And yet the south fought the civil war because of slavery.
Hope you enjoyed typing that bullshit out
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Hope you enjoyed typing that bullshit out
how much touching do you want? I've been slapping you in the face with it. Why don't you deal with what Lincoln said in entirety. He said he fought the war to preserve the Union and ONLY to preserve the Union. He said he did NOT prosecute the war to affect slavery AT ALL. Let's stop right there and see if you have an actuial non-idiotic comeback to that.
Don't come back with but but but why did he need to bullshit. He DIDN"T need to, he he chose to, and he chose for reasons that were not to affect slavery.
Of course he was an abolitionist, blah blah blah. That is irrelevant. The only thing relevant here is what the man who made the war gave as the reason.
The south seceded largely due to slavery. The South fought the war not because of slavery...they already had slavery...but because the North waged war against it. And the North waged war NOT BECAUSE OF SLAVERY BUT BECAUSE OF SECESSION. DUH.
Hope you enjoyed ignoring the facts so you can continue blathering cluelessly.
Old arguments deserve old answers
Just click on it. It’ll work
Works been done for me because your contention is, well, as old as the lost cause itself. In fact its so commonly used its the first thing he addresses.
Its fully sourced. You’re welcome
The south armed itself months before hand and shot the first shot. You would think youd know this?
Oh but I thought you said secession doesnt matter? Which one is it? Every state citied slavery as the reason they left.
So, BY YOUR LOGIC if this north fought because of secession and the south seceded because of slavery (which is indisputable as they did not leave it open to interpretation) then the war was fought over slavery.
You’re bad at this bro.
again, you are not dealing with the simple facts. I don't care about endless and time-worn rationalizations. I am challenging you to rebut the fact that Lincoln plainly said he was prosecuting the war ONLY to preserve the Union. And here's something you might try to comprehend. NO ONE knows what Lincoln had in mind more than Lincoln himself.
no shit Sherlock. Secession wasn't accomplished overnight. You know who else was armed and ready? The North. Of course there was talk of war over secession and of course the South made itself ready for what was threatened. And you say I'm bad at this? You don't even have a clue what's being argued.
And BTW, they fired the first shot but the North was the first agressor for refusing to vacate what South Carolina claimed to be theirs. The North occupying Fort Sumter was an act of war, as far as SC was concerned. That's a wash at worst.
are you retarded? I mean honestly, are you? I said secession is what DID matter as to the reason the war was fought, and the reason the war was fought is what we are supposed to be arguing. Repeatedly, I've been pounding that into your thick skull. You are too simple to understand that you're mixing two different ideas. Slavery was largely why the Confederate States seceded. There did not have to be any war due to secession or anything else. But Lincoln chose to wage war, and he chose to do so over secession and not slavery. There was no war caused by slavery.
your sense of logic is laughable. I hit Tom. Tom cried. Billy shot Tom because he doesn't like crying. Therefor I caused Tom to get shot. That about right? LMAO.
dude, you just plain suck.
I literally gave you you pages of citied material that addresses that. Glad I
What other source would you like? Or are you only going to believe what your grandpappy told you on Lee-Jackson day and try to use a single Lincoln quote as a trump card while taking out, you know, the entire context of the time?
So lets check what we have:
Lincoln literally was elected as an anti-slavery platform.
South had no legal right to leave (I’d like you to point to where thats a right, because you can’t)
South start to leave days after hes elected.
South in preparation funnels federal arms stockpiles to the south.
South fires to first shot.
So the south left, prepared and shot the first shot because of slavery.
Then you say:
But Lincoln said he wanted to preserve the Union then DISREGARD the entire notion of WHY he had to do that.
I’ve listed sourced material but that doesnt matter. It also doesnt matter that every reputable institution of higher learning agrees with my point. It doesn’t matter that 99.9% of modern historians agree with me.
It doesnt matter that you dont know the history of the lost cause.
What it comes down to is you DONT WANT it to be about slavery. Which is ****ing weird.
I could give you well sourced material in a 20 minute video- but that doesn’t matter to you either.
Why are you bias’ so ridiculous that you will ignore every expert and the ****ing primary sources? These guys wrote in English and they wrote prolifically.
You need to do some soul searching
Last edited:
Ft sumter was federal property. Like every other military base.
Theres also about 6/7 other instances of southern attacks afterwards. But you dont know that do you?
What was theeatened?
Their right to keep slaves? Expanding the institution to new states so keep their power in Congress in order to preserve the institution?
Right
Explain to me how you/tom/billy is a metaphor for the civil war.
You realize that quote from Lincoln has an ending right? And that he already had drafted the emancipation proclamation when it was published?
“I have here stated my purpose according to my according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
Yes, the President’s most pressing official concern is keeping the Union intact. The Union wasnt intact because of slavery.
You’re wrong. Your grandpappy was wrong. And your great great grandpappy fought to keep people enslaved as his primary motivation.
No amount of apologia will change it
there was one man responsible for waging the war on the North side, and that was Lincoln. You can 'context' all you want to, but it will not erase what the man himself declared, and what he seriously meant.
And you just continue to supply factoids irrelevant to what is being argued. Blah blah blah. Lincoln was anti-slavery. Who said that? Oh yeah, I said that. I said that sarcastically to exemplify the irrelevant.
"South had no legal right to leave (I’d like you to point to where thats a right, because you can’t)".
Jebus dude, tyou really do suck at this. I can't point to what doesn't exist. A State's right to stay was the purpose of the Union. The right to leave was not addressed and therefor not prohibited. For the second time, I challenge you to show me language counter to this. Show me the verbiage making it unlawful for a State to leave the Union.
"South start to leave days after hes elected."
again, just more irrelvancy that pertains to why the South seceded and not why the war was fought.
"South in preparation funnels federal arms stockpiles to the south."
in preparation for threatened war. Where do you show that slavery is pertinent to preparing for possible hostility?
"South fires to first shot"
North agresses first, as pointed out in a different post....and again has nothing to do with slavery
"So the south left, prepared and shot the first shot because of slavery."
LMAO. That's quite some leap you just made, completely unfounded and dumb as hell. The firing of a shot was a defensive act of war, not an act of slavery.
"Then you say:
But Lincoln said he wanted to preserve the Union then DISREGARD the entire notion of WHY he had to do that."
YOU disregard the obvious and you do so time after time. And you act like I haven't tried to pound that obviousness into your backward head. I have not disregarded Lincoln's reason. I have not disregarded anything pertinent. I have only disregarded the irrelevant crap you keep repeating. I have CLOBBERED your dumb ass with what pertains and you just refuse to address it..
Lincoln did not have to do anything. But he wanted to preserve the Union and that's why the war was fought.
" I’ve listed sourced material but that doesnt matter. It also doesnt matter that every reputable institution of higher learning agrees with my point. It doesn’t matter that 99.9% of modern historians agree with me."
What matters are the facts, not opinions. I am supplying facts and you just keep deflecting instead of dealing with them objectively. I agree that more opinions align with yours, but there are OBJECTIVE opinions that align with me. But I don't try to arm myself with the opinions of others, I can think for myself. You should try it.
"It doesnt matter that you dont know the history of the lost cause."
I know more than you apparently do, and once more, what you reference is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
"What it comes down to is you DONT WANT it to be able slavery. Which is ****ing weird."
No, it's actually that you DO want it to be about slavery so bad that you can't separate simple notions. I have no problem dealing with the issue of slavery in all aspects, and objectively. We can do that if you care to. Believe it or not, I don't own slaves and don't want to. But what we are talking about is why the war was fought. Slavery was an issue of the time, no doubt about it. It just wasn't the issue that made Lincoln fight the war.
"I could give you well sourced material in a 20 minute video- but that doesn’t matter to you either."
if it doesn't supply material that factually supports your contentiion, of course I have no use for it. But that being said, in a previous discussion here I supplied a video that explained exactly what I am trying to convey to you. And that doesn't matter to you because you have a niotion lodged in your head and nothing is going to dislodge it. That's your shortcoming, not mine.
"Why are you bias’ so ridiculous that you will ignore every expert and the ****ing primary sources? These guys wrote in English and they wrote prolifically."
I am biased by the facts. That is what I refuse to ignore. All I care about is the simple truth of a matter. I don't care about your stupid 'lost cause' bullshit or any of that nonsense. I have to laugh at you calling ME biased when you have to resort to that kind of weak retort. It's like you've been thoroughly indoctrinated with 'what's easy to believe'.
"You need to do some soul searching"
I've done more soul-searching than you can even imagine. That's why I'm so passionate about the truth. The truth talks, your cookie-cutter bullshit opinion walks.
what was threatened? Seriously? WAR was threatened. DUH. I think you're tapped out here. Why don't you go somewhere and rest what little gray matter you haven't killed off.
The succession of the states could lead to Marshall law enforced by the gazpacho police. The chinese we fought in ww2 when we stormed the communists at Normandy invented the covid flu in a peach tree dish to control us in grocery store isles and the pedophile alligator people cloned themselves intwo dem o crap gubnors to shut down our economy and sew division. That’s what happens when you disobey the constitution by refusing to put you’re hand on the Bible when sworn in. Meanwhile the Dutch from Denmark are laughing at us.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I thought I might be dealing with someone with a bit of intelligence. What I supllied was an exercise in logic. Let me try this. Do you think I'm responsible for Billy shooting Tom? Does it matter why I hit Tom? Hopefully you can see I'm not responsible for his shooting and why I hit him is immaterial.. If you can't see it, we're just going to have to be done because I don't want to discuss with an actual moron.
So say slavery makes the South secede. Lincoln doesn't like slavery much but what he can't tolerate at all is secession. Therefor Lincoln fights against secession. Show me where slavery is somehow responsible for Lincoln fighting against secession.
Still don't get it? Now substitute apricots for slavery.
Apricots makes the South secede because there have been rumblings that no apriciots will be allowed in new territories. The South likes them but the North not so much. Lincoln doesn't like apricots much himself but what he can't tolerate at all is secession. Therefore Lincoln fights against secession and makes it plain that this is his only contention and that it isn't about apricots. Did apricots make Lincoln fight against secession? Or did secession itself make him fight secession just like he said? This ain't exactly rocket surgery. There being a prejudice against apricots on one side and a love of them on the other is immaterial. It was the act of seceding for WHATEVER REASON or no particular reeason at all that the conflict was over.
It doesn't matter why the South seceded, at least as far as causing the war is concerned...it was secession itself that was the problem. As I demonstrated earlier, had there not even been any issue of slavery, but the South seceded for other reasons, THERE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN A WAR because it was about the secession and not whatever caused the secession. Maybe they were just doing it for shits and giggles. Same result.
This is not a defense of slavery. This is not an apology for the South having slavery. This isn't abouit some idiotic 'lost cause'. I don't give a shit about slavery one way or the other, as long as it doesn't exist any more. It's just an interesting historical reality.
What I care about is truth and knowledge, not some emotional and illogical mindfvck because some article said so.
Back to the barebone basics. One part of a country separates itself from the other part, the main, original part. The leader of the original part doesn't like that the one part left, so he takes measures to reconnect the two. That's all. Everything else is just noise, and some people can't think their way through it. Jesus Christ.
historical scholarship is a real bite-in-the-ass for people who defend and praise the enemies of the United States.
Was kinda hoping my Simpsons clip would stop this argument before it started again, for the 74 time, but I guess not. Maybe I'll just check back in around October when you guys might be finished.
I'm pretty sure I'm no more in favor of my tax dollars going to causes for "the irresponsible" than you are. What makes you think you know anything about me beyond the obvious fact that I'm not a miserable and bitter has-been in life like you?
It's not forgotten... which is what started this newest resurrection of the discussion. It's a lie that American society is in universal agreement about why it was fought, and lost, and thus still an issue in the modern day. It's never "over", either. It's never over because people still try to perpetuate the Lost Cause revision that started as soon as the war ended. The South lost the war, but it won the peace. The traitorous South lost the war, knew that their government and military fought to preserve the institution, and realized it was extinct. It's necessary to make excuses when it becomes clear that your cause (and identity) was abhorrent and the cost of that loss was so high. Fictional bullshit that started at UDC meetings, Confederate veterans reunions, and erecting statues glorifying the slave-owners, in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Birth Of A Nation, Gone With The Wind gave it even more fuel through cinema. The centennial and resistance to civil rights in the 1960s kept it going strong. Only in the last 10 years, maybe, has the Lost Cause begun finally begun to burn out.
Me: writes post about not wanting to talk about this for the 74 time
@strummingram : responds with short story about the argument
lol, while logic, reason, and just plain common sense befuddles those who seek to identify and create causes to take heroic little stances for. Virtue-signaling is what matters in life. Sometimes they even post videos because they can't express thoughts of their own.. Where's George Carlin? Evidently George Carlin died before he touched on the subject of slavery.
^^^^^ tries to point out supposedly off-target presumption regarding him by being presumptuous himself. Brilliant.
it's all good, but skip to 3:00 for related content. Gawd these people are dumb too, I guess. Somehow they make sense though.
The only thing Biden has said, in a letter that we have no idea if he actually wrote any of it or even actually signed it, is: "I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term." So, no mention of ANY condition, be it mental incompetence, incontinence, or a desire to sit on a beach in Delaware (which is suddenly and without any warning a complete and opposite 180 of everything he has been telling all of us).
What he does do is list his party first and our country second. No truer, inadvertent admission could ever have occurred. He basically said "I'm getting my ass handed to me, all the donors have stopped donating, and, according to the polling, we are going to lose not only my seat but both houses. So, to cut our losses and limit the bleeding, I'm gonna withdraw despite the fact that we rigged the system to ensure that I'd win the primaries without significant challenge and, despite the fact that everyone including the press has been lying to you, I am a mental mess. By the way, we are going to anoint Cackles as my successor for the next eight years and if you don't support and vote for her, you are a racist and/or misogynist."
Ok, so he really only said that first sentence. I just added the rest of it for truth telling purposes. But, I do wonder how you get these talking points and can be so consistent as the rest of the dem media.
"Gawd your dumb."
Please don't.Don't worry your conservative little mind. My wife and I are fully prepared to be parents without government assistance if that is in the cards.
Anyone know where Joe is?
Is there a reason he couldn't come to the front porch of his beach house and wave to the undoubtedly assembled group of photographers who follow him constantly? At least TMZ?
Honestly, he sounded fine on the phone with Cackles yesterday, he can't walk outside and say hello, that he is improving but needs a few more days to resume his normal "rigorous" schedule?
He's our president. Isn't it incumbent on him to be seen by someone with regularity?
Is there a reason he couldn't come to the front porch of his beach house and wave to the undoubtedly assembled group of photographers who follow him constantly? At least TMZ?
Honestly, he sounded fine on the phone with Cackles yesterday, he can't walk outside and say hello, that he is improving but needs a few more days to resume his normal "rigorous" schedule?
He's our president. Isn't it incumbent on him to be seen by someone with regularity?
Hahaha. It sounds like you are aging days by the minute.
I love all this stuff about him not being visible since putting out the message 2 days ago while getting over an illness.
And I love all this stuff ignoring the actual nuances and details of how the DNC delegate/nomination process works. "AnNoinTed! $#%#" lol.
Its almost like you didnt read anything. Plenty of primary sources there for you.
I’m still waiting in the proof that states had the right to leave. You wont be able to find it because it doesnt exist- its a real lost cause, get it?
Why does every reputable institution of higher learning teach it my way? Didnt address that either. Unless you mean to say essentially every reputable historian that covers the civil war are just peddling opinions and only YOU know the “fact”- all the while ignoring primary sources.
“Defensive first shot” LOL
Now its blatantly obvious you didn’t go to UNC but I’m having a hard time believing you went to any college.
Did your soul searching happen while you were under a white robe?
You are seriously whats wrong with this country. Confident ignorance
They are just upset because their party runs campaigns against the other candidate instead of for their candidate.
Even if Biden just died on the spot it changes literally nothing.
I cant wait for the absolute meltdown when Harris wins
Its almost like he brought it up. Y’all just virtue signal for the shittiest causes.
Just find it rather weird that he allegedly produced a letter on personal stationary, with a differing signature, withdrawing from the re-election effort that he has been adamant about - until he wasn't. All this time, effort, money, elections, appearances and he's 100% in. Then he's 100% out due to the "interests" of his party. Can you not admit the conflict there?
He makes a phone call to a Kamala campaign appearance to some election person and Kamala's not even present (in the video as opposed to being off stage somewhere). He sounded fine, which is a good thing as I don't wish ill on the man personally. But he can't even show his face and wave? You can't argue that's normal.
As to how the process works, there is a word that comes to mind: Hypocrite. Even yesterday, Joe wants to claim that Trump is a threat to our democracy, yet those same concepts and all those primary voters don't seem to apply to him and the D's. Oh, now I get it. Different rules for Trump. Seems consistent with your approach.
You need to look in a mirror someday. Are you sure you don't have some confusion, because you literally just described the entire Harris/Biden campaign.
You've never posted a more accurate statement. It's literally the same shitty policies and agenda, except she doesn't have senility as an excuse for being taken advantage of.
If she wins, there will be a meltdown, but I don't think it's in the form you are expecting.
Just find it rather weird that he allegedly produced a letter on personal stationary, with a differing signature, withdrawing from the re-election effort that he has been adamant about - until he wasn't. All this time, effort, money, elections, appearances and he's 100% in. Then he's 100% out due to the "interests" of his party. Can you not admit the conflict there?
You realize a primary and a national election are completely different things right? Trump tries to block an election where he lost by millions of votes does not equate to a candidate stepping down.
Also, please point to me, in any philosophical or legal context that direct participation in a parties primary is fundamental to democracy?
You realize a primary and a national election are completely different things right? Trump tries to block an election where he lost by millions of votes does not equate to a candidate stepping down.
Also, please point to me, in any philosophical or legal context that direct participation in a parties primary is fundamental to democracy?
What meltdown is that?
Do y’all really think the left isn’t armed? Do you think a bunch of hillbillies with AR15s can do much of anything?
Imagine spending a small fortune on guns and ammo to be blown up by an 18 year old flying a $500 drone.
Well, how about you first admitting the fundamental basis of the entire discussion is flawed because no one is a threat to democracy since what we have is a Constitutional republic? And as such, the entire campaign smear and use of phrases and words like existential threat to democracy is simply treats for the sheep.
You seem to be forgetting when Trump called for the suspension of the Constitution because he lost.
Would you like me to link it for you?
