thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 11, 2024 16:52:25 GMT
Paleo is trying to ignore the CSA's Constitution here. It's pathetic and sad. Yeah, I don't see the need to beat a dead horse. It would be different if there were more controversy but its like an entire board against one hold out. He does this every 6-8 months or so. The whole board hands him his ass. Rinse, repeat.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,419
|
Post by petep on Apr 11, 2024 18:03:52 GMT
Paleo is trying to ignore the CSA's Constitution here. It's pathetic and sad. Yeah, I don't see the need to beat a dead horse. It would be different if there were more controversy but its like an entire board against one hold out. We know who the members of this forum are. Are you really going to state it’s everyone against one member? I’m counting the names posting here and I don’t see everyone. Or this this just more leftist lies
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Apr 11, 2024 20:44:06 GMT
Yeah, I don't see the need to beat a dead horse. It would be different if there were more controversy but its like an entire board against one hold out. We know who the members of this forum are. Are you really going to state it’s everyone against one member? I’m counting the names posting here and I don’t see everyone. Or this this just more leftist lies There's another poster on this board that follows the lost cause narrative? Who are they?
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,044
|
Post by demos on Apr 11, 2024 20:53:18 GMT
I don't think there was much push back against secession in states. Kind of depended on the locality.
For example, here is a map of the opposition to secession in Texas:
In Tennessee, some eastern counties were very opposed to secession.
Usually it was areas without a strong planter economy. And those divisions lasted well after the Civil War; it's where you will also find a lot of support for the Greenbacker Movement, the Farmer's Alliance, and other populist movements.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 11, 2024 22:09:39 GMT
I don't think there was much push back against secession in states. Kind of depended on the locality.
For example, here is a map of the opposition to secession in Texas:
In Tennessee, some eastern counties were very opposed to secession.
Usually it was areas without a strong planter economy. And those divisions lasted well after the Civil War; it's where you will also find a lot of support for the Greenbacker Movement, the Farmer's Alliance, and other populist movements.
Certain regions of some states were less supportive of secession, but that didn't blunt secession in the end. Western North Carolina was also less enthusiastic about secession than the rest of the state. It too relied less on slave labor and large plantations.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 11, 2024 23:50:52 GMT
I don't think there was much push back against secession in states. Kind of depended on the locality.
For example, here is a map of the opposition to secession in Texas:
In Tennessee, some eastern counties were very opposed to secession.
Usually it was areas without a strong planter economy. And those divisions lasted well after the Civil War; it's where you will also find a lot of support for the Greenbacker Movement, the Farmer's Alliance, and other populist movements.
Is there a similar map from the same period regarding population density? The two would be interesting to look at.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2024 11:57:52 GMT
Paleo is trying to ignore the CSA's Constitution here. It's pathetic and sad. Yeah, I don't see the need to beat a dead horse. It would be different if there were more controversy but its like an entire board against one hold out. One man with courage makes a majority.
Be careful who you pair up with here, RinsePrius....thor is little more than an animal, leaving his waste all over the LNF "lawn" for us to step in.
An intelligent person will normally recoil from any declaration that a matter is "settled". You're welcome to hold on to your cartoonish, shallow take on history or your can gains some depth by paying attention to me.
Notice that thor mentions the Confederate Constitution, but conveniently fails to point to anything in it that supports his alleged case (hint: he's never had one).
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2024 12:01:34 GMT
"Neither point seems to have the support of the facts." says RinsePrius. When challenged to back up that statement, RP shows us how quickly he/she/? can retreat.
Challenge still stands....let's see you defend the fiction that the Confederates were "wanted to blow up the compact between the states so they could continue owning people".
I don't see anybody challenging the claim. Still retreating, I see. What part of the word "fiction" is giving you trouble? That's a soft way of saying that your claim is not at all true. "Blow up" is hyperbolically false, while the claim that it was allegedly so they could continue owning people has never been an honest assessment.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2024 12:57:52 GMT
When you take something as simplistic as the quantity of words about slavery in a document rather than looking at the historical context of the importance of the issues mentioned in those documents, you ARE ignoring the evidence. You've made the conscious decision to call anything but the portion that appeals to your modern racial ideas "secondary", which is tantamount to ignoring them. THAT'S how it's racism.
You are the one who had a one dimensional idea of what racism can consist of, so much so that I've had to explain it to you before you came close to getting it.
No one claims that there was disagreement over secession itself, but it's fallacious to pretend that the population shared the reasoning of the 1% elitists that wrote the Declarations of Causes.
Please show us where slavery is mentioned in the Ordinances (not "slaveholding states" a geographical term used 3 times, but slavery itself):
Your denial of the truth that I've laid before you shows us your brainwashing more than any credibility to judge the evidence.
Slavery is the historical context. And at least in the Georgia document it's the dominant complaint. That the other points are secondary has nothing to do with your silly theory about racism, it's just a (non-racist) judgement. No explanation needed. It's the belief that one group is inferior to another. That was the belief of the Confederacy, not that of slavery was the cause believers. Why should we think that the rest of the population didn't share the beliefs of the elite leaders? I don't think there was much push back against secession in states. I said the subject of slavery was mentioned, not the word itself. What it shows is that I don't consider your narrative to be true, far from it. IMHO that shows good judgement, not brainwashing. So, you unilaterally, without logic or evidence, dismiss everything but the slavery part of the Georgia document and yet pretend that's not racist? Of course it is racist! There's nothing in the document that makes those other points secondary, and only a fool says that the quantity of words makes one of the causes in the document more or less important.
Blacks inferiority was also the belief of Abraham Lincoln and the people of the North during that era....I guess by your "logic", they were fighting to preserve slavery, too. The hyperbolic outrage of those that cling to the "slavery was the cause" lie is indicative of a belief in the racial superiority of the victims of slavery, especially when there is so much evidence showing far more complex causes for secession and war than just slavery.
It's utterly fallacious and rather stupid to think that strong support for secession also meant that everyone was having that same opinion on why secession was a good idea.
I've PROVEN that my narrative is true, while at the same time I've proven that yours is not true. Good judgement would have been an objective look at the entirely of history, and that's something you've never done. Indoctrination and brainwashing are the sources of the "slavery was the cause" lie, not truth.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,044
|
Post by demos on Apr 12, 2024 13:36:14 GMT
Certain regions of some states were less supportive of secession, but that didn't blunt secession in the end. Western North Carolina was also less enthusiastic about secession than the rest of the state. It too relied less on slave labor and large plantations. For a very long time, it was hillbillies and rednecks vs planter establishment (even after the war), and the establishment held most of the reins of power.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,044
|
Post by demos on Apr 12, 2024 13:38:39 GMT
Is there a similar map from the same period regarding population density? The two would be interesting to look at. Possibly.
A lot of your population is probably going to be in East Texas at this time and was moving forward until the mid-20th Century just based on looking at the Legislature.
The areas down around San Antonio that were very opposed to secession had large German populations.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 12, 2024 19:19:21 GMT
Is there a similar map from the same period regarding population density? The two would be interesting to look at. Possibly.
A lot of your population is probably going to be in East Texas at this time and was moving forward until the mid-20th Century just based on looking at the Legislature.
The areas down around San Antonio that were very opposed to secession had large German populations.
I agree - that was pretty much what I was thinking. I doubt there were all that many Gringos in what became Ector country. Most of those who were in West Texas at that point probably were in the US Cavalry. Edit: There is! Sorta.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 12, 2024 21:23:45 GMT
Slavery is the historical context. And at least in the Georgia document it's the dominant complaint. That the other points are secondary has nothing to do with your silly theory about racism, it's just a (non-racist) judgement. No explanation needed. It's the belief that one group is inferior to another. That was the belief of the Confederacy, not that of slavery was the cause believers. Why should we think that the rest of the population didn't share the beliefs of the elite leaders? I don't think there was much push back against secession in states. I said the subject of slavery was mentioned, not the word itself. What it shows is that I don't consider your narrative to be true, far from it. IMHO that shows good judgement, not brainwashing. So, you unilaterally, without logic or evidence, dismiss everything but the slavery part of the Georgia document and yet pretend that's not racist? Of course it is racist! There's nothing in the document that makes those other points secondary, and only a fool says that the quantity of words makes one of the causes in the document more or less important.
Blacks inferiority was also the belief of Abraham Lincoln and the people of the North during that era....I guess by your "logic", they were fighting to preserve slavery, too. The hyperbolic outrage of those that cling to the "slavery was the cause" lie is indicative of a belief in the racial superiority of the victims of slavery, especially when there is so much evidence showing far more complex causes for secession and war than just slavery.
It's utterly fallacious and rather stupid to think that strong support for secession also meant that everyone was having that same opinion on why secession was a good idea.
I've PROVEN that my narrative is true, while at the same time I've proven that yours is not true. Good judgement would have been an objective look at the entirely of history, and that's something you've never done. Indoctrination and brainwashing are the sources of the "slavery was the cause" lie, not truth.
I just go by what I read. And the most important topic mentioned is slavery. The other ones are secondary. That isn't dismissing them, it's just putting things in perspective. It has nothing to do with the bizarre charge of racism. It has to do with judgement. Sure, racism existed in all parts of the U.S.. But it was in the south where it was most virulent and where slavery was most important to the economy, more so than in the Border States. Lincoln was certainly not fighting to preserve slavery. You are the one who is prone to hyperbolic outrage, per your idea that believing that slavery was the cause makes one a racist. Perhaps it's better to call that hyperbolic stupidity. You've proven it to yourself, but not to me. Your only proof is endless repetition of the words lies, brainwashing, cartoonish, etc. Which proves nothing about history.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 12, 2024 22:11:12 GMT
Certain regions of some states were less supportive of secession, but that didn't blunt secession in the end. Western North Carolina was also less enthusiastic about secession than the rest of the state. It too relied less on slave labor and large plantations. For a very long time, it was hillbillies and rednecks vs planter establishment (even after the war), and the establishment held most of the reins of power.
As might be expected. Hard to beat money, political power and influence, especially against an opposition weaker in all three. Skills in moonshine production can't close the gap.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,044
|
Post by demos on Apr 13, 2024 13:27:24 GMT
Edit: There is! Sorta. Yup, you can definitely look at that and compare where opposition was strongest.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 13, 2024 13:59:31 GMT
So, you unilaterally, without logic or evidence, dismiss everything but the slavery part of the Georgia document and yet pretend that's not racist? Of course it is racist! There's nothing in the document that makes those other points secondary, and only a fool says that the quantity of words makes one of the causes in the document more or less important.
Blacks inferiority was also the belief of Abraham Lincoln and the people of the North during that era....I guess by your "logic", they were fighting to preserve slavery, too. The hyperbolic outrage of those that cling to the "slavery was the cause" lie is indicative of a belief in the racial superiority of the victims of slavery, especially when there is so much evidence showing far more complex causes for secession and war than just slavery.
It's utterly fallacious and rather stupid to think that strong support for secession also meant that everyone was having that same opinion on why secession was a good idea.
I've PROVEN that my narrative is true, while at the same time I've proven that yours is not true. Good judgement would have been an objective look at the entirely of history, and that's something you've never done. Indoctrination and brainwashing are the sources of the "slavery was the cause" lie, not truth.
I just go by what I read. And the most important topic mentioned is slavery. The other ones are secondary. That isn't dismissing them, it's just putting things in perspective. It has nothing to do with the bizarre charge of racism. It has to do with judgement. Sure, racism existed in all parts of the U.S.. But it was in the south where it was most virulent and where slavery was most important to the economy, more so than in the Border States. Lincoln was certainly not fighting to preserve slavery. You are the one who is prone to hyperbolic outrage, per your idea that believing that slavery was the cause makes one a racist. Perhaps it's better to call that hyperbolic stupidity. You've proven it to yourself, but not to me. Your only proof is endless repetition of the words lies, brainwashing, cartoonish, etc. Which proves nothing about history. And yet you don't have the courage to share what you "read" (I very much doubt that you've read much, based on your ignorance of this subject). Calling the other causes "secondary' shows us that race is all you care about, not the real history. Every time you deny the racist label, you seem to inadvertently prove that it's correct as applied to the fools swallowing the "slavery was the cause" lie.
Conformists like you don't bother with "judgement" since you've been told what to think and don't want to look stupid by admitting it's all been proven to be a lie. And you make statements like "racism was more virulent in the South" when you have nothing at all to back that up. Yes, slavery was important economically, just as Silicon Valley is important economically today, but no one would be stupid enough to say that we sent in the Marines to protect Mark Zuckerberg's prosperity. Yet, you suspend all crtical thinking with the idiotic assumption that the Confederates really were fighting or the 1% elitists, as if human nature is suspended JUST in the case of the Confederates. You claim to use good judgement in your false claims, but judgement requires common sense and logic and you lack both.
I must have struck a nerve with the truism that "slavery was the cause" fanatics are racists, which of course they are. There's no "perspective" on your part, just programming to conform to the debunked lie that slavery was the South's cause.
Let's try a little exercise to see what the secession and war were really all about. When a radical step like secession occurs, the best indicator of the cause behind the departure is to look at what changes after secession.
1) Did slavery where it existed change at all due to slavery? No.
2) Did the Southern demand for slavery in U.S. territories change or improve? Secession made this impossible, so a negative change to slavery from secession.
3) Did the Southern efforts to get fugitive slaves back from the North change? Secession made this impossible, so another negative change to slavery from secession.
4) Did the Union propose to protect slavery in the Constitution? Yes, and it was utterly rejected, an odd reaction if the core of the conflict really was slavery.
5) Was the longevity of slavery improved by secession? Most agreed that secession, even without war, would have caused Southern slavery to end more quickly vs. remaining in the Union.
6) Did the tariffs imposed on imports change? In a big way, with the South outlawing protective tariffs and offering a lower import tariff vs. the Northern duties.
7) Did the taxation of the South change? Again, quite a bit, since the revenue came from the higher tariffs imposed by the Northern controlled Congress
8) Did the internal improvement outlay imbalance change? The South was no longer subsidizing the road, rail canal, etc. projects disproportionately in the North.
9) Did the legislative imbalance that empowered Northern interests get resolved? The South, legally seceded, separated itself from the Northern machinations for U.S. Senate majorities.
Once again, the best measure of the cause of secession is what did and didn't change for the better for the seceded state. Slavery saw a negative change from secession. The economic stranglehold of the North was ended, a positive change for the Confederacy. It was a conflict about taxation and federal control, which is why it was called the Second American Revolution.
Game, set, match.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 13, 2024 21:48:23 GMT
I just go by what I read. And the most important topic mentioned is slavery. The other ones are secondary. That isn't dismissing them, it's just putting things in perspective. It has nothing to do with the bizarre charge of racism. It has to do with judgement. Sure, racism existed in all parts of the U.S.. But it was in the south where it was most virulent and where slavery was most important to the economy, more so than in the Border States. Lincoln was certainly not fighting to preserve slavery. You are the one who is prone to hyperbolic outrage, per your idea that believing that slavery was the cause makes one a racist. Perhaps it's better to call that hyperbolic stupidity. You've proven it to yourself, but not to me. Your only proof is endless repetition of the words lies, brainwashing, cartoonish, etc. Which proves nothing about history. And yet you don't have the courage to share what you "read" (I very much doubt that you've read much, based on your ignorance of this subject). Calling the other causes "secondary' shows us that race is all you care about, not the real history. Every time you deny the racist label, you seem to inadvertently prove that it's correct as applied to the fools swallowing the "slavery was the cause" lie.
Conformists like you don't bother with "judgement" since you've been told what to think and don't want to look stupid by admitting it's all been proven to be a lie. And you make statements like "racism was more virulent in the South" when you have nothing at all to back that up. Yes, slavery was important economically, just as Silicon Valley is important economically today, but no one would be stupid enough to say that we sent in the Marines to protect Mark Zuckerberg's prosperity. Yet, you suspend all crtical thinking with the idiotic assumption that the Confederates really were fighting or the 1% elitists, as if human nature is suspended JUST in the case of the Confederates. You claim to use good judgement in your false claims, but judgement requires common sense and logic and you lack both.
I must have struck a nerve with the truism that "slavery was the cause" fanatics are racists, which of course they are. There's no "perspective" on your part, just programming to conform to the debunked lie that slavery was the South's cause.
Let's try a little exercise to see what the secession and war were really all about. When a radical step like secession occurs, the best indicator of the cause behind the departure is to look at what changes after secession.
1) Did slavery where it existed change at all due to slavery? No.
2) Did the Southern demand for slavery in U.S. territories change or improve? Secession made this impossible, so a negative change to slavery from secession.
3) Did the Southern efforts to get fugitive slaves back from the North change? Secession made this impossible, so another negative change to slavery from secession.
4) Did the Union propose to protect slavery in the Constitution? Yes, and it was utterly rejected, an odd reaction if the core of the conflict really was slavery.
5) Was the longevity of slavery improved by secession? Most agreed that secession, even without war, would have caused Southern slavery to end more quickly vs. remaining in the Union.
6) Did the tariffs imposed on imports change? In a big way, with the South outlawing protective tariffs and offering a lower import tariff vs. the Northern duties.
7) Did the taxation of the South change? Again, quite a bit, since the revenue came from the higher tariffs imposed by the Northern controlled Congress
8) Did the internal improvement outlay imbalance change? The South was no longer subsidizing the road, rail canal, etc. projects disproportionately in the North.
9) Did the legislative imbalance that empowered Northern interests get resolved? The South, legally seceded, separated itself from the Northern machinations for U.S. Senate majorities.
Once again, the best measure of the cause of secession is what did and didn't change for the better for the seceded state. Slavery saw a negative change from secession. The economic stranglehold of the North was ended, a positive change for the Confederacy. It was a conflict about taxation and federal control, which is why it was called the Second American Revolution.
Game, set, match.
Slavery as the cause is the real history. That belief has nothing to do with racism but with individual judgement. 'Told to think' is another one of your imaginary notions. There's no reason to think that most southerners had disagreements with the elite over secession and slavery. Marines protecting Zuck? Your analogies are getting more farfetched all the time. Yep, you're always striking nerves, in your own mind, not anywhere else. And those who focus on the Holocaust are either anti-Semites or believe in Jewish superiority. Take your pick. Is there an LNF transfer portal? The positive change was that slavery was preserved instead of being destroyed as southerners feared would happen under Lincoln's presidency. Oaky, they got that one wrong, but they didn't think so at the time. The rest is of lesser importance. Nine consecutive strikes. Inning over.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 13, 2024 23:15:58 GMT
Yeah, I don't see the need to beat a dead horse. It would be different if there were more controversy but its like an entire board against one hold out. He does this every 6-8 months or so. The whole board hands him his ass. Rinse, repeat.
It probably stinks to high heaven, as well...
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,286
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 15, 2024 14:45:53 GMT
And yet you don't have the courage to share what you "read" (I very much doubt that you've read much, based on your ignorance of this subject). Calling the other causes "secondary' shows us that race is all you care about, not the real history. Every time you deny the racist label, you seem to inadvertently prove that it's correct as applied to the fools swallowing the "slavery was the cause" lie.
Conformists like you don't bother with "judgement" since you've been told what to think and don't want to look stupid by admitting it's all been proven to be a lie. And you make statements like "racism was more virulent in the South" when you have nothing at all to back that up. Yes, slavery was important economically, just as Silicon Valley is important economically today, but no one would be stupid enough to say that we sent in the Marines to protect Mark Zuckerberg's prosperity. Yet, you suspend all crtical thinking with the idiotic assumption that the Confederates really were fighting or the 1% elitists, as if human nature is suspended JUST in the case of the Confederates. You claim to use good judgement in your false claims, but judgement requires common sense and logic and you lack both.
I must have struck a nerve with the truism that "slavery was the cause" fanatics are racists, which of course they are. There's no "perspective" on your part, just programming to conform to the debunked lie that slavery was the South's cause.
Let's try a little exercise to see what the secession and war were really all about. When a radical step like secession occurs, the best indicator of the cause behind the departure is to look at what changes after secession.
1) Did slavery where it existed change at all due to slavery? No.
2) Did the Southern demand for slavery in U.S. territories change or improve? Secession made this impossible, so a negative change to slavery from secession.
3) Did the Southern efforts to get fugitive slaves back from the North change? Secession made this impossible, so another negative change to slavery from secession.
4) Did the Union propose to protect slavery in the Constitution? Yes, and it was utterly rejected, an odd reaction if the core of the conflict really was slavery.
5) Was the longevity of slavery improved by secession? Most agreed that secession, even without war, would have caused Southern slavery to end more quickly vs. remaining in the Union.
6) Did the tariffs imposed on imports change? In a big way, with the South outlawing protective tariffs and offering a lower import tariff vs. the Northern duties.
7) Did the taxation of the South change? Again, quite a bit, since the revenue came from the higher tariffs imposed by the Northern controlled Congress
8) Did the internal improvement outlay imbalance change? The South was no longer subsidizing the road, rail canal, etc. projects disproportionately in the North.
9) Did the legislative imbalance that empowered Northern interests get resolved? The South, legally seceded, separated itself from the Northern machinations for U.S. Senate majorities.
Once again, the best measure of the cause of secession is what did and didn't change for the better for the seceded state. Slavery saw a negative change from secession. The economic stranglehold of the North was ended, a positive change for the Confederacy. It was a conflict about taxation and federal control, which is why it was called the Second American Revolution.
Game, set, match.
Slavery as the cause is the real history. That belief has nothing to do with racism but with individual judgement. 'Told to think' is another one of your imaginary notions. There's no reason to think that most southerners had disagreements with the elite over secession and slavery. Marines protecting Zuck? Your analogies are getting more farfetched all the time. Yep, you're always striking nerves, in your own mind, not anywhere else. And those who focus on the Holocaust are either anti-Semites or believe in Jewish superiority. Take your pick. Is there an LNF transfer portal? The positive change was that slavery was preserved instead of being destroyed as southerners feared would happen under Lincoln's presidency. Oaky, they got that one wrong, but they didn't think so at the time. The rest is of lesser importance. Nine consecutive strikes. Inning over. Slavery as the South's cause was, is and will always be false history from biased zealots . It will never be the truth no matter how many times you repeat it.
Of course you've been brainwashed and told what to say. And I've already proven that holding the false view that slavery was the South's cause is a racist position.
Your cultish lack of both curiosity and objectivity is painful to watch in a grown man (you ARE a grown man, aren't you?). It must have been devastating for you to see that list of nine irrefutable facts proving that the most significant changes due to Southern secession were economic casues, not slavery. The baseless claim that everything but slavery was of "lesser importance" shows you to be a fanatic, not a student of history.
Slavery was never in danger and both sides knew it. Show us any serious initiative in the North where slavery was going to be destroyed under Lincoln. Slavery was never threatened either rhetorically nor legislatively by the North. Slavery was willfully damaged by Southern secession because the ECONOMIC and LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM benefits of secession were of greater importance than the dying institution of slavery.
This is worth repeating because it is so fatal to the Northern lies about the Confederacy: Secession did not change slavery where it existed, but it did change the economic relationship. It changed the legislative process, severing the economic slavery of the South to its ever more authoritarian masters in the North. Slavery was the last straw, not the cause. The "slavery was the cause" lie is little more than fodder for the weak minded that want to be told what to think rather than think for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 15, 2024 21:41:49 GMT
Slavery as the cause is the real history. That belief has nothing to do with racism but with individual judgement. 'Told to think' is another one of your imaginary notions. There's no reason to think that most southerners had disagreements with the elite over secession and slavery. Marines protecting Zuck? Your analogies are getting more farfetched all the time. Yep, you're always striking nerves, in your own mind, not anywhere else. And those who focus on the Holocaust are either anti-Semites or believe in Jewish superiority. Take your pick. Is there an LNF transfer portal? The positive change was that slavery was preserved instead of being destroyed as southerners feared would happen under Lincoln's presidency. Oaky, they got that one wrong, but they didn't think so at the time. The rest is of lesser importance. Nine consecutive strikes. Inning over. Slavery as the South's cause was, is and will always be false history from biased zealots . It will never be the truth no matter how many times you repeat it.
Of course you've been brainwashed and told what to say. And I've already proven that holding the false view that slavery was the South's cause is a racist position.
Your cultish lack of both curiosity and objectivity is painful to watch in a grown man (you ARE a grown man, aren't you?). It must have been devastating for you to see that list of nine irrefutable facts proving that the most significant changes due to Southern secession were economic casues, not slavery. The baseless claim that everything but slavery was of "lesser importance" shows you to be a fanatic, not a student of history.
Slavery was never in danger and both sides knew it. Show us any serious initiative in the North where slavery was going to be destroyed under Lincoln. Slavery was never threatened either rhetorically nor legislatively by the North. Slavery was willfully damaged by Southern secession because the ECONOMIC and LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM benefits of secession were of greater importance than the dying institution of slavery.
This is worth repeating because it is so fatal to the Northern lies about the Confederacy: Secession did not change slavery where it existed, but it did change the economic relationship. It changed the legislative process, severing the economic slavery of the South to its ever more authoritarian masters in the North. Slavery was the last straw, not the cause. The "slavery was the cause" lie is little more than fodder for the weak minded that want to be told what to think rather than think for themselves.
You're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's wrong. And who told me what to say? The idea that those who believe that slavery was the cause makes them racists is one of the most foolish arguments I've ever seen. I don't think even the most extreme of Lost Causers would be clueless enough to believe it. I doubt one's beliefs about the Civil War has anything to do with being a grown man. Apples and oranges. Yes, it was so totally devastating that I haven't slept since reading it. Not. Slavery was not in danger, but one side didn't know it. Mistakenly thinking that Lincoln would abolish slavery, SC was the first to skedaddle and their Declaration of Causes is mostly about slavery and not economic matters. Southerners seceded not to damage slavery but to preserve it. Gee if only the slaves knew it was a "dying institution" they would have stopped trying to escape. About as fatal was a water balloon.
|
|