Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 15:35:36 GMT
Yes, the "slaveholding" states refers to a region. How could it not be? It is a region composed of territories where slavery is practiced. As far as my "parsing" of the South Carolina document, I have to smile. I didn't parse a thing. This whole "slavery was 1/5th the causes listed" nonsense is laughable. I don't know where you got that idea but it is refuted with just a cursory read of the document. You are intent on doing everything in your power to ignore the facts and distort history. Wow. I seem to have to explain far too much to you. "Region" does NOT denote cause. Got it?
A full reading (rather than your cursory glance looking for your favorite trigger word) of the South Carolina Declaration shows that slavery was NOT the primary cause listed in that document. Here's where the pie graphs came from. This is not just my conclusion:
I'm actually the one fighting against the historical propaganda that you cling to. Set aside your subjectivity and look with me at the complexities and larger issues of that time that have unfortunately been rendered down for today's simpletons to the specious and rote chant "SLAVERY! SLAVERY! SLAVERY!"
Oh, so its just a coincidence that they mention the slave-holding states and not some other designation? You say a proper analysis suggests the South Carolina document was only 20% about slavery, with sovereignty and state's rights adding up to 57% of the cause. But when you read the document, the sovereignty passages are dealing with the fugitive slave act and the separate but equal statues (between the states) that was set up in the constitution. This "sovereignty" issue turns on the right to have property in slaves. And the states' rights concerns are about the Fugitive Slave Act and how its it not being enforced. I am tempted to say the South Carolina document is 100% about slavery. The following passage makes this clear. I don't read that and come away thinking slavery was 20% of the cause. I read it and come away thinking it was main issue. I know, silly me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 15:38:55 GMT
First off, if the South no longer trusted the North then the rejection of the Corwin Amendment is NOT evidence that slavery was not the core issue. The lack of trust implies the South no longer saw a legislative solution. We have no reason to doubt the main question was one of slavery. And I would remind you that the states ratify amendments and only a few Northern states found the Corwin Amendment acceptable. The lack of trust based on the North's betrayal of their constitutional obligations WAS the core issue, not slavery. Tariffs and the ability of states to judge constitutionality (nullification) were the primary drivers of the mistrust in 1833, not slavery. In both cases, tariffs and slavery were symptoms of the larger issues between the regions. In the South, there was respect for the Founders vision of a compact of states delegating a very limited role to the federal government to manage certain affairs that the individual states deemed to be collective needs....AND NOTHING MORE. The North favored the Hamiltonian nightmare of far more centralization and control so that more could be siphoned to their economic interests.
It was allows about dueling visions of government and economic power. Saying it was about slavery has always been agitprop to hide the greed for power that drove the Northern cause since 1787.
I think there is a sliver of truth to this characterization about the North and South favoring different economic systems. We could say this was probably 20% of the divide. An incidental but real dispute. But the lion's share of the dispute (80%+) was about slavery or issues tangential to slavery such as "state's rights" or "sovereignty." The lack of trust that had built up over the years tells us why the Corwin Amendment failed to stop the civil war. Its certainly no evidence that slavery wasn't an issue. Only a fool would believe that! |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 15, 2020 15:39:10 GMT
This "sovereignty" issue turns on the right to have property in slaves. And the states' rights concerns are about the Fugitive Slave Act and how its it not being enforced.  |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 15, 2020 15:40:38 GMT
I think there is a sliver of truth to this characterization about the North and South favoring different economic systems. We could say this was probably 20% of the divide. An incidental but real dispute. But the lion's share of the dispute (80%+) was about slavery or issues tangential to slavery such as "state's rights" or "sovereignty." With the South (or rather, Southern elites) favoring an agrarian/plantation economy based on chattel slavery. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 15:46:27 GMT
I think there is a sliver of truth to this characterization about the North and South favoring different economic systems. We could say this was probably 20% of the divide. An incidental but real dispute. But the lion's share of the dispute (80%+) was about slavery or issues tangential to slavery such as "state's rights" or "sovereignty." With the South (or rather, Southern elites) favoring an agrarian/plantation economy based on chattel slavery. That deserves a bingo of its own! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 17:22:58 GMT
The very same slaves that were freed during the civil war.
Yes.. Freed by Progressives from the hands of Conservatives.. .. Otherwise known as American History.
LMAO... there were no progressives in the 1800s. And the party that would adapt progressive values fought against freeing the slaves and even praised the grand Pooh bear (or whatever) of the KKK as late as this century. But you go ahead and believe what fantasy you want to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 15, 2020 17:40:30 GMT
Yes.. Freed by Progressives from the hands of Conservatives.. .. Otherwise known as American History. LMAO... there were no progressives in the 1800s. And the party that would adapt progressive values fought against freeing the slaves and even praised the grand Pooh bear (or whatever) of the KKK as late as this century. But you go ahead and believe what fantasy you want to believe. There's this thing called U.S. History .. You should read some .. It might help to keep you from posting idiotic comments like that^ one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 17:52:43 GMT
LMAO... there were no progressives in the 1800s. And the party that would adapt progressive values fought against freeing the slaves and even praised the grand Pooh bear (or whatever) of the KKK as late as this century. But you go ahead and believe what fantasy you want to believe. There's this thing called U.S. History .. You should read some .. It might help to keep you from posting idiotic comments like that^ one. Everything I said was factual. Prove me wrong. Democrats supported the south in the civil war. Democrats switched to a more progressive platform with Teddy Roosevelt. Democrats praised Sen. Bird at his funeral in 2010 and he was the highest leader of the KKK at one point in his life. Can you disprove even one of those claims? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 18:24:12 GMT
And still you have nothing to show that "support of the institution of slavery" was the motivator for more than a small fraction of Southerners from 1787 forward. It was certainly not the primary motivator during the war. Primary motivator for whom? If you're referring to the hillbillies and rednecks - the people who had to be conscripted into the fight - then yeah, it wasn't a motivator for them. It was the motivator for the elites, who led the South into secession and war. So, I'm not sure what your point is. That some poor crackers were forced to fight and die for a rich man's cause? Same as it ever was. You should have read it. He quoted original sources which talk explicitly about the threat to slavery, which was linked to the Nullification Crisis. But then, we've seen how you deal with original sources throughout this thread - dismissing them out of hand. This demonstrates a complete dismissal of the debates, articles, letters, and other original sources which clearly show otherwise. The ignorant pejoratives "hillbillies and rednecks" are a stupidly false way to refer to the 94% of Southerners who owned no slaves. And no, you don't force 94% of the population to fight a war unless the cause was something else. Southerners fought for the same reason that the elites did and it was NOT about slavery, but about the invasion of their homes and the authoritarian demands of the North that the South yield to their illegal federal control. Nothing more or less.
I did read all of Latner's words available at the link that you provided, and he did not show direct links between slavery and nullification. I do dismiss desperate attempts to invent and imagine connections where none exist, as I did in this case.
And don't speak to me of some fictional "complete dismissal" on my part when all you've done is latch onto that magic word "SLAVERY" and ignore all of the real issues that caused the conflict. These Northern apologists seem to have no tolerance for any information that might reveal the North as the real villain of the era. If you had an overwhelming plethora of "debates, articles, letters, and other original sources", I would not have been able to so effectively counter the propaganda thrown my way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 18:47:00 GMT
The lack of trust based on the North's betrayal of their constitutional obligations WAS the core issue, not slavery. Tariffs and the ability of states to judge constitutionality (nullification) were the primary drivers of the mistrust in 1833, not slavery. In both cases, tariffs and slavery were symptoms of the larger issues between the regions. In the South, there was respect for the Founders vision of a compact of states delegating a very limited role to the federal government to manage certain affairs that the individual states deemed to be collective needs....AND NOTHING MORE. The North favored the Hamiltonian nightmare of far more centralization and control so that more could be siphoned to their economic interests.
It was allows about dueling visions of government and economic power. Saying it was about slavery has always been agitprop to hide the greed for power that drove the Northern cause since 1787.
I think there is a sliver of truth to this characterization about the North and South favoring different economic systems. We could say this was probably 20% of the divide. An incidental but real dispute. But the lion's share of the dispute (80%+) was about slavery or issues tangential to slavery such as "state's rights" or "sovereignty." The lack of trust that had built up over the years tells us why the Corwin Amendment failed to stop the civil war. Its certainly no evidence that slavery wasn't an issue. Only a fool would believe that! I never said that slavery wasn't AN issue, but one of many and not the primary reason for the rift. And I've said that slavery was the tipping point, but the cause was the betrayal of the North in adhering to its Constitutional responsibilities. If you sign a contract and the other party repeatedly violates that agreement, is it the nature of the violation that is the dividing issue or the fact that your partner can't be trusted?
If you have anything to back up that "80%_+" nonsense, let's see it. You claim that most of the South Carolina Declaration of Causes is about slavery, rather than the 20% as previously shown, but all you do is post the same extract that shows part of that 20%.
And you can't have it both ways. Corwin was ALL about slavery, which you claim is all the South was concerned about; its protections went way beyond anything that the South was demanding, yet it was ignored by the South because the fight was not about slavery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 18:57:09 GMT
This "sovereignty" issue turns on the right to have property in slaves. And the states' rights concerns are about the Fugitive Slave Act and how its it not being enforced. "Turns on the right..." sound like the tipping point that I mentioned earlier. Slavery was the fuse, the tipping point the final straw, and a symptom of the disease but it was NOT the cause of the fight.
The North didn't care if they left every slave in chains; Corwin proved that and it proved that slavery was not threatened in 1861. With that fact in hand, how could it have been the primary cause? No threat, no cause.
Ironic that you would select goofball Cousin Eddie from Christmas vacation as your "messenger". Are you actually looking to be taken seriously after Cousin Eddie?
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 15, 2020 19:07:56 GMT
The ignorant pejoratives "hillbillies and rednecks" are a stupidly false way to refer to the 94% of Southerners who owned no slaves. Uh-huh This is an incredibly specious argument. One, conscription in the Confederacy was a fact, as well as allowing slave owners to purchase their way out of conscription, so poor whites - and yes, they were referred to (even by themselves) as hillbillies, rednecks, crackers, etc. - were forced to fight for a rich man's cause (I'm a proud descendant of some of that poor white trash who was forced to fight). There sure weren't a lot volunteering to go (hence why conscription was necessary in the first place). Second, no one said or claimed "94% of the Southern population was forced for fight." Do you need the page numbers where the original sources were quoted? Slavery was the issue. You're trying to rationalize that away by ignoring the history and the original sources. You haven't effectively countered anything; you just ignore it, try to rationalize it away, or dismiss as 'Northern apology.' |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 15, 2020 19:15:44 GMT
There's this thing called U.S. History .. You should read some .. It might help to keep you from posting idiotic comments like that^ one. Everything I said was factual. Prove me wrong. Democrats supported the south in the civil war. Democrats switched to a more progressive platform with Teddy Roosevelt. Democrats praised Sen. Bird at his funeral in 2010 and he was the highest leader of the KKK at one point in his life. Can you disprove even one of those claims? First that a very simplistic understanding of party platforms.. Second you're moving the goal posts .. You said that there were no Progressives in the 1800s.. That is of course patently false. Mid 19th century Northern Free Soilers, Whigs and Northern Liberal Democrats formed the Republican Party. They pushed for an expansion of federal power used to prevent the expansion of slavery in new states among other goals. Southern Conservative Democrats deeply opposed the federal expansion.. HATED the prohibition of slavery in new Western states and in a dozen or more official state documents named this objection to the expansion of slavery as core to their acts of secession. There was a brief time that Republicans and Democrats both were enticing voters with big government ideas and populist plans. It's not until William Jennings Bryan that we begin to see the Democrats focus on social justice issues and shortly after the turn of the century we see such Progressive platform from Democrats..
You can whine about that until you turn blue but those are the facts.. and if you had ever actually read accounts from that period you'd know.
~~~~~
Yes.. You guys love to bring up Byrd.. I recently had to slap some sense into RWB about this very thing.
Byrd was elected as Conservative democrat... a thing you and P say cannot exist.. He left office a Moderate Democrat. But then we know that to you only Republicans are allowed to change their beliefs..
During his early days in the Senate—he was elected with the 1958 crop of Democrats who profited from President Eisenhower’s decline in popularity—Byrd took mostly easy, conservative positions. He railed against welfare cheaters and voted against major civil rights legislation, including the 1964 law; he came to have an unbroken record as a hawk on the Vietnam war and related international issues. He denounced student protesters and, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, took his turn worshipping at the altar of J. Edgar Hoover, even after the FBI director’s performance had begun to slip.
But by the time his senior colleague from West Virginia, Jennings Randolph, an old-time New Dealer, nominated him for whip when the Democratic caucus convened in 1971, Byrd had metamorphosed into a moderate and had enough progressive votes on his record—including support for open housing and gun control—to be acceptable across the spectrum. It amazes me that in this day and age we still have people that are so steadfastly tribal and ignorant of history as to reject out of hand the fact that Conservative and Republican or Liberal and Democrat are NOT interchangeable terms. I'll ask you the same question RWB ran away from .. Realizing that this will really put a strain the few brain cells still in your possession .. Just how does that work .. ? How does a Liberal.. someone who believes in civil rights and human rights.. believes in equal opportunities.. believes in secularism .. become a member of a Christian, segregationist movement .. ? |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 15, 2020 19:21:10 GMT
Primary motivator for whom? If you're referring to the hillbillies and rednecks - the people who had to be conscripted into the fight - then yeah, it wasn't a motivator for them. It was the motivator for the elites, who led the South into secession and war. So, I'm not sure what your point is. That some poor crackers were forced to fight and die for a rich man's cause? Same as it ever was. You should have read it. He quoted original sources which talk explicitly about the threat to slavery, which was linked to the Nullification Crisis. But then, we've seen how you deal with original sources throughout this thread - dismissing them out of hand. This demonstrates a complete dismissal of the debates, articles, letters, and other original sources which clearly show otherwise. 94% of Southerners who owned no slaves.
Yes.. I agreed with you some time ago that Grandmothers and toddlers seldom owned slaves..
On the other hand .. 49% of the families in Mississippi owned slaves.
Oops .. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 19:39:50 GMT
Everything I said was factual. Prove me wrong. Democrats supported the south in the civil war. Democrats switched to a more progressive platform with Teddy Roosevelt. Democrats praised Sen. Bird at his funeral in 2010 and he was the highest leader of the KKK at one point in his life. Can you disprove even one of those claims? First that a very simplistic understanding of party platforms.. Second you're moving the goal posts .. You said that there were no Progressives in the 1800s.. That is of course patently false. Mid 19th century Northern Free Soilers, Whigs and Northern Liberal Democrats formed the Republican Party. They pushed for an expansion of federal power used to prevent the expansion of slavery in new states among other goals. Southern Conservative Democrats deeply opposed the federal expansion.. HATED the prohibition of slavery in new Western states and in a dozen or more official state documents named this objection to the expansion of slavery as core to their acts of secession. There was a brief time that Republicans and Democrats both were enticing voters with big government ideas and populist plans. It's not until William Jennings Bryan that we begin to see the Democrats focus on social justice issues and shortly after the turn of the century we see such Progressive platform from Democrats..
You can whine about that until you turn blue but those are the facts.. and if you had ever actually read accounts from that period you'd know.
~~~~~
Yes.. You guys love to bring up Byrd.. I recently had to slap some sense into RWB about this very thing.
Byrd was elected as Conservative democrat... a thing you and P say cannot exist.. He left office a Moderate Democrat. But then we know that to you only Republicans are allowed to change their beliefs..
During his early days in the Senate—he was elected with the 1958 crop of Democrats who profited from President Eisenhower’s decline in popularity—Byrd took mostly easy, conservative positions. He railed against welfare cheaters and voted against major civil rights legislation, including the 1964 law; he came to have an unbroken record as a hawk on the Vietnam war and related international issues. He denounced student protesters and, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, took his turn worshipping at the altar of J. Edgar Hoover, even after the FBI director’s performance had begun to slip.
But by the time his senior colleague from West Virginia, Jennings Randolph, an old-time New Dealer, nominated him for whip when the Democratic caucus convened in 1971, Byrd had metamorphosed into a moderate and had enough progressive votes on his record—including support for open housing and gun control—to be acceptable across the spectrum. It amazes me that in this day and age we still have people that are so steadfastly tribal and ignorant of history as to reject out of hand the fact that Conservative and Republican or Liberal and Democrat are NOT interchangeable terms. I'll ask you the same question RWB ran away from .. Realizing that this will really put a strain the few brain cells still in your possession .. Just how does that work .. ? How does a Liberal.. someone who believes in civil rights and human rights.. believes in equal opportunities.. believes in secularism .. become a member of a Christian, segregationist movement .. ? 1. You didn't counter anything I said. 2. Your question's premise is false, therefore there is no answer to your question. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 15, 2020 19:54:25 GMT
1. You didn't counter anything I said. Of course I did.. Look.. Paleo already has the "Deny all the facts" shtick going on and just look at the embarrassment he's suffering from it . .. Besides .. you're not nearly as good at it as he is.. but then who is.? 2. Your question's premise is false, therefore there is no answer to your question. No.. It absolutely isn't a "false question" (whatever the fuck that is) .. Seriously.. One of you far-right pseudo-historians tell us how a LIBERAL Klansman works .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 19:59:44 GMT
I think there is a sliver of truth to this characterization about the North and South favoring different economic systems. We could say this was probably 20% of the divide. An incidental but real dispute. But the lion's share of the dispute (80%+) was about slavery or issues tangential to slavery such as "state's rights" or "sovereignty." The lack of trust that had built up over the years tells us why the Corwin Amendment failed to stop the civil war. Its certainly no evidence that slavery wasn't an issue. Only a fool would believe that! I never said that slavery wasn't AN issue, but one of many and not the primary reason for the rift. And I've said that slavery was the tipping point, but the cause was the betrayal of the North in adhering to its Constitutional responsibilities. If you sign a contract and the other party repeatedly violates that agreement, is it the nature of the violation that is the dividing issue or the fact that your partner can't be trusted?
If you have anything to back up that "80%_+" nonsense, let's see it. You claim that most of the South Carolina Declaration of Causes is about slavery, rather than the 20% as previously shown, but all you do is post the same extract that shows part of that 20%.
And you can't have it both ways. Corwin was ALL about slavery, which you claim is all the South was concerned about; its protections went way beyond anything that the South was demanding, yet it was ignored by the South because the fight was not about slavery.
Slavery was the main issue. The discussion of state's rights, sovereignty and all that is nothing but an argument about slavery. I do acknowledge that there were other issues but they were incidental to the issue of slavery. You can't read the South Carolina document and come away thinking slavery was only 20% of the disagreement. The whole document is about slavery. Your logic about the Corwin amendment has already been dealt with. The fight had devolved past the point of a legislative fix. The fight WAS about slavery and nothing about the Corwin amendment's fate calls that conclusion into question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 0:28:38 GMT
1. You didn't counter anything I said. Of course I did.. Look.. Paleo already has the "Deny all the facts" shtick going on and just look at the embarrassment he's suffering from it . .. Besides .. you're not nearly as good at it as he is.. but then who is.? 2. Your question's premise is false, therefore there is no answer to your question. No.. It absolutely isn't a "false question" (whatever the fuck that is) .. Seriously.. One of you far-right pseudo-historians tell us how a LIBERAL Klansman works .. You really shouldn't make such claims of superiority when you are so blatantly wrong: 1. The "Progressive Era" started in 1896...technically the 1800's, but not the Civil War era as you are trying to claim. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era2. Democrats actually supported slavery: www.history.com/topics/us-politics/democratic-party3. Democrats praised Senator Byrd, the leader of the KKK. www.bbc.com/news/104972544. The false premise of the question is the implication that Democrats of the 1800's were liberal and that the movement for slavery was a religious one. The top half of that absurd premise is that liberals existed in America in the 1800's. Just like modern progressives, there were no modern liberal democrats in the 1800's. I told you before, they were more libertarian leaning than liberal or conservative. The bottom half of that absurd premise is that Christianity drove slavery. Slavery was driven by economics. Some did try to justify their hatred by using select passages from the Bible, but the actions of some don't define a group...right? Right. As I said, you didn't counter anything I said and your question was based on false premises. You were and are blatantly wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 12:54:47 GMT
The ignorant pejoratives "hillbillies and rednecks" are a stupidly false way to refer to the 94% of Southerners who owned no slaves. Uh-huh This is an incredibly specious argument. One, conscription in the Confederacy was a fact, as well as allowing slave owners to purchase their way out of conscription, so poor whites - and yes, they were referred to (even by themselves) as hillbillies, rednecks, crackers, etc. - were forced to fight for a rich man's cause (I'm a proud descendant of some of that poor white trash who was forced to fight). There sure weren't a lot volunteering to go (hence why conscription was necessary in the first place). Second, no one said or claimed "94% of the Southern population was forced for fight." Do you need the page numbers where the original sources were quoted? Slavery was the issue. You're trying to rationalize that away by ignoring the history and the original sources. You haven't effectively countered anything; you just ignore it, try to rationalize it away, or dismiss as 'Northern apology.' 1) Yes, conscription was a fact of life in both armies, but that doesn't diminish the fighting intensity and commitment of the typical Confederate. And you just made a point of mine; owners of 20 or more slaves WERE able to buy there way out, which means that the VAST majority of those who fought so well for the South were non slave owners and were obviously motivated by something else. Oops. And more than half of the 750,000 Confederates were volunteers, so don't pretend that they all had to be conscripted.
2) If you want to post anything from Latner's, I'll destroy them in the order that they are received.
3) Slavery was not the "issue", but a symptom of the issue. Like TL, you've gone into this with a preconceived conclusion based on the Big Brother approved propaganda and ignore all the of the clear evidence to the contrary that I have provided. Folks in the "SLAVERY is the only answer!" cult would rather have a 2D comic book cutout villain so they don't actually have to think about the complexities of the era and the conflict. It shatters their narrative to learn that the Confederates might have had a legitimate cause that was not slavery. The cultists feel even worse when they find out that unilateral secession was legal.
4) And yes, I have effectively countered everything here, whether you get that or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 13:31:03 GMT
Slavery was the main issue. The discussion of state's rights, sovereignty and all that is nothing but an argument about slavery. I do acknowledge that there were other issues but they were incidental to the issue of slavery. You can't read the South Carolina document and come away thinking slavery was only 20% of the disagreement. The whole document is about slavery. Your logic about the Corwin amendment has already been dealt with. The fight had devolved past the point of a legislative fix. The fight WAS about slavery and nothing about the Corwin amendment's fate calls that conclusion into question. No, slavery was not the main issue. Slavery was nothing more than a controversial component under the LARGER issues of state's rights and sovereignty. As I explained to Demos, you've gone into this with a preconceived conclusion based on the Big Brother approved propaganda, which requires that all the of the clear evidence to the contrary that I have provided must be ignored. Folks in the "SLAVERY is the only answer!" cult would rather have a 2D comic book cutout villain so they don't actually have to think about the complexities of the era and the conflict. It shatters their narrative to learn that the Confederates might have had a legitimate cause that was not slavery. The cultists feel even worse when they find out that unilateral secession was legal.
No, the South Carolina Declaration is still 20% about slavery and 80% about larger issues. If you think you can make the case, post the parts that you consider "all about slavery", but be prepared for the inevitable refutation.
As far as your attempt to minimize the impact of Corwin, no war had started in March 1861 so it was not past the point of a legislative fix. Four states had not yet seceded, including Virginia, so the future was still very uncertain. And, as Demos helped me prove, the fight was NOT about slavery. It's nonsensical to believe that when a bunch of starved, ragged, conscripted, hillbillies fight that long and that hard, it was all about preserving slavery when Corwin made it clear that slavery was not threatened. |
|
