular legislation did not have. If slavery was the South's cause (a lie), Corwin was the strongest protection that the nation can offer and would have been a total victory without bloodshed.Iit failed spectacularly because the North failed to understand that slavery was not the cause of the rift, but just a tipping point Claiming that Corwin was an irrelevancy is yet another unfounded excuse that you peddle to defend your false narrative, and another reason you are laughed at.
“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.” - Karl Marx, 1861
Lincoln met secretly on April 4, 1861, with Colonel John Baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention. Baldwin, like a majority of that convention would have preferred to keep Virginia in the Union. But Baldwin learned at that meeting that Lincoln was already committed to taking some military action at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. He desperately tried to persuade Lincoln that military action against South Carolina would mean war and also result in Virginia’s secession. Baldwin tried to persuade Lincoln that if the Gulf States were allowed to secede peacefully, historical and economic ties would eventually persuade them to reunite with the North. Lincoln’s decisive response was,
“And open Charleston, etc. as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff? What then would become of my tariff?”
The Chicago Daily Times, on 10 December 1860, saw the pending disaster Southern free port's would bring to Northern commerce:
“In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturies would be an utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”
Let's do the math....secede and trade under a Confederacy without a tariff, screwing Lincoln out of his precious rapine of the South, or stay to beat the Morrill tariff and still live under the 15% tariff that primarily benefited the Northern states? With Republican election gains, staying and fighting Morrill might have bought them two years before the 37%-47% tariff was passed anyway. Once again, even a fanatic of the Northern lies would have to be pretty stupid to ignore the very prominent clause added to the Confederate Constitution that banned the protective tariff. The South's cause was not slavery, it was over federal power/control and the North's economic stranglehold. It really is "shallow and simplistic" to think otherwise.
No, what's really stupid is pretending that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers were the only or even the primary causes of death in the Nazi camps. What's even more stupid is your strawman fallacy that I've been "trying to say these things happened at Elmira" when I've done no such thing. Intentional neglect was a primary cause of death at BOTH camps, but even if it was just at Elmira, it still shows that the Union and Lincoln were evil.
Your "reality" is a cartoon based on brainwashing, simplistic propaganda/misinformation and the intolerance of any dissent against the sacred Northern lie filled "Righteous Cause" narrative. My reality is the whole truth no matter where it leads or how messy and contradictory it might get. "Alternative" doesn't mean wrong.
But wait....there's more...The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail." It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass. 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? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville? You're the only one getting his ass kicked here, boy. You were, are and always be a joke on this forum. Only a liar claims that I ever claimed that it was "totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s'". And I'm hardly "excusing Andersonville" by pointing out that the impoverished South was starving at the same time that Andersonville prisoners were doing the same. Only a f*cking idiot would pretend that the South was supposed to let their own people starve just to coddle the perverted Union killers in that stockade. Those Yankee bastards were the ones trying to force the South into starvation and destruction before they were captured, yet the Confederates tried to care for them and tried to exchange them.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 21, 2023 18:48:58 GMT
John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail." Here you go, pussy boy....looks like Lincoln was more pro-slavery protection than Calhoun:
Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, said of the amendment: “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Just weeks before the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln transmitted the proposed amendment to the governors of each state along with a letter noting that former-President Buchanan had signed it.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 21, 2023 22:15:31 GMT
You're so deep in the Lost Cause craziness that you don't understand how unformidable your evidence is. That's why calling it a challenge is so hilarious. You can repeatedly call the conclusions of most historians a northern lie, but at this point it's nothing more than meaningless name calling and evidence of nothing. Talk about something that is shallow and simplistic. The northern legislators didn't have an edge on the south, but they were right there and their conclusions as to what he south truly wanted were valid and not abstractions. The Corwin Amendment turned out to be an irrelevancy that had no effect on secession. And seven states seceded before the tariff was even voted on. Why not wait to see if they could block the tariff and if not, secede then. Because slavery was the cause of secession not the tariff. What's truly stupid is to pretend that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers is somehow neglect. How do you shoot or hang someone through neglect? Trying to say these things happened at Elmira is absurd, as is the idea that the Union was evil. This is just typical Lost Cause hyperbole. Recap. Lost Causers live in an alternative reality that grows more absurd with each post. Claiming that my evidence is "unformidable" is pretty moronic after you've failed to PROVE that any of my evidence isn't formidable. This is just your "uncourageous" way of skulking off from a challenge that based on YOU forever throwing up these unnamed, unquoted historians that allegedly have some magical information that you refuse to share. When your narrative is so weak that you have to concoct something stupid like Southerners were too dumb to know better, you get laughed at and rightly so.
Yep, logic's not your thing. Corwin failed miserably and completely, which would lead someone who thinks for himself and is even moderately objective to conclude that Corwin didn't address what the South wanted at all. But a fanatic, especially one stupid enough to believe the Northern lies, runs away at the first sign of logic, evidence or common sense. Only their false narrative matters. Do you not realize how monumental Corwin was? Amending the founding document was a rarely used remedy for the most important measures, with a permanency that regular legislation did not have. If slavery was the South's cause (a lie), Corwin was the strongest protection that the nation can offer and would have been a total victory without bloodshed.Iit failed spectacularly because the North failed to understand that slavery was not the cause of the rift, but just a tipping point Claiming that Corwin was an irrelevancy is yet another unfounded excuse that you peddle to defend your false narrative, and another reason you are laughed at.
“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.” - Karl Marx, 1861
Lincoln met secretly on April 4, 1861, with Colonel John Baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention. Baldwin, like a majority of that convention would have preferred to keep Virginia in the Union. But Baldwin learned at that meeting that Lincoln was already committed to taking some military action at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. He desperately tried to persuade Lincoln that military action against South Carolina would mean war and also result in Virginia’s secession. Baldwin tried to persuade Lincoln that if the Gulf States were allowed to secede peacefully, historical and economic ties would eventually persuade them to reunite with the North. Lincoln’s decisive response was,
“And open Charleston, etc. as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff? What then would become of my tariff?”
The Chicago Daily Times, on 10 December 1860, saw the pending disaster Southern free port's would bring to Northern commerce:
“In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturies would be an utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”
Let's do the math....secede and trade under a Confederacy without a tariff, screwing Lincoln out of his precious rapine of the South, or stay to beat the Morrill tariff and still live under the 15% tariff that primarily benefited the Northern states? With Republican election gains, staying and fighting Morrill might have bought them two years before the 37%-47% tariff was passed anyway. Once again, even a fanatic of the Northern lies would have to be pretty stupid to ignore the very prominent clause added to the Confederate Constitution that banned the protective tariff. The South's cause was not slavery, it was over federal power/control and the North's economic stranglehold. It really is "shallow and simplistic" to think otherwise.
No, what's really stupid is pretending that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers were the only or even the primary causes of death in the Nazi camps. What's even more stupid is your strawman fallacy that I've been "trying to say these things happened at Elmira" when I've done no such thing. Intentional neglect was a primary cause of death at BOTH camps, but even if it was just at Elmira, it still shows that the Union and Lincoln were evil.
Your "reality" is a cartoon based on brainwashing, simplistic propaganda/misinformation and the intolerance of any dissent against the sacred Northern lie filled "Righteous Cause" narrative. My reality is the whole truth no matter where it leads or how messy and contradictory it might get. "Alternative" doesn't mean wrong.
IMHO, it's unformidable. Other people can have a different one. I've already discussed Corwin repeatedly. Not going to bother to do so again. And yet the Union managed to survive and win a war even with the supposed utter ruins of the manufacturing economy. Guess the Chicago paper got it wrong, just like Dewy Defeats Truman. D'uh. Slavery, and the word was actually mentioned, also has a significant place in the Confederate Constitution, so the inclusion of a ban on protective tariffs proves nothing. What were the primary causes of death in the Nazi camps? Being served cold breakfasts and not having warm enough long johns? Yeah likely something like that. You sound downright moronic when you try to pretend that firing squads, gas chambers, etc. are neglect. Again, how does one neglectfully hang someone? It's more evil to own human property than to fight against it. Your "reality" is nothing more than the old Lost Cause a historical junk repeated ad nauseum. You shouldn't cherry pick on ol' Karl Marx. What you quoted was not Marx's own opinion, but his take on the opinions of the British press of the period. His opinion was quite different. : "For months the leading weekly and daily papers of the London press have been reiterating the same litany on the American Civil War. While they insult the free states of the North, they anxiously defend themselves against the suspicion of sympathising with the slave states of the South. In fact, they continually write two articles: one article, in which they attack the North, and another article, in which they excuse their attacks on the North. In essence the extenuating arguments read: The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally, even if justice is on the side of the North , does it not remain a vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by force! Would not separation of the South release the North from all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule it by a bloody and futile civil war? Point by point we will probe the plea of the English press." marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 22, 2023 17:00:08 GMT
Claiming that my evidence is "unformidable" is pretty moronic after you've failed to PROVE that any of my evidence isn't formidable. This is just your "uncourageous" way of skulking off from a challenge that based on YOU forever throwing up these unnamed, unquoted historians that allegedly have some magical information that you refuse to share. When your narrative is so weak that you have to concoct something stupid like Southerners were too dumb to know better, you get laughed at and rightly so.
Yep, logic's not your thing. Corwin failed miserably and completely, which would lead someone who thinks for himself and is even moderately objective to conclude that Corwin didn't address what the South wanted at all. But a fanatic, especially one stupid enough to believe the Northern lies, runs away at the first sign of logic, evidence or common sense. Only their false narrative matters. Do you not realize how monumental Corwin was? Amending the founding document was a rarely used remedy for the most important measures, with a permanency that regular legislation did not have. If slavery was the South's cause (a lie), Corwin was the strongest protection that the nation can offer and would have been a total victory without bloodshed.Iit failed spectacularly because the North failed to understand that slavery was not the cause of the rift, but just a tipping point Claiming that Corwin was an irrelevancy is yet another unfounded excuse that you peddle to defend your false narrative, and another reason you are laughed at.
“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.” - Karl Marx, 1861
Lincoln met secretly on April 4, 1861, with Colonel John Baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention. Baldwin, like a majority of that convention would have preferred to keep Virginia in the Union. But Baldwin learned at that meeting that Lincoln was already committed to taking some military action at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. He desperately tried to persuade Lincoln that military action against South Carolina would mean war and also result in Virginia’s secession. Baldwin tried to persuade Lincoln that if the Gulf States were allowed to secede peacefully, historical and economic ties would eventually persuade them to reunite with the North. Lincoln’s decisive response was,
“And open Charleston, etc. as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff? What then would become of my tariff?”
The Chicago Daily Times, on 10 December 1860, saw the pending disaster Southern free port's would bring to Northern commerce:
“In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturies would be an utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”
Let's do the math....secede and trade under a Confederacy without a tariff, screwing Lincoln out of his precious rapine of the South, or stay to beat the Morrill tariff and still live under the 15% tariff that primarily benefited the Northern states? With Republican election gains, staying and fighting Morrill might have bought them two years before the 37%-47% tariff was passed anyway. Once again, even a fanatic of the Northern lies would have to be pretty stupid to ignore the very prominent clause added to the Confederate Constitution that banned the protective tariff. The South's cause was not slavery, it was over federal power/control and the North's economic stranglehold. It really is "shallow and simplistic" to think otherwise.
No, what's really stupid is pretending that being worked to death, being killed by firing squad, hanging, or in gas chambers were the only or even the primary causes of death in the Nazi camps. What's even more stupid is your strawman fallacy that I've been "trying to say these things happened at Elmira" when I've done no such thing. Intentional neglect was a primary cause of death at BOTH camps, but even if it was just at Elmira, it still shows that the Union and Lincoln were evil.
Your "reality" is a cartoon based on brainwashing, simplistic propaganda/misinformation and the intolerance of any dissent against the sacred Northern lie filled "Righteous Cause" narrative. My reality is the whole truth no matter where it leads or how messy and contradictory it might get. "Alternative" doesn't mean wrong.
IMHO, it's unformidable. Other people can have a different one. I've already discussed Corwin repeatedly. Not going to bother to do so again. And yet the Union managed to survive and win a war even with the supposed utter ruins of the manufacturing economy. Guess the Chicago paper got it wrong, just like Dewy Defeats Truman. D'uh. Slavery, and the word was actually mentioned, also has a significant place in the Confederate Constitution, so the inclusion of a ban on protective tariffs proves nothing. What were the primary causes of death in the Nazi camps? Being served cold breakfasts and not having warm enough long johns? Yeah likely something like that. You sound downright moronic when you try to pretend that firing squads, gas chambers, etc. are neglect. Again, how does one neglectfully hang someone? It's more evil to own human property than to fight against it. Your "reality" is nothing more than the old Lost Cause a historical junk repeated ad nauseum. You shouldn't cherry pick on ol' Karl Marx. What you quoted was not Marx's own opinion, but his take on the opinions of the British press of the period. His opinion was quite different. : "For months the leading weekly and daily papers of the London press have been reiterating the same litany on the American Civil War. While they insult the free states of the North, they anxiously defend themselves against the suspicion of sympathising with the slave states of the South. In fact, they continually write two articles: one article, in which they attack the North, and another article, in which they excuse their attacks on the North. In essence the extenuating arguments read: The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally, even if justice is on the side of the North , does it not remain a vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by force! Would not separation of the South release the North from all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule it by a bloody and futile civil war? Point by point we will probe the plea of the English press." marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htmYour "humble opinion" is meaningless because your entire tactic here has been to ignore evidence rather than challenge or dispute it. When asked to make your case, you either make stuff up that has no basis in fact or you run away. If I was as ignorantly wrong about Corwin as you are, I'd avoid talking about it again. You can't reconcile its failure with your laughable fiction that the Yankees knew best. But I congratulate you....abandoning such a stupid idea is progress for you. Economics is not your thing, is it? The war started right after this article was published as did the blockade of Southern ports. What the Chicago papers predicted never came to pass because of the North's immediate blockade. If the South had been allowed to secede in peace, a trade war would have erupted as the South became the cheaper point of entry, yielding the results that the Chicago paper predicted.
As far as the Confederate Constitution, most of it parroted the U.S. Constitution even on slavery, but we all know that their inclusion of the actual word "slavery" triggers snowflakes like you. The tariff addition to the CSA Constitution is as prominent if not more so than any mention of slavery, which would lead a thinking person to beleive that tariff consideration were at least equal to slavery as a cause. Follow that with the fact that Confederates put a STRONGER prohibition on slave trade and importation, and the tariff clause looks even more important than slavery. But I have to remember that you like to pretend that contradictory evidence doesn't exist or is too unimportant for arrogant Northern lie cultist to be bothered with.
At no point did I "try to pretend that firing squads, gas chambers, etc. are neglect"; that falsehood is little more than another of your straw man fallacies. Do better and stop making stuff up. Only 6% of Southerners owned any human beings and the institution of slavery was evil, but slavery was not the South's cause, nor was the Morth "fighting against it". Ironically, subjugation WAS the North's evil cause, but a cultist like you will never realize that truth.
Did you read the article at the link that I posted for that Marx quote? I'm betting that you didn't. Here you go:
In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’
I love the irony in the fact that, in correcting for what Marx said, you inadvertently confirmed that many others in the British press knew the truth about the actual economic cause of the War Between the States.
So, let's use your "everybody but Southerners knew best" tactic, the 19th century British press knew what the South was fighting for better than Northerners did and a lot better than you do.
Marx also understood that the Northern goal was subjugation and that if slavery was the only point of contention , the North could have just let the South go.
Keep it up....you just making my narrative stronger.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 22, 2023 20:40:31 GMT
IMHO, it's unformidable. Other people can have a different one. I've already discussed Corwin repeatedly. Not going to bother to do so again. And yet the Union managed to survive and win a war even with the supposed utter ruins of the manufacturing economy. Guess the Chicago paper got it wrong, just like Dewy Defeats Truman. D'uh. Slavery, and the word was actually mentioned, also has a significant place in the Confederate Constitution, so the inclusion of a ban on protective tariffs proves nothing. What were the primary causes of death in the Nazi camps? Being served cold breakfasts and not having warm enough long johns? Yeah likely something like that. You sound downright moronic when you try to pretend that firing squads, gas chambers, etc. are neglect. Again, how does one neglectfully hang someone? It's more evil to own human property than to fight against it. Your "reality" is nothing more than the old Lost Cause a historical junk repeated ad nauseum. You shouldn't cherry pick on ol' Karl Marx. What you quoted was not Marx's own opinion, but his take on the opinions of the British press of the period. His opinion was quite different. : "For months the leading weekly and daily papers of the London press have been reiterating the same litany on the American Civil War. While they insult the free states of the North, they anxiously defend themselves against the suspicion of sympathising with the slave states of the South. In fact, they continually write two articles: one article, in which they attack the North, and another article, in which they excuse their attacks on the North. In essence the extenuating arguments read: The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally, even if justice is on the side of the North , does it not remain a vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by force! Would not separation of the South release the North from all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule it by a bloody and futile civil war? Point by point we will probe the plea of the English press." marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htmYour "humble opinion" is meaningless because your entire tactic here has been to ignore evidence rather than challenge or dispute it. When asked to make your case, you either make stuff up that has no basis in fact or you run away. If I was as ignorantly wrong about Corwin as you are, I'd avoid talking about it again. You can't reconcile its failure with your laughable fiction that the Yankees knew best. But I congratulate you....abandoning such a stupid idea is progress for you. Economics is not your thing, is it? The war started right after this article was published as did the blockade of Southern ports. What the Chicago papers predicted never came to pass because of the North's immediate blockade. If the South had been allowed to secede in peace, a trade war would have erupted as the South became the cheaper point of entry, yielding the results that the Chicago paper predicted.
As far as the Confederate Constitution, most of it parroted the U.S. Constitution even on slavery, but we all know that their inclusion of the actual word "slavery" triggers snowflakes like you. The tariff addition to the CSA Constitution is as prominent if not more so than any mention of slavery, which would lead a thinking person to beleive that tariff consideration were at least equal to slavery as a cause. Follow that with the fact that Confederates put a STRONGER prohibition on slave trade and importation, and the tariff clause looks even more important than slavery. But I have to remember that you like to pretend that contradictory evidence doesn't exist or is too unimportant for arrogant Northern lie cultist to be bothered with.
At no point did I "try to pretend that firing squads, gas chambers, etc. are neglect"; that falsehood is little more than another of your straw man fallacies. Do better and stop making stuff up. Only 6% of Southerners owned any human beings and the institution of slavery was evil, but slavery was not the South's cause, nor was the Morth "fighting against it". Ironically, subjugation WAS the North's evil cause, but a cultist like you will never realize that truth.
Did you read the article at the link that I posted for that Marx quote? I'm betting that you didn't. Here you go:
In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’
I love the irony in the fact that, in correcting for what Marx said, you inadvertently confirmed that many others in the British press knew the truth about the actual economic cause of the War Between the States.
So, let's use your "everybody but Southerners knew best" tactic, the 19th century British press knew what the South was fighting for better than Northerners did and a lot better than you do.
Marx also understood that the Northern goal was subjugation and that if slavery was the only point of contention , the North could have just let the South go.
Keep it up....you just making my narrative stronger.
No doubt it's meaningless to you, which is meaningless to me. I'm not talking about Corwin because I've already made my point about it about half a dozen times. No sense in trying for an even dozen. Who cares what the Confederate Constitution says. With or without it, slavery was still the cause. Nothing in the Constitution shows otherwise. You likely did say something as stupid as to call them neglect, but I'm not going to waste time going back to check every post. The bottom line is that none of these things, as far as I know, occurred at Elmira. If you knew that was what Marx said about the attitude of the British press, why did you not make that clear and instead quote him as though it was he himself who said it? Why bold it? Because you were trying to get away with a lie and hoping no one would check it out. I love the non-irony that Marx was right and at least part of the British press was wrong. Perhaps the British press was more interested in the economic ramifications of the war than in abolishing slavery. Marx knew that slavery was what caused the war. Why do you think he wrote that the British press was wrong. Your narrative is as strong as it was four months ago--about as strong as a soft-boiled egg.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 22, 2023 21:50:20 GMT
Your "humble opinion" is meaningless because your entire tactic here has been to ignore evidence rather than challenge or dispute it. When asked to make your case, you either make stuff up that has no basis in fact or you run away. If I was as ignorantly wrong about Corwin as you are, I'd avoid talking about it again. You can't reconcile its failure with your laughable fiction that the Yankees knew best. But I congratulate you....abandoning such a stupid idea is progress for you. Economics is not your thing, is it? The war started right after this article was published as did the blockade of Southern ports. What the Chicago papers predicted never came to pass because of the North's immediate blockade. If the South had been allowed to secede in peace, a trade war would have erupted as the South became the cheaper point of entry, yielding the results that the Chicago paper predicted.
As far as the Confederate Constitution, most of it parroted the U.S. Constitution even on slavery, but we all know that their inclusion of the actual word "slavery" triggers snowflakes like you. The tariff addition to the CSA Constitution is as prominent if not more so than any mention of slavery, which would lead a thinking person to beleive that tariff consideration were at least equal to slavery as a cause. Follow that with the fact that Confederates put a STRONGER prohibition on slave trade and importation, and the tariff clause looks even more important than slavery. But I have to remember that you like to pretend that contradictory evidence doesn't exist or is too unimportant for arrogant Northern lie cultist to be bothered with.
At no point did I "try to pretend that firing squads, gas chambers, etc. are neglect"; that falsehood is little more than another of your straw man fallacies. Do better and stop making stuff up. Only 6% of Southerners owned any human beings and the institution of slavery was evil, but slavery was not the South's cause, nor was the Morth "fighting against it". Ironically, subjugation WAS the North's evil cause, but a cultist like you will never realize that truth.
Did you read the article at the link that I posted for that Marx quote? I'm betting that you didn't. Here you go:
In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’
I love the irony in the fact that, in correcting for what Marx said, you inadvertently confirmed that many others in the British press knew the truth about the actual economic cause of the War Between the States.
So, let's use your "everybody but Southerners knew best" tactic, the 19th century British press knew what the South was fighting for better than Northerners did and a lot better than you do.
Marx also understood that the Northern goal was subjugation and that if slavery was the only point of contention , the North could have just let the South go.
Keep it up....you just making my narrative stronger.
No doubt it's meaningless to you, which is meaningless to me. I'm not talking about Corwin because I've already made my point about it about half a dozen times. No sense in trying for an even dozen. Who cares what the Confederate Constitution says. With or without it, slavery was still the cause. Nothing in the Constitution shows otherwise. You likely did say something as stupid as to call them neglect, but I'm not going to waste time going back to check every post. The bottom line is that none of these things, as far as I know, occurred at Elmira. If you knew that was what Marx said about the attitude of the British press, why did you not make that clear and instead quote him as though it was he himself who said it? Why bold it? Because you were trying to get away with a lie and hoping no one would check it out. I love the non-irony that Marx was right and at least part of the British press was wrong. Perhaps the British press was more interested in the economic ramifications of the war than in abolishing slavery. Marx knew that slavery was what caused the war. Why do you think he wrote that the British press was wrong. Your narrative is as strong as it was four months ago--about as strong as a soft-boiled egg. The difference is that I've proven that your narrative is meaningless and wrong, regardless what you think.
You've made no intelligent point about Corwin and it's wise for you to run from the stupidity of the positions that the North knew better and it was somehow too late for seceded states to consider the amendment. You're welcome to try for that dozen, but you'll still look ignorant on number twelve.
The garbage idea that slavery was the South's cause will never be true. Saying "who cares about the Confederate Constitution" is akin to saying "who cares about the evidence". The CSA Constitution, with its strict ban on slave importation and its strict ban on protective tariffs, IS evidence that contradicts your narrative. No wonder you want it gone from the conversation.
It's dishonest to claim that I said something when you didn't even check to see what was said. If you've got time to vomit your brainwashing in new posts on this thread, you've got time to find out before making the accusation. It's stupid and lazy to just make the assumption or making a guess at what was said. I never said any of those things happened at Elmira, but that intentional neglect leading to illness, starvation and death occurred in both places.
The only lie anyone is trying to get away with here is the one about slavery being the South's cause. And I bold EVERYTHING that I quote; only a lazy and stupid fool would fail to notice that fact.
Marx was a sick, lying pervert and reprobate who was wrong about the South just as he was wrong in his Manifesto.
Marx, despite being of Jewish descent, was virulently antisemitic. One biographer notes that his correspondence is “filled with contemptuous remarks about Jews.”
Marx said the “worldly cult of the Jew” was haggling, and that the Jew’s “worldly god” was money. Marx also spoke in a racist, condescending manner of blacks, referring to one as a “gorilla.”
And it's kinda idiotic to worship what Marx said while claiming the whole of the British press corp was somehow wrong.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 23, 2023 21:44:58 GMT
No doubt it's meaningless to you, which is meaningless to me. I'm not talking about Corwin because I've already made my point about it about half a dozen times. No sense in trying for an even dozen. Who cares what the Confederate Constitution says. With or without it, slavery was still the cause. Nothing in the Constitution shows otherwise. You likely did say something as stupid as to call them neglect, but I'm not going to waste time going back to check every post. The bottom line is that none of these things, as far as I know, occurred at Elmira. If you knew that was what Marx said about the attitude of the British press, why did you not make that clear and instead quote him as though it was he himself who said it? Why bold it? Because you were trying to get away with a lie and hoping no one would check it out. I love the non-irony that Marx was right and at least part of the British press was wrong. Perhaps the British press was more interested in the economic ramifications of the war than in abolishing slavery. Marx knew that slavery was what caused the war. Why do you think he wrote that the British press was wrong. Your narrative is as strong as it was four months ago--about as strong as a soft-boiled egg. The difference is that I've proven that your narrative is meaningless and wrong, regardless what you think.
You've made no intelligent point about Corwin and it's wise for you to run from the stupidity of the positions that the North knew better and it was somehow too late for seceded states to consider the amendment. You're welcome to try for that dozen, but you'll still look ignorant on number twelve.
The garbage idea that slavery was the South's cause will never be true. Saying "who cares about the Confederate Constitution" is akin to saying "who cares about the evidence". The CSA Constitution, with its strict ban on slave importation and its strict ban on protective tariffs, IS evidence that contradicts your narrative. No wonder you want it gone from the conversation.
It's dishonest to claim that I said something when you didn't even check to see what was said. If you've got time to vomit your brainwashing in new posts on this thread, you've got time to find out before making the accusation. It's stupid and lazy to just make the assumption or making a guess at what was said. I never said any of those things happened at Elmira, but that intentional neglect leading to illness, starvation and death occurred in both places.
The only lie anyone is trying to get away with here is the one about slavery being the South's cause. And I bold EVERYTHING that I quote; only a lazy and stupid fool would fail to notice that fact.
Marx was a sick, lying pervert and reprobate who was wrong about the South just as he was wrong in his Manifesto.
Marx, despite being of Jewish descent, was virulently antisemitic. One biographer notes that his correspondence is “filled with contemptuous remarks about Jews.”
Marx said the “worldly cult of the Jew” was haggling, and that the Jew’s “worldly god” was money. Marx also spoke in a racist, condescending manner of blacks, referring to one as a “gorilla.”
And it's kinda idiotic to worship what Marx said while claiming the whole of the British press corp was somehow wrong.
No doubt you've proven it to yourself but that doesn't go very far. Corwin, been there, done that. It's irrelevant anyway. It's a "garbage idea" that is held by the great majority of Civil War historians. Excuse me if I trust them more than you. You were trying to pull a fast one by pretending that the quote from Marx was his own opinion, not his opinion of what the British press was saying. Not the opinion that he disagreed with. Didn't work. So Marx was a self-centered deadbeat. Not good for his family, but Marx's personal problems have little to do with his writings on economics or his views about the Civil War. Nobody is worshipping Marx or what he said. He did a lot of research and he had the carbuncles to show for it. I don't claim that the entire British press believed that tariffs were the cause of the war. I would presume that some of the British press focused on slavery. But there's nothing idiotic in believing the part of the British press got it wrong.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 24, 2023 1:02:25 GMT
The difference is that I've proven that your narrative is meaningless and wrong, regardless what you think.
You've made no intelligent point about Corwin and it's wise for you to run from the stupidity of the positions that the North knew better and it was somehow too late for seceded states to consider the amendment. You're welcome to try for that dozen, but you'll still look ignorant on number twelve.
The garbage idea that slavery was the South's cause will never be true. Saying "who cares about the Confederate Constitution" is akin to saying "who cares about the evidence". The CSA Constitution, with its strict ban on slave importation and its strict ban on protective tariffs, IS evidence that contradicts your narrative. No wonder you want it gone from the conversation.
It's dishonest to claim that I said something when you didn't even check to see what was said. If you've got time to vomit your brainwashing in new posts on this thread, you've got time to find out before making the accusation. It's stupid and lazy to just make the assumption or making a guess at what was said. I never said any of those things happened at Elmira, but that intentional neglect leading to illness, starvation and death occurred in both places.
The only lie anyone is trying to get away with here is the one about slavery being the South's cause. And I bold EVERYTHING that I quote; only a lazy and stupid fool would fail to notice that fact.
Marx was a sick, lying pervert and reprobate who was wrong about the South just as he was wrong in his Manifesto.
Marx, despite being of Jewish descent, was virulently antisemitic. One biographer notes that his correspondence is “filled with contemptuous remarks about Jews.”
Marx said the “worldly cult of the Jew” was haggling, and that the Jew’s “worldly god” was money. Marx also spoke in a racist, condescending manner of blacks, referring to one as a “gorilla.”
And it's kinda idiotic to worship what Marx said while claiming the whole of the British press corp was somehow wrong.
No doubt you've proven it to yourself but that doesn't go very far. Corwin, been there, done that. It's irrelevant anyway. It's a "garbage idea" that is held by the great majority of Civil War historians. Excuse me if I trust them more than you. You were trying to pull a fast one by pretending that the quote from Marx was his own opinion, not his opinion of what the British press was saying. Not the opinion that he disagreed with. Didn't work. So Marx was a self-centered deadbeat. Not good for his family, but Marx's personal problems have little to do with his writings on economics or his views about the Civil War. Nobody is worshipping Marx or what he said. He did a lot of research and he had the carbuncles to show for it. I don't claim that the entire British press believed that tariffs were the cause of the war. I would presume that some of the British press focused on slavery. But there's nothing idiotic in believing the part of the British press got it wrong. I've long since decisively proven my case to intelligent critical thinkers, which is probably why you're feeling left out. Yours is forever an emotional response to the evidence, not an objective, academic or logical approach.
On Corwin you've been there, failed at that. It was momentously relevant because Corwin forever clarified that slavery was not the bribe that the South would respond to because slavery wasn't the South's cause.
Experts lie. Historians lie when it suits their career or personal biases. The challenge still stands....show us some of the proof that these historians base their lies...um..."opinions"....on. If most of them have succumbed to groupthink as you claim, it ought to be easy for you to cough up a lugy or two backing up your tale. Yet, and what a shock, you never have to courage to attempt it. That says volumes about you and tells us you really don't have any historians of value backing you up.
No, I wasn't trying to pull a fast one....although you seem to be gullible enough to be susceptible to such tactics. Actually, you're the one trying to pull a fast one by claiming to have a hoard of historians backing you up and never delivering anything from a single one. I ought to thank you for pointed out Marx was talking about Brit press....instead of just one man having the tariff opinion, you proved it was many more than that.
So, personal integrity as a measure of professional integrity is meaningless to you. That REALLY explains a lot.
And it is pretty idiotic to claim that the part of the British press "got it wrong" when you've failed to make the case that they were wrong. You've made NO case here, just excuses for the gaping holes in your false narrative. If slavery as the cause was so obvious (so you claim), why would the British press even think of tariffs as a cause? After all, they only lived during the period and heard from real participants rather than what we have access to 160 years later.
Those people who lived in that time should posthumously bow down in spirit to your shining brilliance at deducing without evidence a cause for the South that just happens to align with the woke lies and hatred that's currently the fad on the left. Gee, what a coincidence....and what a joke.
Face it. Your narrative is the joke and that's one fact of reality that will never change.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,646
|
Post by thor on Aug 24, 2023 4:57:16 GMT
No doubt you've proven it to yourself but that doesn't go very far. Corwin, been there, done that. It's irrelevant anyway. It's a "garbage idea" that is held by the great majority of Civil War historians. Excuse me if I trust them more than you. You were trying to pull a fast one by pretending that the quote from Marx was his own opinion, not his opinion of what the British press was saying. Not the opinion that he disagreed with. Didn't work. So Marx was a self-centered deadbeat. Not good for his family, but Marx's personal problems have little to do with his writings on economics or his views about the Civil War. Nobody is worshipping Marx or what he said. He did a lot of research and he had the carbuncles to show for it. I don't claim that the entire British press believed that tariffs were the cause of the war. I would presume that some of the British press focused on slavery. But there's nothing idiotic in believing the part of the British press got it wrong. I've long since decisively proven my case to intelligent critical thinkers, which is probably why you're feeling left out. Yours is forever an emotional response to the evidence, not an objective, academic or logical approach.
On Corwin you've been there, failed at that. It was momentously relevant because Corwin forever clarified that slavery was not the bribe that the South would respond to because slavery wasn't the South's cause.
Experts lie. Historians lie when it suits their career or personal biases. The challenge still stands....show us some of the proof that these historians base their lies...um..."opinions"....on. If most of them have succumbed to groupthink as you claim, it ought to be easy for you to cough up a lugy or two backing up your tale. Yet, and what a shock, you never have to courage to attempt it. That says volumes about you and tells us you really don't have any historians of value backing you up.
No, I wasn't trying to pull a fast one....although you seem to be gullible enough to be susceptible to such tactics. Actually, you're the one trying to pull a fast one by claiming to have a hoard of historians backing you up and never delivering anything from a single one. I ought to thank you for pointed out Marx was talking about Brit press....instead of just one man having the tariff opinion, you proved it was many more than that.
So, personal integrity as a measure of professional integrity is meaningless to you. That REALLY explains a lot.
And it is pretty idiotic to claim that the part of the British press "got it wrong" when you've failed to make the case that they were wrong. You've made NO case here, just excuses for the gaping holes in your false narrative. If slavery as the cause was so obvious (so you claim), why would the British press even think of tariffs as a cause? After all, they only lived during the period and heard from real participants rather than what we have access to 160 years later.
Those people who lived in that time should posthumously bow down in spirit to your shining brilliance at deducing without evidence a cause for the South that just happens to align with the woke lies and hatred that's currently the fad on the left. Gee, what a coincidence....and what a joke.
Face it. Your narrative is the joke and that's one fact of reality that will never change.
But wait....there's more... The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth." It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass. Repeatedly. 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? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 24, 2023 15:39:05 GMT
I've long since decisively proven my case to intelligent critical thinkers, which is probably why you're feeling left out. Yours is forever an emotional response to the evidence, not an objective, academic or logical approach.
On Corwin you've been there, failed at that. It was momentously relevant because Corwin forever clarified that slavery was not the bribe that the South would respond to because slavery wasn't the South's cause.
Experts lie. Historians lie when it suits their career or personal biases. The challenge still stands....show us some of the proof that these historians base their lies...um..."opinions"....on. If most of them have succumbed to groupthink as you claim, it ought to be easy for you to cough up a lugy or two backing up your tale. Yet, and what a shock, you never have to courage to attempt it. That says volumes about you and tells us you really don't have any historians of value backing you up.
No, I wasn't trying to pull a fast one....although you seem to be gullible enough to be susceptible to such tactics. Actually, you're the one trying to pull a fast one by claiming to have a hoard of historians backing you up and never delivering anything from a single one. I ought to thank you for pointed out Marx was talking about Brit press....instead of just one man having the tariff opinion, you proved it was many more than that.
So, personal integrity as a measure of professional integrity is meaningless to you. That REALLY explains a lot.
And it is pretty idiotic to claim that the part of the British press "got it wrong" when you've failed to make the case that they were wrong. You've made NO case here, just excuses for the gaping holes in your false narrative. If slavery as the cause was so obvious (so you claim), why would the British press even think of tariffs as a cause? After all, they only lived during the period and heard from real participants rather than what we have access to 160 years later.
Those people who lived in that time should posthumously bow down in spirit to your shining brilliance at deducing without evidence a cause for the South that just happens to align with the woke lies and hatred that's currently the fad on the left. Gee, what a coincidence....and what a joke.
Face it. Your narrative is the joke and that's one fact of reality that will never change.
But wait....there's more... The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth." It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass. Repeatedly. 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? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville? You're the only one getting his ass kicked here. You were, are and always will be a joke on this forum. Another meaningless, anecdotal quote from another obscure elitist representing the South's one percenters doesn't even move the needle. You can't help being a dumbass, can you, boy?
Only a liar claims that I ever claimed that it was "totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s'". And I'm hardly "excusing Andersonville" by pointing out that the impoverished South was starving at the same time that Andersonville prisoners were doing the same. Only a f*cking idiot would pretend that the South was supposed to let their own people starve just to coddle the perverted Union killers in that stockade. Those Yankee bastards were the ones trying to force the South into starvation and destruction before they were captured, yet the Confederates tried to care for them and tried to exchange them.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,646
|
Post by thor on Aug 24, 2023 19:29:08 GMT
But wait....there's more... The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth." It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass. Repeatedly. 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? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville? You're the only one getting his ass kicked here. You were, are and always will be a joke on this forum. Another meaningless, anecdotal quote from another obscure elitist representing the South's one percenters doesn't even move the needle. You can't help being a dumbass, can you, boy?
Only a liar claims that I ever claimed that it was "totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s'". And I'm hardly "excusing Andersonville" by pointing out that the impoverished South was starving at the same time that Andersonville prisoners were doing the same. Only a f*cking idiot would pretend that the South was supposed to let their own people starve just to coddle the perverted Union killers in that stockade. Those Yankee bastards were the ones trying to force the South into starvation and destruction before they were captured, yet the Confederates tried to care for them and tried to exchange them. Reality keeps fucking you up, doesn't it Stupid Boy? Paleo:
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 24, 2023 21:13:03 GMT
No doubt you've proven it to yourself but that doesn't go very far. Corwin, been there, done that. It's irrelevant anyway. It's a "garbage idea" that is held by the great majority of Civil War historians. Excuse me if I trust them more than you. You were trying to pull a fast one by pretending that the quote from Marx was his own opinion, not his opinion of what the British press was saying. Not the opinion that he disagreed with. Didn't work. So Marx was a self-centered deadbeat. Not good for his family, but Marx's personal problems have little to do with his writings on economics or his views about the Civil War. Nobody is worshipping Marx or what he said. He did a lot of research and he had the carbuncles to show for it. I don't claim that the entire British press believed that tariffs were the cause of the war. I would presume that some of the British press focused on slavery. But there's nothing idiotic in believing the part of the British press got it wrong. I've long since decisively proven my case to intelligent critical thinkers, which is probably why you're feeling left out. Yours is forever an emotional response to the evidence, not an objective, academic or logical approach.
On Corwin you've been there, failed at that. It was momentously relevant because Corwin forever clarified that slavery was not the bribe that the South would respond to because slavery wasn't the South's cause.
Experts lie. Historians lie when it suits their career or personal biases. The challenge still stands....show us some of the proof that these historians base their lies...um..."opinions"....on. If most of them have succumbed to groupthink as you claim, it ought to be easy for you to cough up a lugy or two backing up your tale. Yet, and what a shock, you never have to courage to attempt it. That says volumes about you and tells us you really don't have any historians of value backing you up.
No, I wasn't trying to pull a fast one....although you seem to be gullible enough to be susceptible to such tactics. Actually, you're the one trying to pull a fast one by claiming to have a hoard of historians backing you up and never delivering anything from a single one. I ought to thank you for pointed out Marx was talking about Brit press....instead of just one man having the tariff opinion, you proved it was many more than that.
So, personal integrity as a measure of professional integrity is meaningless to you. That REALLY explains a lot.
And it is pretty idiotic to claim that the part of the British press "got it wrong" when you've failed to make the case that they were wrong. You've made NO case here, just excuses for the gaping holes in your false narrative. If slavery as the cause was so obvious (so you claim), why would the British press even think of tariffs as a cause? After all, they only lived during the period and heard from real participants rather than what we have access to 160 years later.
Those people who lived in that time should posthumously bow down in spirit to your shining brilliance at deducing without evidence a cause for the South that just happens to align with the woke lies and hatred that's currently the fad on the left. Gee, what a coincidence....and what a joke.
Face it. Your narrative is the joke and that's one fact of reality that will never change.
Congratulations. You've decisively proven your case to yourself. Yep, intelligent critical thinkers are people who agree with you. People who disagree are not intelligent critical thinkers. Very persuasive theory. Why do wingnuts always came up with the emotional thing, when there is not much emotion. Revenge porn amendments and monstrous filth are very logical approaches, not at all emotional. Sure. Experts sometimes lie, but it's hard to believe hundreds of historians from different times and places would get together and lie about the same thing. It would be downright absurd. I never claimed they succumbed to groupthink. Coming to the same conclusion as other people is not groupthink. Of course you were trying to pull a fast one--attributing to Marx an opinion that was not his. No need to thank me. That Marx was talking about the attitude of the British press was mentioned in your link. So if you read the link you would have known that, but you still quoted it as if it was his own opinion. I'm not bothered by the British press having a wrong opinion. It likely wasn't the first time or the last. No doubt part of the British press worried about the effect of tariffs on British exports and wrote accordingly. I really don't care much about Marx's personal life. It has little to do with his writings. No need to bow down, a simple well-executed salute will do. Yes, what a coincidence, bringing woke into a conversation about the Civil War. Too bad the first has nothing to do with the second. But why bring phrases from 2023 into a discussion about 1865, however irrelevant they are? It's the loony wingnut way.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 24, 2023 22:06:07 GMT
I've long since decisively proven my case to intelligent critical thinkers, which is probably why you're feeling left out. Yours is forever an emotional response to the evidence, not an objective, academic or logical approach.
On Corwin you've been there, failed at that. It was momentously relevant because Corwin forever clarified that slavery was not the bribe that the South would respond to because slavery wasn't the South's cause.
Experts lie. Historians lie when it suits their career or personal biases. The challenge still stands....show us some of the proof that these historians base their lies...um..."opinions"....on. If most of them have succumbed to groupthink as you claim, it ought to be easy for you to cough up a lugy or two backing up your tale. Yet, and what a shock, you never have to courage to attempt it. That says volumes about you and tells us you really don't have any historians of value backing you up.
No, I wasn't trying to pull a fast one....although you seem to be gullible enough to be susceptible to such tactics. Actually, you're the one trying to pull a fast one by claiming to have a hoard of historians backing you up and never delivering anything from a single one. I ought to thank you for pointed out Marx was talking about Brit press....instead of just one man having the tariff opinion, you proved it was many more than that.
So, personal integrity as a measure of professional integrity is meaningless to you. That REALLY explains a lot.
And it is pretty idiotic to claim that the part of the British press "got it wrong" when you've failed to make the case that they were wrong. You've made NO case here, just excuses for the gaping holes in your false narrative. If slavery as the cause was so obvious (so you claim), why would the British press even think of tariffs as a cause? After all, they only lived during the period and heard from real participants rather than what we have access to 160 years later.
Those people who lived in that time should posthumously bow down in spirit to your shining brilliance at deducing without evidence a cause for the South that just happens to align with the woke lies and hatred that's currently the fad on the left. Gee, what a coincidence....and what a joke.
Face it. Your narrative is the joke and that's one fact of reality that will never change.
Congratulations. You've decisively proven your case to yourself. Yep, intelligent critical thinkers are people who agree with you. People who disagree are not intelligent critical thinkers. Very persuasive theory. Why do wingnuts always came up with the emotional thing, when there is not much emotion. Revenge porn amendments and monstrous filth are very logical approaches, not at all emotional. Sure. Experts sometimes lie, but it's hard to believe hundreds of historians from different times and places would get together and lie about the same thing. It would be downright absurd. I never claimed they succumbed to groupthink. Coming to the same conclusion as other people is not groupthink. Of course you were trying to pull a fast one--attributing to Marx an opinion that was not his. No need to thank me. That Marx was talking about the attitude of the British press was mentioned in your link. So if you read the link you would have known that, but you still quoted it as if it was his own opinion. I'm not bothered by the British press having a wrong opinion. It likely wasn't the first time or the last. No doubt part of the British press worried about the effect of tariffs on British exports and wrote accordingly. I really don't care much about Marx's personal life. It has little to do with his writings. No need to bow down, a simple well-executed salute will do. Yes, what a coincidence, bringing woke into a conversation about the Civil War. Too bad the first has nothing to do with the second. But why bring phrases from 2023 into a discussion about 1865, however irrelevant they are? It's the loony wingnut way. No, critical thinking intelligent people are those that objectively look at the evidence rather than stupidly dismissing it and making up excuses as you have done. Revenge porn amendments and monstrous filth are brutally blunt but wholly factual, and only seem "emotional" if you have failed to review the evidence that supports those facts.
Of course it's groupthink and you've succumbed to it just like the fools that claim to be historians. Historically, masses of experts have been uniformly wrong despite being told what the truth really is. Sometimes it's just ignorance, like in the case of Galileo and heliocentrism. But in the case of these historians, they had and have access to the same proof that I just used to debunk their "slavery was the cause" lie, yet they continue to peddle that falsehood. These "historians" are intentionally deceiving fools that consume their tripe because it feeds their confirmation biases.
And you still can't seem to quote a single one of these experts, can you?
Oh, I'll thank you, all right. You took what looked like a quote from just one man and made it clear that it was instead a widespread opinion in the British press. And thank you for clarifying that a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of evil filth like Marx agreed with YOUR false narrative. If it was the pulling of a fast one as you claim, I'll accept the end result since, by arrogantly and stupidly thinking you were correcting me, you actually added even more weight to the evidence that I've presented.
And now you're trying to pull a fast one, although you probably lack the self awareness to see it. Earlier you found it absurd that hundreds of historians might collectively be wrong, yet you seem just fine with the assumption that hundreds in the British press that were contemporaries of the Confederates all got it wrong.
Woke obviously drives your biases and biases drive your cultish devotion to the Northern lie that slavery was the South's cause. Pretending that modern biases haven't shaped false and vindictive narratives about the South is a denial of reality and a failure to grasp what drove your cadre of historians to lie about the South's motivations.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 24, 2023 22:11:49 GMT
You're the only one getting his ass kicked here. You were, are and always will be a joke on this forum. Another meaningless, anecdotal quote from another obscure elitist representing the South's one percenters doesn't even move the needle. You can't help being a dumbass, can you, boy?
Only a liar claims that I ever claimed that it was "totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s'". And I'm hardly "excusing Andersonville" by pointing out that the impoverished South was starving at the same time that Andersonville prisoners were doing the same. Only a f*cking idiot would pretend that the South was supposed to let their own people starve just to coddle the perverted Union killers in that stockade. Those Yankee bastards were the ones trying to force the South into starvation and destruction before they were captured, yet the Confederates tried to care for them and tried to exchange them. Reality keeps fucking you up, doesn't it Stupid Boy? Telling such lies have left you pretty f*cked up, hasn't it, pussy boy? Reality will never be on your side, boy....get relevant or get lost.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,646
|
Post by thor on Aug 25, 2023 0:34:14 GMT
Reality keeps fucking you up, doesn't it Stupid Boy? Telling such lies have left you pretty f*cked up, hasn't it, pussy boy? Reality will never be on your side, boy....get relevant or get lost. Want me to bring out the Black Hand of Truth again to slap you around some more?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,292
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 25, 2023 14:40:23 GMT
Telling such lies have left you pretty f*cked up, hasn't it, pussy boy? Reality will never be on your side, boy....get relevant or get lost. Want me to bring out the Black Hand of Truth again to slap you around some more? With my boot permanently lodged up your ass, you have more pressing problems to worry about, boy.
|
|