|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 19, 2024 21:26:19 GMT
One person's lie is another person's truth. Take your pick. Yeah, I don't go about my daily life thinking about the republic or the Constitution. I doubt many people do. When you count the individuals in households that had slaves it adds up to more than a small number of elitists. There is no forest, it's not that complicated. A quote using the word slave was not about slavery. Do tell. The South Carolinians thought it was definitely about slavery and was heading towards its "ultimate extinction." That was their real fear, not centralization or coercion in general, but the end of slavery under Lincoln. Quite the opposite. They didn't go to war to intentionally damage slavery, they went to war to intentionally preserve slavery. Backasswards again. How was the Union going to control everyone in the nation? There is no uncomfortable fact to face. The side that was fighting to abolish slavery was wrong and evil, but the side that was fighting to preserve the ownership of humans was not? Absurd. Totally logical. They seceded to preserve slavery and thought they would win a defensive war against the Union and get to keep their slaves. Things just didn't work out according to plan. One has to be somewhat dumb to destroy an important part of one's economy in four years when one could have kept it for at least a few more decades. Slavery as the South's cause is an ABSOLUTE lie and will never be true.
No one would ever mistake you for a deep thinker, which is why you shouldn't compare yourself to those who did thin about the Republic and the Constitution.
Even counting households (yeah, the infants, toddlers, granny and the dog need to be counted in your "elite" household, right?), 70% of Southern households had no slaves. Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves and only about 2% owned any significant number of slaves.
It actually is very complicated, a fact that simpletons do not understand. Only 20% of the South Carolina Declaration of Causes was about slavery. It's pretty racist to latch onto just 20% of a document and ignore the rest. The second South Carolina Declaration strongly emphasized taxes and economic issues, further degrading your narrative.
But, by seceding, Southerners DID damage slavery. Going to war DOOMED slavery even if the South had won. Even if they were victorious, Southerners would have been pressured by the world to end slavery in exchange for recognition and the import revenue available with their lower tariffs. If you doubt that, look at Brazil's history.
Lots of lies in that false comparison. The North was not fighting to end slavery; claiming that they ever were is little more than a propaganda designed for weak minded fools (Lincoln left slavery untouched in states that did not secede). The South was never fighting to preserve slavery. The North was allegedly fighting to preserve the Union, which was illegal under their own Constitution. The North was really fighting for economic and political power and control, nothing else. The South was fighting against the same kind of centralized control and subjugation that the British imposed on their American colonists.
The most intellectually lazy defense of your fairy tale narrative is to claim that "the South must have been pretty dumb". You just blew a hole in your own narrative.....the reality is that Confederates DID sacrifice slavery's continued existence because slavery wasn't their cause, not because they were "dumb". If slavery had been their motivation, they would have stayed in the Union rather than leave as YOU pointed out.
If you say so. I've never claimed to be a "deep thinker," whatever that is. But it's not necessary to be a "deep thinker" to understand this topic. 30% is much more than 6% or 2%. I haven't counted words, but it looks like more than 20% of one of the DOCs is about slavery. There are a lot of complaints about escaped slaves. I agree that they did do damage to slavery, though not intentionally, but through miscalculation. We can't know for sure what southerners would have done about slavery had they won the war. Brazil didn't abolish slavery until 1888. The north didn't go to war to end slavery, but to keep the country united. Ending slavery only became a war aim later on. Again, the Confederacy was not fighting against centralized gov't in general, but against the specific issue of centralized gov't trying to end slavery. The Confederates believed, mistakenly, that Lincoln meant to end slavery. That was their dumb error. But it turned out to be good error, ending slavery before it probably would have ended otherwise.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 19, 2024 21:58:52 GMT
Slavery as the South's cause is an ABSOLUTE lie and will never be true.
No one would ever mistake you for a deep thinker, which is why you shouldn't compare yourself to those who did thin about the Republic and the Constitution.
Even counting households (yeah, the infants, toddlers, granny and the dog need to be counted in your "elite" household, right?), 70% of Southern households had no slaves. Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves and only about 2% owned any significant number of slaves.
It actually is very complicated, a fact that simpletons do not understand. Only 20% of the South Carolina Declaration of Causes was about slavery. It's pretty racist to latch onto just 20% of a document and ignore the rest. The second South Carolina Declaration strongly emphasized taxes and economic issues, further degrading your narrative.
But, by seceding, Southerners DID damage slavery. Going to war DOOMED slavery even if the South had won. Even if they were victorious, Southerners would have been pressured by the world to end slavery in exchange for recognition and the import revenue available with their lower tariffs. If you doubt that, look at Brazil's history.
Lots of lies in that false comparison. The North was not fighting to end slavery; claiming that they ever were is little more than a propaganda designed for weak minded fools (Lincoln left slavery untouched in states that did not secede). The South was never fighting to preserve slavery. The North was allegedly fighting to preserve the Union, which was illegal under their own Constitution. The North was really fighting for economic and political power and control, nothing else. The South was fighting against the same kind of centralized control and subjugation that the British imposed on their American colonists.
The most intellectually lazy defense of your fairy tale narrative is to claim that "the South must have been pretty dumb". You just blew a hole in your own narrative.....the reality is that Confederates DID sacrifice slavery's continued existence because slavery wasn't their cause, not because they were "dumb". If slavery had been their motivation, they would have stayed in the Union rather than leave as YOU pointed out.
If you say so. I've never claimed to be a "deep thinker," whatever that is. But it's not necessary to be a "deep thinker" to understand this topic. 30% is much more than 6% or 2%. I haven't counted words, but it looks like more than 20% of one of the DOCs is about slavery. There are a lot of complaints about escaped slaves. I agree that they did do damage to slavery, though not intentionally, but through miscalculation. We can't know for sure what southerners would have done about slavery had they won the war. Brazil didn't abolish slavery until 1888. The north didn't go to war to end slavery, but to keep the country united. Ending slavery only became a war aim later on. Again, the Confederacy was not fighting against centralized gov't in general, but against the specific issue of centralized gov't trying to end slavery. The Confederates believed, mistakenly, that Lincoln meant to end slavery. That was their dumb error. But it turned out to be good error, ending slavery before it probably would have ended otherwise. Ah, but we can. Some of the scumbag slavers fled to Brazil. Very likely for that very reason.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 20, 2024 2:00:34 GMT
If you say so. I've never claimed to be a "deep thinker," whatever that is. But it's not necessary to be a "deep thinker" to understand this topic. 30% is much more than 6% or 2%. I haven't counted words, but it looks like more than 20% of one of the DOCs is about slavery. There are a lot of complaints about escaped slaves. I agree that they did do damage to slavery, though not intentionally, but through miscalculation. We can't know for sure what southerners would have done about slavery had they won the war. Brazil didn't abolish slavery until 1888. The north didn't go to war to end slavery, but to keep the country united. Ending slavery only became a war aim later on. Again, the Confederacy was not fighting against centralized gov't in general, but against the specific issue of centralized gov't trying to end slavery. The Confederates believed, mistakenly, that Lincoln meant to end slavery. That was their dumb error. But it turned out to be good error, ending slavery before it probably would have ended otherwise. Ah, but we can. Some of the scumbag slavers fed to Brazil. Very likely for that very reason. Likely. A few took off for other countries too. My guess would be that if somehow the south had won the war they wouldn't have suddenly given up slavery, what they went to war to preserve in the first place.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 20, 2024 2:42:26 GMT
|
|
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 20, 2024 5:11:47 GMT
Slavery as the South's cause is an ABSOLUTE lie and will never be true.
No one would ever mistake you for a deep thinker, which is why you shouldn't compare yourself to those who did thin about the Republic and the Constitution.
Even counting households (yeah, the infants, toddlers, granny and the dog need to be counted in your "elite" household, right?), 70% of Southern households had no slaves. Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves and only about 2% owned any significant number of slaves.
It actually is very complicated, a fact that simpletons do not understand. Only 20% of the South Carolina Declaration of Causes was about slavery. It's pretty racist to latch onto just 20% of a document and ignore the rest. The second South Carolina Declaration strongly emphasized taxes and economic issues, further degrading your narrative.
But, by seceding, Southerners DID damage slavery. Going to war DOOMED slavery even if the South had won. Even if they were victorious, Southerners would have been pressured by the world to end slavery in exchange for recognition and the import revenue available with their lower tariffs. If you doubt that, look at Brazil's history.
Lots of lies in that false comparison. The North was not fighting to end slavery; claiming that they ever were is little more than a propaganda designed for weak minded fools (Lincoln left slavery untouched in states that did not secede). The South was never fighting to preserve slavery. The North was allegedly fighting to preserve the Union, which was illegal under their own Constitution. The North was really fighting for economic and political power and control, nothing else. The South was fighting against the same kind of centralized control and subjugation that the British imposed on their American colonists.
The most intellectually lazy defense of your fairy tale narrative is to claim that "the South must have been pretty dumb". You just blew a hole in your own narrative.....the reality is that Confederates DID sacrifice slavery's continued existence because slavery wasn't their cause, not because they were "dumb". If slavery had been their motivation, they would have stayed in the Union rather than leave as YOU pointed out.
If you say so. I've never claimed to be a "deep thinker," whatever that is. But it's not necessary to be a "deep thinker" to understand this topic. 30% is much more than 6% or 2%. I haven't counted words, but it looks like more than 20% of one of the DOCs is about slavery. There are a lot of complaints about escaped slaves. I agree that they did do damage to slavery, though not intentionally, but through miscalculation. We can't know for sure what southerners would have done about slavery had they won the war. Brazil didn't abolish slavery until 1888. The north didn't go to war to end slavery, but to keep the country united. Ending slavery only became a war aim later on. Again, the Confederacy was not fighting against centralized gov't in general, but against the specific issue of centralized gov't trying to end slavery. The Confederates believed, mistakenly, that Lincoln meant to end slavery. That was their dumb error. But it turned out to be good error, ending slavery before it probably would have ended otherwise. Not only do I say so, I've proved it to be so.
Actually, it does require a deep thinker to understand this topic, and you clearly don't understand it at all, other than what you've been told to think. You can't even make your own case, preferring to be laughably reactive rather than any intellectual contribution from you.
No sh*t....is 30% really more that 6% and 2% The actual owners were just 6% of the Southern population and most of them had few slaves. The very fact that you think that quantity of words reflects the South's cause puts you at kindergarten level understanding of this history. If one compares the major changes that resulted from secession, slavery isn't even close to the top cause. Why are you so afraid to analyze what the Confederates DID rather than the fiery rhetoric of a few elitists?
You can't make the case that the damage to slavery was not intentional nor well known. Do you realize how stupid you sound with these unfounded, made-up guesses that you keep trying....."they were dumb, they miscalculated"? EVERYBODY knew that secession would damage slavery, including Southerners. Kinda hard to miss the fact that Confederates couldn't take slaves into U.S. territories nor get their slaves back from the North.
You admit that the South damaged slavery by seceding, but try as you might, your mind won't accept the truth that they did so because slavery was NOT their cause. So you make up hilariously false garbage that has no basis in history.
Slavery was dying and untenable in the long term (even the British were saying this about the American South in the 1860s). If the South had successfully seceded, the pressures from new agricultural technologies and global political pressures would have been enormous. Slavery would have been ended in a gradual manumission to allow the economic system to adjust.
Only a racist tries to tie every move of the Southerners to slavery, the institution that the fatally damaged BY SECEDING. Slavery was an excuse to secede, not the actual cause of secession. It wasn't about preserving slavery, it was about who gets to make the decision about such state level issues. If it was only about slavery, the Southerners would not have mentioned the other issues and principles in their documents, nor would they have worried about protective tariffs in their Constitution.
The only "dumb error" in this thread is yours in believing the lie that slavery was ever the South's cause. Stop being so shallow and cartoonish in your thinking and dig deeper for a change.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 20, 2024 5:44:58 GMT
I'm starting to wonder if Paleo is a supporter of human bondage. In particular, the bondage of African Americans for the benefit of White Americans.
Of course, he'll never admit it. He keeps on denying it, but it's clear. Paleo is a racist.
|
|
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 20, 2024 14:15:10 GMT
I'm starting to wonder if Paleo is a supporter of human bondage. In particular, the bondage of African Americans for the benefit of White Americans. Of course, he'll never admit it. He keeps on denying it, but it's clear. Paleo is a racist. You've been laughed off of one forum and are considered a joke on this one even by some of the leftists here.
Most of us know that the opposite of what you post is the truth and this is one of those cases.
Please point to anything that I've posted that shows support for human bondage or admit that you're a liar.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 20, 2024 22:00:06 GMT
If you say so. I've never claimed to be a "deep thinker," whatever that is. But it's not necessary to be a "deep thinker" to understand this topic. 30% is much more than 6% or 2%. I haven't counted words, but it looks like more than 20% of one of the DOCs is about slavery. There are a lot of complaints about escaped slaves. I agree that they did do damage to slavery, though not intentionally, but through miscalculation. We can't know for sure what southerners would have done about slavery had they won the war. Brazil didn't abolish slavery until 1888. The north didn't go to war to end slavery, but to keep the country united. Ending slavery only became a war aim later on. Again, the Confederacy was not fighting against centralized gov't in general, but against the specific issue of centralized gov't trying to end slavery. The Confederates believed, mistakenly, that Lincoln meant to end slavery. That was their dumb error. But it turned out to be good error, ending slavery before it probably would have ended otherwise. Not only do I say so, I've proved it to be so.
Actually, it does require a deep thinker to understand this topic, and you clearly don't understand it at all, other than what you've been told to think. You can't even make your own case, preferring to be laughably reactive rather than any intellectual contribution from you.
No sh*t....is 30% really more that 6% and 2% The actual owners were just 6% of the Southern population and most of them had few slaves. The very fact that you think that quantity of words reflects the South's cause puts you at kindergarten level understanding of this history. If one compares the major changes that resulted from secession, slavery isn't even close to the top cause. Why are you so afraid to analyze what the Confederates DID rather than the fiery rhetoric of a few elitists?
You can't make the case that the damage to slavery was not intentional nor well known. Do you realize how stupid you sound with these unfounded, made-up guesses that you keep trying....."they were dumb, they miscalculated"? EVERYBODY knew that secession would damage slavery, including Southerners. Kinda hard to miss the fact that Confederates couldn't take slaves into U.S. territories nor get their slaves back from the North.
You admit that the South damaged slavery by seceding, but try as you might, your mind won't accept the truth that they did so because slavery was NOT their cause. So you make up hilariously false garbage that has no basis in history.
Slavery was dying and untenable in the long term (even the British were saying this about the American South in the 1860s). If the South had successfully seceded, the pressures from new agricultural technologies and global political pressures would have been enormous. Slavery would have been ended in a gradual manumission to allow the economic system to adjust.
Only a racist tries to tie every move of the Southerners to slavery, the institution that the fatally damaged BY SECEDING. Slavery was an excuse to secede, not the actual cause of secession. It wasn't about preserving slavery, it was about who gets to make the decision about such state level issues. If it was only about slavery, the Southerners would not have mentioned the other issues and principles in their documents, nor would they have worried about protective tariffs in their Constitution.
The only "dumb error" in this thread is yours in believing the lie that slavery was ever the South's cause. Stop being so shallow and cartoonish in your thinking and dig deeper for a change.
I guess you've proved it to yourself at least. This is medium thinker territory. It's relatively uncomplicated. Of course there was little change to slavery, that's the whole point. The Confederacy wanted to keep slavery just as it had been. They did miscalculate by thinking they could win the war and preserve slavery. There's nothing unusual in that, it happens all the time. The main goal was to preserve slavery in the Confederate states. Other complaints about slavery were secondary compared to its preservation. I'm coming from a non-Lost Cause perspective. Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't. Nobody knows how long slavery would have existed after 1865. I could see it going on for another twenty or so years. That they damaged unintentionally. Are people who highlighted apartheid in South Africa racists? Did they believe that blacks were superior to whites? I doubt it. The same goes for the far fetched belief that people who think that slavery was the cause are racists because of that belief. There's nothing to dig deeper for. All that's there is the usual warmed-over Lost Cause narrative. Waste of a pick and shovel.
|
|
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 20, 2024 22:32:02 GMT
Not only do I say so, I've proved it to be so.
Actually, it does require a deep thinker to understand this topic, and you clearly don't understand it at all, other than what you've been told to think. You can't even make your own case, preferring to be laughably reactive rather than any intellectual contribution from you.
No sh*t....is 30% really more that 6% and 2% The actual owners were just 6% of the Southern population and most of them had few slaves. The very fact that you think that quantity of words reflects the South's cause puts you at kindergarten level understanding of this history. If one compares the major changes that resulted from secession, slavery isn't even close to the top cause. Why are you so afraid to analyze what the Confederates DID rather than the fiery rhetoric of a few elitists?
You can't make the case that the damage to slavery was not intentional nor well known. Do you realize how stupid you sound with these unfounded, made-up guesses that you keep trying....."they were dumb, they miscalculated"? EVERYBODY knew that secession would damage slavery, including Southerners. Kinda hard to miss the fact that Confederates couldn't take slaves into U.S. territories nor get their slaves back from the North.
You admit that the South damaged slavery by seceding, but try as you might, your mind won't accept the truth that they did so because slavery was NOT their cause. So you make up hilariously false garbage that has no basis in history.
Slavery was dying and untenable in the long term (even the British were saying this about the American South in the 1860s). If the South had successfully seceded, the pressures from new agricultural technologies and global political pressures would have been enormous. Slavery would have been ended in a gradual manumission to allow the economic system to adjust.
Only a racist tries to tie every move of the Southerners to slavery, the institution that the fatally damaged BY SECEDING. Slavery was an excuse to secede, not the actual cause of secession. It wasn't about preserving slavery, it was about who gets to make the decision about such state level issues. If it was only about slavery, the Southerners would not have mentioned the other issues and principles in their documents, nor would they have worried about protective tariffs in their Constitution.
The only "dumb error" in this thread is yours in believing the lie that slavery was ever the South's cause. Stop being so shallow and cartoonish in your thinking and dig deeper for a change.
I guess you've proved it to yourself at least. This is medium thinker territory. It's relatively uncomplicated. Of course there was little change to slavery, that's the whole point. The Confederacy wanted to keep slavery just as it had been. They did miscalculate by thinking they could win the war and preserve slavery. There's nothing unusual in that, it happens all the time. The main goal was to preserve slavery in the Confederate states. Other complaints about slavery were secondary compared to its preservation. I'm coming from a non-Lost Cause perspective. Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't. Nobody knows how long slavery would have existed after 1865. I could see it going on for another twenty or so years. That they damaged unintentionally. Are people who highlighted apartheid in South Africa racists? Did they believe that blacks were superior to whites? I doubt it. The same goes for the far fetched belief that people who think that slavery was the cause are racists because of that belief. There's nothing to dig deeper for. All that's there is the usual warmed-over Lost Cause narrative. Waste of a pick and shovel. No, I've proven it to everyone, including you. You can pretend otherwise, but you'd just be lying to yourself. But, as a liberal, lying to yourself, is SOP.
Only a small mind would see that era as uncomplicated. You're a simple guy wanting a simple narrative, but that's just not true in this case.
There was never any threat to slavery as it had always been and the South knew that very well. At no point was it the Republican position to interfere with slavery where it existed, nor was it Lincoln's position before the war. With or without secession there was no threat to slavery, so slavery couldn't have been the South's cause.
"Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't." - says HolyMoly. But they DID intentionally harm slavery and reject all offers to protect slavery. How stupid is it of you to think that they didn't know they were harming slavery when they were immediately blocked from U.S. territories and could no longer ask for runaway slaves to be returned?
They knew very well the harm...the MORTAL harm....that secession would inflict on slavery. Not the war, secession fatally harmed slavery and that was intentional harm. Al of which proves that the claim that slavery was the cause is a lie.
So, if the South had remained in the Union, slavery would have gone on another 20 years. That proves that there was never any threat to slavery and that slavery was not the cause of either side in the war until Lincoln used it as a war measure.
The seceded INTENTIONALLY. They gave up all rights to go into the U.S. territories with their slaves INTENTIONALLY. The gave up all chances to get runaway slaves back from the North INTENTIONALLY. They rejected the Corwin Amendment slavery protections INTENTIONALLY. They knew that the global pressures for abolition would rise exponentially if they gained their independence from the Union. All of that was damaging to slavery, all of it was intentional.
Those that claim that slavery was the South's cause are racists because they have ignored so many other causes and complexities just to embrace a dishonest signaling of racial virtue.
"Look at me! Look how moral and virtuous I am by lying about the Southern cause!" say the cultists who have swallowed the false slavery cause idea.
There's always something deeper in a historical narrative. You've just admitted to being triggered by "slavery" to stop looking.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 20, 2024 23:41:35 GMT
Not only do I say so, I've proved it to be so.
Actually, it does require a deep thinker to understand this topic, and you clearly don't understand it at all, other than what you've been told to think. You can't even make your own case, preferring to be laughably reactive rather than any intellectual contribution from you.
No sh*t....is 30% really more that 6% and 2% The actual owners were just 6% of the Southern population and most of them had few slaves. The very fact that you think that quantity of words reflects the South's cause puts you at kindergarten level understanding of this history. If one compares the major changes that resulted from secession, slavery isn't even close to the top cause. Why are you so afraid to analyze what the Confederates DID rather than the fiery rhetoric of a few elitists?
You can't make the case that the damage to slavery was not intentional nor well known. Do you realize how stupid you sound with these unfounded, made-up guesses that you keep trying....."they were dumb, they miscalculated"? EVERYBODY knew that secession would damage slavery, including Southerners. Kinda hard to miss the fact that Confederates couldn't take slaves into U.S. territories nor get their slaves back from the North.
You admit that the South damaged slavery by seceding, but try as you might, your mind won't accept the truth that they did so because slavery was NOT their cause. So you make up hilariously false garbage that has no basis in history.
Slavery was dying and untenable in the long term (even the British were saying this about the American South in the 1860s). If the South had successfully seceded, the pressures from new agricultural technologies and global political pressures would have been enormous. Slavery would have been ended in a gradual manumission to allow the economic system to adjust.
Only a racist tries to tie every move of the Southerners to slavery, the institution that the fatally damaged BY SECEDING. Slavery was an excuse to secede, not the actual cause of secession. It wasn't about preserving slavery, it was about who gets to make the decision about such state level issues. If it was only about slavery, the Southerners would not have mentioned the other issues and principles in their documents, nor would they have worried about protective tariffs in their Constitution.
The only "dumb error" in this thread is yours in believing the lie that slavery was ever the South's cause. Stop being so shallow and cartoonish in your thinking and dig deeper for a change.
I guess you've proved it to yourself at least. This is medium thinker territory. It's relatively uncomplicated. Of course there was little change to slavery, that's the whole point. The Confederacy wanted to keep slavery just as it had been. They did miscalculate by thinking they could win the war and preserve slavery. There's nothing unusual in that, it happens all the time. The main goal was to preserve slavery in the Confederate states. Other complaints about slavery were secondary compared to its preservation. I'm coming from a non-Lost Cause perspective. Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't. Nobody knows how long slavery would have existed after 1865. I could see it going on for another twenty or so years. That they damaged unintentionally. Are people who highlighted apartheid in South Africa racists? Did they believe that blacks were superior to whites? I doubt it. The same goes for the far fetched belief that people who think that slavery was the cause are racists because of that belief. There's nothing to dig deeper for. All that's there is the usual warmed-over Lost Cause narrative. Waste of a pick and shovel.
Clearly Paleocuck and those of his persuasion are insane.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 21, 2024 11:59:20 GMT
I guess you've proved it to yourself at least. This is medium thinker territory. It's relatively uncomplicated. Of course there was little change to slavery, that's the whole point. The Confederacy wanted to keep slavery just as it had been. They did miscalculate by thinking they could win the war and preserve slavery. There's nothing unusual in that, it happens all the time. The main goal was to preserve slavery in the Confederate states. Other complaints about slavery were secondary compared to its preservation. I'm coming from a non-Lost Cause perspective. Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't. Nobody knows how long slavery would have existed after 1865. I could see it going on for another twenty or so years. That they damaged unintentionally. Are people who highlighted apartheid in South Africa racists? Did they believe that blacks were superior to whites? I doubt it. The same goes for the far fetched belief that people who think that slavery was the cause are racists because of that belief. There's nothing to dig deeper for. All that's there is the usual warmed-over Lost Cause narrative. Waste of a pick and shovel. No, I've proven it to everyone, including you. You can pretend otherwise, but you'd just be lying to yourself. But, as a liberal, lying to yourself, is SOP.
Only a small mind would see that era as uncomplicated. You're a simple guy wanting a simple narrative, but that's just not true in this case.
There was never any threat to slavery as it had always been and the South knew that very well. At no point was it the Republican position to interfere with slavery where it existed, nor was it Lincoln's position before the war. With or without secession there was no threat to slavery, so slavery couldn't have been the South's cause.
"Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't." - says HolyMoly. But they DID intentionally harm slavery and reject all offers to protect slavery. How stupid is it of you to think that they didn't know they were harming slavery when they were immediately blocked from U.S. territories and could no longer ask for runaway slaves to be returned?
They knew very well the harm...the MORTAL harm....that secession would inflict on slavery. Not the war, secession fatally harmed slavery and that was intentional harm. Al of which proves that the claim that slavery was the cause is a lie.
So, if the South had remained in the Union, slavery would have gone on another 20 years. That proves that there was never any threat to slavery and that slavery was not the cause of either side in the war until Lincoln used it as a war measure.
The seceded INTENTIONALLY. They gave up all rights to go into the U.S. territories with their slaves INTENTIONALLY. The gave up all chances to get runaway slaves back from the North INTENTIONALLY. They rejected the Corwin Amendment slavery protections INTENTIONALLY. They knew that the global pressures for abolition would rise exponentially if they gained their independence from the Union. All of that was damaging to slavery, all of it was intentional.
Those that claim that slavery was the South's cause are racists because they have ignored so many other causes and complexities just to embrace a dishonest signaling of racial virtue.
"Look at me! Look how moral and virtuous I am by lying about the Southern cause!" say the cultists who have swallowed the false slavery cause idea.
There's always something deeper in a historical narrative. You've just admitted to being triggered by "slavery" to stop looking.
They wanted to end slavery so badly they wrote this: Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,419
|
Post by petep on Apr 21, 2024 12:57:43 GMT
No, I've proven it to everyone, including you. You can pretend otherwise, but you'd just be lying to yourself. But, as a liberal, lying to yourself, is SOP.
Only a small mind would see that era as uncomplicated. You're a simple guy wanting a simple narrative, but that's just not true in this case.
There was never any threat to slavery as it had always been and the South knew that very well. At no point was it the Republican position to interfere with slavery where it existed, nor was it Lincoln's position before the war. With or without secession there was no threat to slavery, so slavery couldn't have been the South's cause.
"Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't." - says HolyMoly. But they DID intentionally harm slavery and reject all offers to protect slavery. How stupid is it of you to think that they didn't know they were harming slavery when they were immediately blocked from U.S. territories and could no longer ask for runaway slaves to be returned?
They knew very well the harm...the MORTAL harm....that secession would inflict on slavery. Not the war, secession fatally harmed slavery and that was intentional harm. Al of which proves that the claim that slavery was the cause is a lie.
So, if the South had remained in the Union, slavery would have gone on another 20 years. That proves that there was never any threat to slavery and that slavery was not the cause of either side in the war until Lincoln used it as a war measure.
The seceded INTENTIONALLY. They gave up all rights to go into the U.S. territories with their slaves INTENTIONALLY. The gave up all chances to get runaway slaves back from the North INTENTIONALLY. They rejected the Corwin Amendment slavery protections INTENTIONALLY. They knew that the global pressures for abolition would rise exponentially if they gained their independence from the Union. All of that was damaging to slavery, all of it was intentional.
Those that claim that slavery was the South's cause are racists because they have ignored so many other causes and complexities just to embrace a dishonest signaling of racial virtue.
"Look at me! Look how moral and virtuous I am by lying about the Southern cause!" say the cultists who have swallowed the false slavery cause idea.
There's always something deeper in a historical narrative. You've just admitted to being triggered by "slavery" to stop looking.
They wanted to hard slavery so badly they wrote this: Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." What does “they wanted to hard slavery” even mean?
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 21, 2024 20:12:18 GMT
No, I've proven it to everyone, including you. You can pretend otherwise, but you'd just be lying to yourself. But, as a liberal, lying to yourself, is SOP.
Only a small mind would see that era as uncomplicated. You're a simple guy wanting a simple narrative, but that's just not true in this case.
There was never any threat to slavery as it had always been and the South knew that very well. At no point was it the Republican position to interfere with slavery where it existed, nor was it Lincoln's position before the war. With or without secession there was no threat to slavery, so slavery couldn't have been the South's cause.
"Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't." - says HolyMoly. But they DID intentionally harm slavery and reject all offers to protect slavery. How stupid is it of you to think that they didn't know they were harming slavery when they were immediately blocked from U.S. territories and could no longer ask for runaway slaves to be returned?
They knew very well the harm...the MORTAL harm....that secession would inflict on slavery. Not the war, secession fatally harmed slavery and that was intentional harm. Al of which proves that the claim that slavery was the cause is a lie.
So, if the South had remained in the Union, slavery would have gone on another 20 years. That proves that there was never any threat to slavery and that slavery was not the cause of either side in the war until Lincoln used it as a war measure.
The seceded INTENTIONALLY. They gave up all rights to go into the U.S. territories with their slaves INTENTIONALLY. The gave up all chances to get runaway slaves back from the North INTENTIONALLY. They rejected the Corwin Amendment slavery protections INTENTIONALLY. They knew that the global pressures for abolition would rise exponentially if they gained their independence from the Union. All of that was damaging to slavery, all of it was intentional.
Those that claim that slavery was the South's cause are racists because they have ignored so many other causes and complexities just to embrace a dishonest signaling of racial virtue.
"Look at me! Look how moral and virtuous I am by lying about the Southern cause!" say the cultists who have swallowed the false slavery cause idea.
There's always something deeper in a historical narrative. You've just admitted to being triggered by "slavery" to stop looking.
They wanted to end slavery so badly they wrote this: Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 CSA Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
I see you corrected your spelling error.
Didn't seem to prevent Paleocuck from leaping on it.
Sad.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 21, 2024 21:28:37 GMT
I guess you've proved it to yourself at least. This is medium thinker territory. It's relatively uncomplicated. Of course there was little change to slavery, that's the whole point. The Confederacy wanted to keep slavery just as it had been. They did miscalculate by thinking they could win the war and preserve slavery. There's nothing unusual in that, it happens all the time. The main goal was to preserve slavery in the Confederate states. Other complaints about slavery were secondary compared to its preservation. I'm coming from a non-Lost Cause perspective. Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't. Nobody knows how long slavery would have existed after 1865. I could see it going on for another twenty or so years. That they damaged unintentionally. Are people who highlighted apartheid in South Africa racists? Did they believe that blacks were superior to whites? I doubt it. The same goes for the far fetched belief that people who think that slavery was the cause are racists because of that belief. There's nothing to dig deeper for. All that's there is the usual warmed-over Lost Cause narrative. Waste of a pick and shovel. No, I've proven it to everyone, including you. You can pretend otherwise, but you'd just be lying to yourself. But, as a liberal, lying to yourself, is SOP.
Only a small mind would see that era as uncomplicated. You're a simple guy wanting a simple narrative, but that's just not true in this case.
There was never any threat to slavery as it had always been and the South knew that very well. At no point was it the Republican position to interfere with slavery where it existed, nor was it Lincoln's position before the war. With or without secession there was no threat to slavery, so slavery couldn't have been the South's cause.
"Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't." - says HolyMoly. But they DID intentionally harm slavery and reject all offers to protect slavery. How stupid is it of you to think that they didn't know they were harming slavery when they were immediately blocked from U.S. territories and could no longer ask for runaway slaves to be returned?
They knew very well the harm...the MORTAL harm....that secession would inflict on slavery. Not the war, secession fatally harmed slavery and that was intentional harm. Al of which proves that the claim that slavery was the cause is a lie.
So, if the South had remained in the Union, slavery would have gone on another 20 years. That proves that there was never any threat to slavery and that slavery was not the cause of either side in the war until Lincoln used it as a war measure.
The seceded INTENTIONALLY. They gave up all rights to go into the U.S. territories with their slaves INTENTIONALLY. The gave up all chances to get runaway slaves back from the North INTENTIONALLY. They rejected the Corwin Amendment slavery protections INTENTIONALLY. They knew that the global pressures for abolition would rise exponentially if they gained their independence from the Union. All of that was damaging to slavery, all of it was intentional.
Those that claim that slavery was the South's cause are racists because they have ignored so many other causes and complexities just to embrace a dishonest signaling of racial virtue.
"Look at me! Look how moral and virtuous I am by lying about the Southern cause!" say the cultists who have swallowed the false slavery cause idea.
There's always something deeper in a historical narrative. You've just admitted to being triggered by "slavery" to stop looking.
You don't seem to have proved it to anyone on here, including me. That was the south's problem. They wouldn't take Lincoln's word that he was not going to abolish slavery. That's why he was quoted in the SC justification. That's why they seceded, the mistaken fear that slavery was about to be ended. In comparison to preserving slavery where it existed expanding slavery or not being able to get back escaped slaves were secondary considerations. And the south had been complaining for a long time about the trouble they had in returning slaves from up north. 20 years or so is a guess. Look how long sharecropping continued after the war ended. But due to their belief that Lincoln was going to end slavery they cut that down to four years. That's why seceding was such a stupid move. They seceded INTENTIONALLY to preserve slavery. Bad move. They have not ignored other causes. They have concluded that slavery was the cause. That has nothing to do with racism of any kind. Neither is it a matter of morality or virtue, especially 150+ years after the war, but a matter of belief that slavery was the cause. Digging deeper still doesn't change the fact of slavery being the cause.
|
|
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 22, 2024 15:28:57 GMT
No, I've proven it to everyone, including you. You can pretend otherwise, but you'd just be lying to yourself. But, as a liberal, lying to yourself, is SOP.
Only a small mind would see that era as uncomplicated. You're a simple guy wanting a simple narrative, but that's just not true in this case.
There was never any threat to slavery as it had always been and the South knew that very well. At no point was it the Republican position to interfere with slavery where it existed, nor was it Lincoln's position before the war. With or without secession there was no threat to slavery, so slavery couldn't have been the South's cause.
"Slavery was the cause, so why would they intentionally harm it? They wouldn't." - says HolyMoly. But they DID intentionally harm slavery and reject all offers to protect slavery. How stupid is it of you to think that they didn't know they were harming slavery when they were immediately blocked from U.S. territories and could no longer ask for runaway slaves to be returned?
They knew very well the harm...the MORTAL harm....that secession would inflict on slavery. Not the war, secession fatally harmed slavery and that was intentional harm. Al of which proves that the claim that slavery was the cause is a lie.
So, if the South had remained in the Union, slavery would have gone on another 20 years. That proves that there was never any threat to slavery and that slavery was not the cause of either side in the war until Lincoln used it as a war measure.
The seceded INTENTIONALLY. They gave up all rights to go into the U.S. territories with their slaves INTENTIONALLY. The gave up all chances to get runaway slaves back from the North INTENTIONALLY. They rejected the Corwin Amendment slavery protections INTENTIONALLY. They knew that the global pressures for abolition would rise exponentially if they gained their independence from the Union. All of that was damaging to slavery, all of it was intentional.
Those that claim that slavery was the South's cause are racists because they have ignored so many other causes and complexities just to embrace a dishonest signaling of racial virtue.
"Look at me! Look how moral and virtuous I am by lying about the Southern cause!" say the cultists who have swallowed the false slavery cause idea.
There's always something deeper in a historical narrative. You've just admitted to being triggered by "slavery" to stop looking.
You don't seem to have proved it to anyone on here, including me. That was the south's problem. They wouldn't take Lincoln's word that he was not going to abolish slavery. That's why he was quoted in the SC justification. That's why they seceded, the mistaken fear that slavery was about to be ended. In comparison to preserving slavery where it existed expanding slavery or not being able to get back escaped slaves were secondary considerations. And the south had been complaining for a long time about the trouble they had in returning slaves from up north. 20 years or so is a guess. Look how long sharecropping continued after the war ended. But due to their belief that Lincoln was going to end slavery they cut that down to four years. That's why seceding was such a stupid move. They seceded INTENTIONALLY to preserve slavery. Bad move. They have not ignored other causes. They have concluded that slavery was the cause. That has nothing to do with racism of any kind. Neither is it a matter of morality or virtue, especially 150+ years after the war, but a matter of belief that slavery was the cause. Digging deeper still doesn't change the fact of slavery being the cause. Oh, I've proven my case many times over. It's a pearls before swine situation in your case. My pearls don't stop being pearls even when soiled in your mudhole, Porky.
There was no problem with slavery, but there was a problem with TRUST, which was the real breaking point. The North repeated lied and repeatedly breached the Constitutional agreement, which was the larger issue at the heart of secession. Slavery was the tipping point but never the cause, except in the imagination of racists who swallow the "slavery was the cause" lies.
Everything that crushes your narrative is now "secondary" to you, isn't it? Do you have the self awareness to realize how stupid that makes you sound? Instead of providing historical evidence, we've gotten nothing but baseless excuses out of you....."secondary", "dumb", "mistaken", "unintentional", "stupid"....those are an indication of intellectual laziness (we figured that out about you a long time ago).
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.
Once again, you only look at what was SAID in a handful of documents by a handful of elitists and try to ignore what was DONE by the Confederates. If they had feared the loss of slavery, they wouldn't have seceded, nor would they have damaged slavery on the way out the door.
Slavery was just one point of contention related to the larger context of the usurpation of power and control by the Northern states.
No, they INTENTIONALLY damaged slavery, INTENTIONALLY rejected slavery protections and INTENTIONALLY shortened slavery's lifespan; all of those INTENTIONAL actions were fatal to slavery even if the war had never occurred. All of the intentionality proves that slavery was not the South's cause.
Once again, if you have the integrity to be honest with yourself, it's clear that the most significant changes wrought be secession were not about slavery, but about economic and political advantages for the seceded states.
You're a small picture guy, aren't you? Big picture, 30,000 foot views seem to traumatize our little HolyMoly. Poor baby. Looking for context and the root causes always make your narrative into one big fat lie, so a deeper look is forbidden. HolyMoly has a rule: insult anyone that tries to educate him on this topic by calling them a "Lost Causer" rather than doing the historical legwork.
Yes, you and your ilk are ignoring both the other causes and the larger context because neither fit into your racist fairy tale about slavery being the South's cause.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 22, 2024 21:37:30 GMT
You don't seem to have proved it to anyone on here, including me. That was the south's problem. They wouldn't take Lincoln's word that he was not going to abolish slavery. That's why he was quoted in the SC justification. That's why they seceded, the mistaken fear that slavery was about to be ended. In comparison to preserving slavery where it existed expanding slavery or not being able to get back escaped slaves were secondary considerations. And the south had been complaining for a long time about the trouble they had in returning slaves from up north. 20 years or so is a guess. Look how long sharecropping continued after the war ended. But due to their belief that Lincoln was going to end slavery they cut that down to four years. That's why seceding was such a stupid move. They seceded INTENTIONALLY to preserve slavery. Bad move. They have not ignored other causes. They have concluded that slavery was the cause. That has nothing to do with racism of any kind. Neither is it a matter of morality or virtue, especially 150+ years after the war, but a matter of belief that slavery was the cause. Digging deeper still doesn't change the fact of slavery being the cause. Oh, I've proven my case many times over. It's a pearls before swine situation in your case. My pearls don't stop being pearls even when soiled in your mudhole, Porky.
There was no problem with slavery, but there was a problem with TRUST, which was the real breaking point. The North repeated lied and repeatedly breached the Constitutional agreement, which was the larger issue at the heart of secession. Slavery was the tipping point but never the cause, except in the imagination of racists who swallow the "slavery was the cause" lies.
Everything that crushes your narrative is now "secondary" to you, isn't it? Do you have the self awareness to realize how stupid that makes you sound? Instead of providing historical evidence, we've gotten nothing but baseless excuses out of you....."secondary", "dumb", "mistaken", "unintentional", "stupid"....those are an indication of intellectual laziness (we figured that out about you a long time ago).
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.
Once again, you only look at what was SAID in a handful of documents by a handful of elitists and try to ignore what was DONE by the Confederates. If they had feared the loss of slavery, they wouldn't have seceded, nor would they have damaged slavery on the way out the door.
Slavery was just one point of contention related to the larger context of the usurpation of power and control by the Northern states.
No, they INTENTIONALLY damaged slavery, INTENTIONALLY rejected slavery protections and INTENTIONALLY shortened slavery's lifespan; all of those INTENTIONAL actions were fatal to slavery even if the war had never occurred. All of the intentionality proves that slavery was not the South's cause.
Once again, if you have the integrity to be honest with yourself, it's clear that the most significant changes wrought be secession were not about slavery, but about economic and political advantages for the seceded states.
You're a small picture guy, aren't you? Big picture, 30,000 foot views seem to traumatize our little HolyMoly. Poor baby. Looking for context and the root causes always make your narrative into one big fat lie, so a deeper look is forbidden. HolyMoly has a rule: insult anyone that tries to educate him on this topic by calling them a "Lost Causer" rather than doing the historical legwork.
Yes, you and your ilk are ignoring both the other causes and the larger context because neither fit into your racist fairy tale about slavery being the South's cause.
Your "pearls" are cheap glass beads of little value. The election of Lincoln and the belief that he wanted to abolish slavery was the tipping point. Since slavery was the cause, other things are secondary by definition. Six of one, half a dozen of another. The state right was the right to have slaves. That was the right the Confederacy wanted to preserve. Not an abstract right, but a concrete one. What they said and did was for the same reason. They feared the abolition of slavery under Lincoln and took actions on that basis. By staying in the Union they thought they would have lost their slaves, so they left. Makes total sense. For a slave holding confederation to do all this harm to slavery by intention would be illogical. It's hilarious when you come up with all these imagined consequences, such as being "traumatized" by anything you argue. You don't really believe this rhetorical nonsense, do you? Small picture is a little confusing since it refers to the small details and contradictions you are always championing. My rule is to go with the evidence and the evidence is that slavery was the cause of secession. Lost Cause refers to a certain view of the Civil War. How is that a personal insult?
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 22, 2024 22:38:29 GMT
Holymoly sez:
"Your "pearls" are cheap glass beads of little value."
Amen!
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,608
|
Post by thor on Apr 22, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
Oh, I've proven my case many times over. It's a pearls before swine situation in your case. My pearls don't stop being pearls even when soiled in your mudhole, Porky.
There was no problem with slavery, but there was a problem with TRUST, which was the real breaking point. The North repeated lied and repeatedly breached the Constitutional agreement, which was the larger issue at the heart of secession. Slavery was the tipping point but never the cause, except in the imagination of racists who swallow the "slavery was the cause" lies.
Everything that crushes your narrative is now "secondary" to you, isn't it? Do you have the self awareness to realize how stupid that makes you sound? Instead of providing historical evidence, we've gotten nothing but baseless excuses out of you....."secondary", "dumb", "mistaken", "unintentional", "stupid"....those are an indication of intellectual laziness (we figured that out about you a long time ago).
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.
Once again, you only look at what was SAID in a handful of documents by a handful of elitists and try to ignore what was DONE by the Confederates. If they had feared the loss of slavery, they wouldn't have seceded, nor would they have damaged slavery on the way out the door.
Slavery was just one point of contention related to the larger context of the usurpation of power and control by the Northern states.
No, they INTENTIONALLY damaged slavery, INTENTIONALLY rejected slavery protections and INTENTIONALLY shortened slavery's lifespan; all of those INTENTIONAL actions were fatal to slavery even if the war had never occurred. All of the intentionality proves that slavery was not the South's cause.
Once again, if you have the integrity to be honest with yourself, it's clear that the most significant changes wrought be secession were not about slavery, but about economic and political advantages for the seceded states.
You're a small picture guy, aren't you? Big picture, 30,000 foot views seem to traumatize our little HolyMoly. Poor baby. Looking for context and the root causes always make your narrative into one big fat lie, so a deeper look is forbidden. HolyMoly has a rule: insult anyone that tries to educate him on this topic by calling them a "Lost Causer" rather than doing the historical legwork.
Yes, you and your ilk are ignoring both the other causes and the larger context because neither fit into your racist fairy tale about slavery being the South's cause.
Your "pearls" are cheap glass beads of little value. The election of Lincoln and the belief that he wanted to abolish slavery was the tipping point. Since slavery was the cause, other things are secondary by definition. Six of one, half a dozen of another. The state right was the right to have slaves. That was the right the Confederacy wanted to preserve. Not an abstract right, but a concrete one. What they said and did was for the same reason. They feared the abolition of slavery under Lincoln and took actions on that basis. By staying in the Union they thought they would have lost their slaves, so they left. Makes total sense. For a slave holding confederation to do all this harm to slavery by intention would be illogical. It's hilarious when you come up with all these imagined consequences, such as being "traumatized" by anything you argue. You don't really believe this rhetorical nonsense, do you? Small picture is a little confusing since it refers to the small details and contradictions you are always championing. My rule is to go with the evidence and the evidence is that slavery was the cause of secession. Lost Cause refers to a certain view of the Civil War. How is that a personal insult? It's hilarious - the degenerate Confederate 'leadership' told us their motives in their scribblings. Remarkable the idiots like Paleo still buy into it.
|
|
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 23, 2024 0:14:28 GMT
Oh, I've proven my case many times over. It's a pearls before swine situation in your case. My pearls don't stop being pearls even when soiled in your mudhole, Porky.
There was no problem with slavery, but there was a problem with TRUST, which was the real breaking point. The North repeated lied and repeatedly breached the Constitutional agreement, which was the larger issue at the heart of secession. Slavery was the tipping point but never the cause, except in the imagination of racists who swallow the "slavery was the cause" lies.
Everything that crushes your narrative is now "secondary" to you, isn't it? Do you have the self awareness to realize how stupid that makes you sound? Instead of providing historical evidence, we've gotten nothing but baseless excuses out of you....."secondary", "dumb", "mistaken", "unintentional", "stupid"....those are an indication of intellectual laziness (we figured that out about you a long time ago).
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.
Once again, you only look at what was SAID in a handful of documents by a handful of elitists and try to ignore what was DONE by the Confederates. If they had feared the loss of slavery, they wouldn't have seceded, nor would they have damaged slavery on the way out the door.
Slavery was just one point of contention related to the larger context of the usurpation of power and control by the Northern states.
No, they INTENTIONALLY damaged slavery, INTENTIONALLY rejected slavery protections and INTENTIONALLY shortened slavery's lifespan; all of those INTENTIONAL actions were fatal to slavery even if the war had never occurred. All of the intentionality proves that slavery was not the South's cause.
Once again, if you have the integrity to be honest with yourself, it's clear that the most significant changes wrought be secession were not about slavery, but about economic and political advantages for the seceded states.
You're a small picture guy, aren't you? Big picture, 30,000 foot views seem to traumatize our little HolyMoly. Poor baby. Looking for context and the root causes always make your narrative into one big fat lie, so a deeper look is forbidden. HolyMoly has a rule: insult anyone that tries to educate him on this topic by calling them a "Lost Causer" rather than doing the historical legwork.
Yes, you and your ilk are ignoring both the other causes and the larger context because neither fit into your racist fairy tale about slavery being the South's cause.
Your "pearls" are cheap glass beads of little value. The election of Lincoln and the belief that he wanted to abolish slavery was the tipping point. Since slavery was the cause, other things are secondary by definition. Six of one, half a dozen of another. The state right was the right to have slaves. That was the right the Confederacy wanted to preserve. Not an abstract right, but a concrete one. What they said and did was for the same reason. They feared the abolition of slavery under Lincoln and took actions on that basis. By staying in the Union they thought they would have lost their slaves, so they left. Makes total sense. For a slave holding confederation to do all this harm to slavery by intention would be illogical. It's hilarious when you come up with all these imagined consequences, such as being "traumatized" by anything you argue. You don't really believe this rhetorical nonsense, do you? Small picture is a little confusing since it refers to the small details and contradictions you are always championing. My rule is to go with the evidence and the evidence is that slavery was the cause of secession. Lost Cause refers to a certain view of the Civil War. How is that a personal insult? I notice that you didn't deny your role as the swine that has no clue of the value of what has been placed before you.
None of what you just posted is either historically or factually true. Slavery was never the South's cause, slavery was just the tipping point and the election of Lincoln exposed a much larger chasm than slavery can explain. Slavery was not threatened by the North in 1860, and the South knew it. Lincoln's election instead meant something far more sinister..... a greater effort to draw power and control to the central government, and this evil effort by Lincoln destroyed any trust in the Northern controlled federal government that the Yankee winners in 1860 would respect the limits of the Constitution any longer.
You post garbage and falsehoods and laughably pretend that it's "evidence". You make the claim that slavery was the cause and offer no evidence to support that lie. You just make the statement as if that's all it takes and ignore the reality that the South damaged, most likely fatally, the institution of slavery by seceding.
"For a slave holding confederation to do all this harm to slavery by intention would be illogical" - HolyMoly cluelessly says. But they DID do all of that harm to slavery and it is boneheadedly stupid to pretend that Southerners somehow didn't know that they were causing that damage.
Harming slavery in exchange for independence is NOT illogical once you embrace the truth that slavery was never the South's cause.
Do you have any evidence that they did so unintentionally or are you just fabricating excuses again? You make up a lot of stuff here to protect your racist "slavery cause" narrative.
As far as consequences, a pig would be traumatized and appalled if it had the intelligence to understand how valuable the pearls were under its hooves. Based on that fact, I am not in the least surprised that you're not traumatized at all. One has to realize that value of the truth before being upset about rejecting that truth.
If your rule is to go with the evidence then you've broken your rule by believing the lie that slavery was the South's cause when the evidence doesn't support that lie.
Are you ever going to meet the challenge to provide some of this imaginary "evidence" that you claim to have? Latching onto slavery and ignoring/belittling other causes truly is racism, not history. Own it.
|
|
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 23, 2024 0:16:55 GMT
Your "pearls" are cheap glass beads of little value. The election of Lincoln and the belief that he wanted to abolish slavery was the tipping point. Since slavery was the cause, other things are secondary by definition. Six of one, half a dozen of another. The state right was the right to have slaves. That was the right the Confederacy wanted to preserve. Not an abstract right, but a concrete one. What they said and did was for the same reason. They feared the abolition of slavery under Lincoln and took actions on that basis. By staying in the Union they thought they would have lost their slaves, so they left. Makes total sense. For a slave holding confederation to do all this harm to slavery by intention would be illogical. It's hilarious when you come up with all these imagined consequences, such as being "traumatized" by anything you argue. You don't really believe this rhetorical nonsense, do you? Small picture is a little confusing since it refers to the small details and contradictions you are always championing. My rule is to go with the evidence and the evidence is that slavery was the cause of secession. Lost Cause refers to a certain view of the Civil War. How is that a personal insult? It's hilarious - the degenerate Confederate 'leadership' told us their motives in their scribblings. Remarkable the idiots like Paleo still buy into it. Those "scribblings" mentioned a hell of a lot more than slavery, but f*cking morons like this twink are too triggered by that magical sacred woke word "slavery" to ever look at any other details.
|
|