Prager University says that _____ was the cause of the Civil War

And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union. If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?

Because it wasn't about slavery, it was about the protectionist tariffs, the Homestead Acts, and the railroad subsidies, along with all the other Federal projects that would benefit the Midwest and other northern states to the exclusion of the southern states. Jake knows that, he's just a big crybaby and likes to think he had something to do with it all if he babbles about 'slavery n stuff' a hundred and fifty years later or something. He has no real acheivements in life so he needs to make up some.
South Carolina said it was about slavery...

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. . . .

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved....


Declaration of Causes of Secession


In fact, the word, slave, appears in their declaration of secession 20 times. "Tariff?" Zero.

So why on Earth should anyone b'lieve an Internet goofball like you, who's trying to rewrite history, over them?

Why does a goofball like you think they know anything? They seceded over the introduction of the Morill Tariff Act being introduced to Congress, and saw it was going to pass. They also knew the Homestead Act and the Railroad Acts were going to pass; no reason to stay. Whether some modern era snowflakes like that or not is just too bad. In the 1862 elections Lincoln's faction only held on by the barest of margins, due entirely to his military control of the ballot boxes in the border states; his faction lost votes all over the Midwest and Atlantic states because many voters thought he was going to free the slaves and allow them to immigrate north and they would have to compete with cheap black labor. The South had already won all the Supreme Court battles over slavery, so it's just stupid to claim NC seceded over slavery; until Buchanan attempted to enforce his blockade at Sumter no other states seceded, after Sumter more states seveded, and after Lincoln deliberately copied Buchanan the rest seceded.

And again no one can claim secession was illegal, and can't show otherwise. Lincoln deliberately started a war, with an act of war.
LOLOL

I quoted South Carolina stating slavery was their big issue. Argue with them. :lol:

Don't need to; too much evidence to the contrary, and there is nothing you can do to change that, except suffer and try to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody. They were forming their own Constitution and making slavery part of their new nation; you probably aren't educated enough to see the difference between seceding to avoid being looted by northern manufacturers and bankers and moving on to make their own government platforms afterwards.

In fact it was only after news got back to New York that some of the new states were in Great Britain negotiating to ship their products directly from the South to Europe, therefore the northern cities facing losing their monopoly on shipping and finance and facing competition from much lower tariffs on foreign imports via the South that we see a sudden huge upsurge in support for Lincoln's illegal war.

Who were people in the expanding West and along the east Mississippi river networks going to buy their goods from, northern states with 200% tariiffs, or imports via New Orleans with 10%-20% tariffs?
 
And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union. If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?

Because it wasn't about slavery, it was about the protectionist tariffs, the Homestead Acts, and the railroad subsidies, along with all the other Federal projects that would benefit the Midwest and other northern states to the exclusion of the southern states. Jake knows that, he's just a big crybaby and likes to think he had something to do with it all if he babbles about 'slavery n stuff' a hundred and fifty years later or something. He has no real acheivements in life so he needs to make up some.
South Carolina said it was about slavery...

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. . . .

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved....


Declaration of Causes of Secession


In fact, the word, slave, appears in their declaration of secession 20 times. "Tariff?" Zero.

So why on Earth should anyone b'lieve an Internet goofball like you, who's trying to rewrite history, over them?

Why does a goofball like you think they know anything? They seceded over the introduction of the Morill Tariff Act being introduced to Congress, and saw it was going to pass. They also knew the Homestead Act and the Railroad Acts were going to pass; no reason to stay. Whether some modern era snowflakes like that or not is just too bad. In the 1862 elections Lincoln's faction only held on by the barest of margins, due entirely to his military control of the ballot boxes in the border states; his faction lost votes all over the Midwest and Atlantic states because many voters thought he was going to free the slaves and allow them to immigrate north and they would have to compete with cheap black labor. The South had already won all the Supreme Court battles over slavery, so it's just stupid to claim NC seceded over slavery; until Buchanan attempted to enforce his blockade at Sumter no other states seceded, after Sumter more states seveded, and after Lincoln deliberately copied Buchanan the rest seceded.

And again no one can claim secession was illegal, and can't show otherwise. Lincoln deliberately started a war, with an act of war.
LOLOL

I quoted South Carolina stating slavery was their big issue. Argue with them. :lol:

Don't need to; too much evidence to the contrary, and there is nothing you can do to change that, except suffer and try to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody. They were forming their own Constitution and making slavery part of their new nation; you probably aren't educated enough to see the difference between seceding to avoid being looted by northern manufacturers and bankers and moving on to make their own government platforms afterwards.

In fact it was only after news got back to New York that some of the new states were in Great Britain negotiating to ship their products directly from the South to Europe, therefore the northern cities facing losing their monopoly on shipping and finance and facing competition from much lower tariffs on foreign imports via the South that we see a sudden huge upsurge in support for Lincoln's illegal war.

Who were people in the expanding West and along the east Mississippi river networks going to buy their goods from, northern states with 200% tariiffs, or imports via New Orleans with 10%-20% tariffs?
LOLOL

Idiot says we should ignore South Carolina citing slavery as their primary reason for seceding and listen to him instead. :lol:
 
Because it wasn't about slavery, it was about the protectionist tariffs, the Homestead Acts, and the railroad subsidies, along with all the other Federal projects that would benefit the Midwest and other northern states to the exclusion of the southern states. Jake knows that, he's just a big crybaby and likes to think he had something to do with it all if he babbles about 'slavery n stuff' a hundred and fifty years later or something. He has no real acheivements in life so he needs to make up some.
South Carolina said it was about slavery...

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. . . .

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved....


Declaration of Causes of Secession


In fact, the word, slave, appears in their declaration of secession 20 times. "Tariff?" Zero.

So why on Earth should anyone b'lieve an Internet goofball like you, who's trying to rewrite history, over them?

Why does a goofball like you think they know anything? They seceded over the introduction of the Morill Tariff Act being introduced to Congress, and saw it was going to pass. They also knew the Homestead Act and the Railroad Acts were going to pass; no reason to stay. Whether some modern era snowflakes like that or not is just too bad. In the 1862 elections Lincoln's faction only held on by the barest of margins, due entirely to his military control of the ballot boxes in the border states; his faction lost votes all over the Midwest and Atlantic states because many voters thought he was going to free the slaves and allow them to immigrate north and they would have to compete with cheap black labor. The South had already won all the Supreme Court battles over slavery, so it's just stupid to claim NC seceded over slavery; until Buchanan attempted to enforce his blockade at Sumter no other states seceded, after Sumter more states seveded, and after Lincoln deliberately copied Buchanan the rest seceded.

And again no one can claim secession was illegal, and can't show otherwise. Lincoln deliberately started a war, with an act of war.
LOLOL

I quoted South Carolina stating slavery was their big issue. Argue with them. :lol:

Don't need to; too much evidence to the contrary, and there is nothing you can do to change that, except suffer and try to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody. They were forming their own Constitution and making slavery part of their new nation; you probably aren't educated enough to see the difference between seceding to avoid being looted by northern manufacturers and bankers and moving on to make their own government platforms afterwards.

In fact it was only after news got back to New York that some of the new states were in Great Britain negotiating to ship their products directly from the South to Europe, therefore the northern cities facing losing their monopoly on shipping and finance and facing competition from much lower tariffs on foreign imports via the South that we see a sudden huge upsurge in support for Lincoln's illegal war.

Who were people in the expanding West and along the east Mississippi river networks going to buy their goods from, northern states with 200% tariiffs, or imports via New Orleans with 10%-20% tariffs?
LOLOL

Idiot says we should ignore South Carolina citing slavery as their primary reason for seceding and listen to him instead. :lol:

lol some ignorant Snowflake doesn't like facts interfering with his historical fantasies, like most ideologues who insist on lying to schoolchildren in order to further modern ideologies. The cognitive dissonance involved make for truly hilarious absurdities. Most of the so-called 'abolitionists' in the North were in fact hardcore white nationalists, not 'freedom loving anti-racists n stuff', they wanted zero blacks in the northern states and settling in the new territories, period, including good ole Abe, and they also wanted to ship all of them back to Africa as well, but of course they can't pat themselves on the back for that so they need fake histories to go along with their fake news campaigns in the present.

They also can't admit that Lincoln and the Republican Party favored huge Federal subsidies for big business, the whole point of the massive protectionist tariffs, the railroad subsidies and its related 'Homestead Act', and the latter of course requiring a new source for funding the previous two corporate welfare programs, but never mind that stuff, they need to pretend they're 'liberators' and 'Social Justice Warriors', and they need a lot of fake history to feed schoolkids about Lincoln to do some of that. This is why ideologues right or left wing create these fake histories, after all, so they can lie about their modern fake news and motivations. They think repeating stupid lies over and over will make them 'special', but as we've seen that game has died a welcome death in the current environment.
 
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.


"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States."


Not only do they state slavery is the main purpose, they admit they see slavery as continuing forever. See similar declarations by other Confederate states.
 
South Carolina said it was about slavery...

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. . . .

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved....


Declaration of Causes of Secession


In fact, the word, slave, appears in their declaration of secession 20 times. "Tariff?" Zero.

So why on Earth should anyone b'lieve an Internet goofball like you, who's trying to rewrite history, over them?

Why does a goofball like you think they know anything? They seceded over the introduction of the Morill Tariff Act being introduced to Congress, and saw it was going to pass. They also knew the Homestead Act and the Railroad Acts were going to pass; no reason to stay. Whether some modern era snowflakes like that or not is just too bad. In the 1862 elections Lincoln's faction only held on by the barest of margins, due entirely to his military control of the ballot boxes in the border states; his faction lost votes all over the Midwest and Atlantic states because many voters thought he was going to free the slaves and allow them to immigrate north and they would have to compete with cheap black labor. The South had already won all the Supreme Court battles over slavery, so it's just stupid to claim NC seceded over slavery; until Buchanan attempted to enforce his blockade at Sumter no other states seceded, after Sumter more states seveded, and after Lincoln deliberately copied Buchanan the rest seceded.

And again no one can claim secession was illegal, and can't show otherwise. Lincoln deliberately started a war, with an act of war.
LOLOL

I quoted South Carolina stating slavery was their big issue. Argue with them. :lol:

Don't need to; too much evidence to the contrary, and there is nothing you can do to change that, except suffer and try to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody. They were forming their own Constitution and making slavery part of their new nation; you probably aren't educated enough to see the difference between seceding to avoid being looted by northern manufacturers and bankers and moving on to make their own government platforms afterwards.

In fact it was only after news got back to New York that some of the new states were in Great Britain negotiating to ship their products directly from the South to Europe, therefore the northern cities facing losing their monopoly on shipping and finance and facing competition from much lower tariffs on foreign imports via the South that we see a sudden huge upsurge in support for Lincoln's illegal war.

Who were people in the expanding West and along the east Mississippi river networks going to buy their goods from, northern states with 200% tariiffs, or imports via New Orleans with 10%-20% tariffs?
LOLOL

Idiot says we should ignore South Carolina citing slavery as their primary reason for seceding and listen to him instead. :lol:

lol some ignorant Snowflake doesn't like facts interfering with his historical fantasies, like most ideologues who insist on lying to schoolchildren in order to further modern ideologies. The cognitive dissonance involved make for truly hilarious absurdities. Most of the so-called 'abolitionists' in the North were in fact hardcore white nationalists, not 'freedom loving anti-racists n stuff', they wanted zero blacks in the northern states and settling in the new territories, period, including good ole Abe, and they also wanted to ship all of them back to Africa as well, but of course they can't pat themselves on the back for that so they need fake histories to go along with their fake news campaigns in the present.

They also can't admit that Lincoln and the Republican Party favored huge Federal subsidies for big business, the whole point of the massive protectionist tariffs, the railroad subsidies and its related 'Homestead Act', and the latter of course requiring a new source for funding the previous two corporate welfare programs, but never mind that stuff, they need to pretend they're 'liberators' and 'Social Justice Warriors', and they need a lot of fake history to feed schoolkids about Lincoln to do some of that. This is why ideologues right or left wing create these fake histories, after all, so they can lie about their modern fake news and motivations. They think repeating stupid lies over and over will make them 'special', but as we've seen that game has died a welcome death in the current environment.
LOLOL

I posted the best fact there is -- South Carolina themselves explaining why they were seceding...

Slavery

It matters not that idiots like you want to ignore the reason South Carolina gave and replace it with your own made up excuse which they themselves didn't use.
 
Re Lincoln's ridiculous claim he was 'only trying to preserve the Union' lie, if that were true he wouldn't have immediately repeated what Buchanan did at Sumter that provoked 4 or five more states to secede, resulting in the rest seceding, for one, and for two, he could have moderated or opposed the tariffs, railroad subsidies, and the Homestead Act or moderated them to acceptable levels if he were being honest, but we all know he was a lying and deliberately provoked the war; plundering the South via invasion was probably just as lucrative a way to cash in and quicker than a slower strangulation by tariff and high interest loans anyway in his and his backers' minds. Following the money is blatantly easy re Lincoln and his supporters then.

As repeatedly pointed out, but always ignored, is Lincoln himself saying he didn't care about slavery, but we're supposed to pretend he didn't say that when it interferes with some other fake history story being peddled. lol
 
LOLOL

Idiot says we should ignore South Carolina citing slavery as their primary reason for seceding and listen to him instead. :lol:
Oh, the idiot says that we should ignore the VP of the CSA citing slavery and Jefferson's words that slavery would be the rock that sliced asunder the Union.

Nobody is going to dispute your expertise with idiocy, Jake. You live and breathe it, after all. Keep telling us all about your great contribution to freeing the slaves n stuff some 160 years ago and how it makes anything you say today somehow more important and moral, Jake. That should be hilarious as well.
You ad hom attack on me personally after all your arguments were shattered makes you look very, very foolish and simple.

You are not in the league of Faun or paperview or some others here on this issue.

When you, Picaro, can actually refute the contemporary and primary sources that say slavery was the cause of the coming of the War, let us know. :lol:

Hey Jake, all you fake history peddlers have to do is point to all those Big Giant Anti-Slavery bills introduced that made NC or any other state secede, and then explain why any southern state should even care given Tainey was still the Chief Justice of the SC, and at least three other southern judges sat on the Court at the time as well, who would struck down any such bills. Then you and the other astro-turfing trolls can tell us why the Federal legislature didn't just propose and pass their own Constitutional Amendment banning it, a power they fully had at the time, if there was this Big Giant Anti-Racist and Anti-Slavery Movement n stuff rampaging through the northern states as you and the other trolls keep claiming there was. Then you and the rest of the Fake History Fan Clubs can claim you aren't full of shit.

'Paperview' is a joke poster with zero cred;already handed her her ass on another board, caught her out lying about what a source said that she posted herself, making it obvious she isn't any kind of a 'scholar', despite her babbling about being one; it's pretty stupid to lie about what's in a source one posts a link to themselves, but such is average intellectual capacities of ideologues in general.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

You keep saying we're posting fake history by quoting Sough Carolina's declaration of secession.

Some idiot posting one little line that had no bearing on the secession isn't impressive; it just highlights how ignorant you are of all the issues and hoping to make yourself look like some 'progressive' or something, and failing like all the other 'progressives' posting fake histories and fake news.
 
Oh, the idiot says that we should ignore the VP of the CSA citing slavery and Jefferson's words that slavery would be the rock that sliced asunder the Union.

Nobody is going to dispute your expertise with idiocy, Jake. You live and breathe it, after all. Keep telling us all about your great contribution to freeing the slaves n stuff some 160 years ago and how it makes anything you say today somehow more important and moral, Jake. That should be hilarious as well.
You ad hom attack on me personally after all your arguments were shattered makes you look very, very foolish and simple.

You are not in the league of Faun or paperview or some others here on this issue.

When you, Picaro, can actually refute the contemporary and primary sources that say slavery was the cause of the coming of the War, let us know. :lol:

Hey Jake, all you fake history peddlers have to do is point to all those Big Giant Anti-Slavery bills introduced that made NC or any other state secede, and then explain why any southern state should even care given Tainey was still the Chief Justice of the SC, and at least three other southern judges sat on the Court at the time as well, who would struck down any such bills. Then you and the other astro-turfing trolls can tell us why the Federal legislature didn't just propose and pass their own Constitutional Amendment banning it, a power they fully had at the time, if there was this Big Giant Anti-Racist and Anti-Slavery Movement n stuff rampaging through the northern states as you and the other trolls keep claiming there was. Then you and the rest of the Fake History Fan Clubs can claim you aren't full of shit.

'Paperview' is a joke poster with zero cred;already handed her her ass on another board, caught her out lying about what a source said that she posted herself, making it obvious she isn't any kind of a 'scholar', despite her babbling about being one; it's pretty stupid to lie about what's in a source one posts a link to themselves, but such is average intellectual capacities of ideologues in general.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

You keep saying we're posting fake history by quoting Sough Carolina's declaration of secession.

Some idiot posting one little line that had no bearing on the secession isn't impressive; it just highlights how ignorant you are of all the issues and hoping to make yourself look like some 'progressive' or something, and failing like all the other 'progressives' posting fake histories and fake news.
You're a revisionist nut. :cuckoo:

It's not just "one little line." It's South Carolina's entire declaration of secession. I merely quoted their summary, but as pointed out, in the entirety of their document, they mention slaves or slavery 20 times. They never mentioned tariffs even once.

So who knows better why they seceded? South Carolina? Or you? :badgrin:
 
Last edited:
Nobody is going to dispute your expertise with idiocy, Jake. You live and breathe it, after all. Keep telling us all about your great contribution to freeing the slaves n stuff some 160 years ago and how it makes anything you say today somehow more important and moral, Jake. That should be hilarious as well.
You ad hom attack on me personally after all your arguments were shattered makes you look very, very foolish and simple.

You are not in the league of Faun or paperview or some others here on this issue.

When you, Picaro, can actually refute the contemporary and primary sources that say slavery was the cause of the coming of the War, let us know. :lol:

Hey Jake, all you fake history peddlers have to do is point to all those Big Giant Anti-Slavery bills introduced that made NC or any other state secede, and then explain why any southern state should even care given Tainey was still the Chief Justice of the SC, and at least three other southern judges sat on the Court at the time as well, who would struck down any such bills. Then you and the other astro-turfing trolls can tell us why the Federal legislature didn't just propose and pass their own Constitutional Amendment banning it, a power they fully had at the time, if there was this Big Giant Anti-Racist and Anti-Slavery Movement n stuff rampaging through the northern states as you and the other trolls keep claiming there was. Then you and the rest of the Fake History Fan Clubs can claim you aren't full of shit.

'Paperview' is a joke poster with zero cred;already handed her her ass on another board, caught her out lying about what a source said that she posted herself, making it obvious she isn't any kind of a 'scholar', despite her babbling about being one; it's pretty stupid to lie about what's in a source one posts a link to themselves, but such is average intellectual capacities of ideologues in general.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

You keep saying we're posting fake history by quoting Sough Carolina's declaration of secession.

Some idiot posting one little line that had no bearing on the secession isn't impressive; it just highlights how ignorant you are of all the issues and hoping to make yourself look like some 'progressive' or something, and failing like all the other 'progressives' posting fake histories and fake news.
You're a revisionist nut. :cuckoo:

It's not just "one little line." It's South Carolina's entire declaration of secession. I merely quoted their summary, but as pointed out, in the entirety of their document, they mention slaves or slavery 20 times. They never mentioned tariffs even once.

So who knows better why they seceded? South Carolina? Or you? :badgrin:

Yes, I already knew you can't find a thing to back up the claim they seceded merely over slavery; I merely posed the questions to demonstrate that obvious fact to those in the Peanut Gallery who genuinely didn't know all the facts, mainly because they were lied to in school by hacks with political agendas like yourself. Lincoln stated the war, not North Carolina or any other southern state, and that is just too obvious to deny, and why fake history is necessary for some modern agendas.
 
Nobody is going to dispute your expertise with idiocy, Jake. You live and breathe it, after all. Keep telling us all about your great contribution to freeing the slaves n stuff some 160 years ago and how it makes anything you say today somehow more important and moral, Jake. That should be hilarious as well.
You ad hom attack on me personally after all your arguments were shattered makes you look very, very foolish and simple.

You are not in the league of Faun or paperview or some others here on this issue.

When you, Picaro, can actually refute the contemporary and primary sources that say slavery was the cause of the coming of the War, let us know. :lol:

Hey Jake, all you fake history peddlers have to do is point to all those Big Giant Anti-Slavery bills introduced that made NC or any other state secede, and then explain why any southern state should even care given Tainey was still the Chief Justice of the SC, and at least three other southern judges sat on the Court at the time as well, who would struck down any such bills. Then you and the other astro-turfing trolls can tell us why the Federal legislature didn't just propose and pass their own Constitutional Amendment banning it, a power they fully had at the time, if there was this Big Giant Anti-Racist and Anti-Slavery Movement n stuff rampaging through the northern states as you and the other trolls keep claiming there was. Then you and the rest of the Fake History Fan Clubs can claim you aren't full of shit.

'Paperview' is a joke poster with zero cred;already handed her her ass on another board, caught her out lying about what a source said that she posted herself, making it obvious she isn't any kind of a 'scholar', despite her babbling about being one; it's pretty stupid to lie about what's in a source one posts a link to themselves, but such is average intellectual capacities of ideologues in general.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

You keep saying we're posting fake history by quoting Sough Carolina's declaration of secession.

Some idiot posting one little line that had no bearing on the secession isn't impressive; it just highlights how ignorant you are of all the issues and hoping to make yourself look like some 'progressive' or something, and failing like all the other 'progressives' posting fake histories and fake news.
You're a revisionist nut. :cuckoo:

It's not just "one little line." It's South Carolina's entire declaration of secession. I merely quoted their summary, but as pointed out, in the entirety of their document, they mention slaves or slavery 20 times. They never mentioned tariffs even once.

So who knows better why they seceded? South Carolina? Or you? :badgrin:

Nothing to 'revise' on my end, it's all in the books and sources; you're hoping nobody notices your revisionist idiocy can't be backed up, but we already know that.
 
You ad hom attack on me personally after all your arguments were shattered makes you look very, very foolish and simple.

You are not in the league of Faun or paperview or some others here on this issue.

When you, Picaro, can actually refute the contemporary and primary sources that say slavery was the cause of the coming of the War, let us know. :lol:

Hey Jake, all you fake history peddlers have to do is point to all those Big Giant Anti-Slavery bills introduced that made NC or any other state secede, and then explain why any southern state should even care given Tainey was still the Chief Justice of the SC, and at least three other southern judges sat on the Court at the time as well, who would struck down any such bills. Then you and the other astro-turfing trolls can tell us why the Federal legislature didn't just propose and pass their own Constitutional Amendment banning it, a power they fully had at the time, if there was this Big Giant Anti-Racist and Anti-Slavery Movement n stuff rampaging through the northern states as you and the other trolls keep claiming there was. Then you and the rest of the Fake History Fan Clubs can claim you aren't full of shit.

'Paperview' is a joke poster with zero cred;already handed her her ass on another board, caught her out lying about what a source said that she posted herself, making it obvious she isn't any kind of a 'scholar', despite her babbling about being one; it's pretty stupid to lie about what's in a source one posts a link to themselves, but such is average intellectual capacities of ideologues in general.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

You keep saying we're posting fake history by quoting Sough Carolina's declaration of secession.

Some idiot posting one little line that had no bearing on the secession isn't impressive; it just highlights how ignorant you are of all the issues and hoping to make yourself look like some 'progressive' or something, and failing like all the other 'progressives' posting fake histories and fake news.
You're a revisionist nut. :cuckoo:

It's not just "one little line." It's South Carolina's entire declaration of secession. I merely quoted their summary, but as pointed out, in the entirety of their document, they mention slaves or slavery 20 times. They never mentioned tariffs even once.

So who knows better why they seceded? South Carolina? Or you? :badgrin:

Yes, I already knew you can't find a thing to back up the claim they seceded merely over slavery; I merely posed the questions to demonstrate that obvious fact to those in the Peanut Gallery who genuinely didn't know all the facts, mainly because they were lied to in school by hacks with political agendas like yourself. Lincoln stated the war, not North Carolina or any other southern state, and that is just too obvious to deny, and why fake history is necessary for some modern agendas.
Now you're flat out lying. A clear indication you've surrendered your argument. Despite yout lie that I "can't find a thing to back up the claim they seceded merely over slavery," ... I in fact, cited their own declaration of secession, the single most authoritative document on the planet outlining their reasons for seceding. You don't get to dismiss it simply because it reveals you to be the ignorant schmuck you are.

You also lied when you falsely claimed I said "they seceded merely over slavery." I in fact, said that was their main reason. I never said it was their only reason. I also pointed out how they mentioned 20 times; which was 20 times more than the number of times they mentioned tariffs.

You lie -- you lose.

Ciao.
 
Now that it's obvious the fake history peddlers can't produce a shred of evidence for any Big Giant Anti-Slavery Movement that provoked any secessions, they're playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' and posting gibberish hoping nobody notices they don't know squat, the thread was over for them before they even posted all. They don't even know what 'revisionism is, just repeating something they read somewhere and thought it sounded good or something, oblivious to the fact they're peddling revisionist nonsense themselves, another hilarious example of their cognitive dissonance, along with their defense of Lincoln's and most abolitionists of that era's' rabid white nationalism, especially among the recent immigrant waves they relied on for votes, and of course their support for massive corporate welfare programs, completely at odds with their modern claims of being 'all progressive n stuff', like true imbeciles with no clue.
 
The history is clear, but many can't comprehend it or are duped by the Lincoln cultists.

The War of Northern Aggression was about MONEY. Lincoln didn't give shit about blacks or slavery. He was an ardent racist even for his time. Lincoln went to war to enrich powerful interests in the North. Yet he is idolized. How f**ked up is that?
 
The history is clear, but many can't comprehend it or are duped by the Lincoln cultists.

The War of Northern Aggression was about MONEY. Lincoln didn't give shit about blacks or slavery. He was an ardent racist even for his time. Lincoln went to war to enrich powerful interests in the North. Yet he is idolized. How f**ked up is that?

It's even more hilariously ridiculous how the left wingers and 'anti-racists' insist on hero-worshipping the guy. Truly retarded and idiotic. Even most black historians aren't that stupid.
 
Prager University in not even a real Univesity, not an accredited one. It is a fake university like the trump university. A high school degree is more credible that....well....whatever they give you from Prager.
 
Now that it's obvious the fake history peddlers can't produce a shred of evidence for any Big Giant Anti-Slavery Movement that provoked any secessions, they're playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' and posting gibberish hoping nobody notices they don't know squat, the thread was over for them before they even posted all. They don't even know what 'revisionism is, just repeating something they read somewhere and thought it sounded good or something, oblivious to the fact they're peddling revisionist nonsense themselves, another hilarious example of their cognitive dissonance, along with their defense of Lincoln's and most abolitionists of that era's' rabid white nationalism, especially among the recent immigrant waves they relied on for votes, and of course their support for massive corporate welfare programs, completely at odds with their modern claims of being 'all progressive n stuff', like true imbeciles with no clue.
LOLOL

You're completely deranged. :cuckoo:

Not only did we produce evidence, we produced the ultimate evidence -- South Carolina explaining exactly why they were seceding. On the flip side, they didn't even mention the reason you're making up now in your failed attempt to rewrite history.
 
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.


I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.
 
Obviously Jake knows nothing about the role of the Jesuits, the Secret Treaty Of Verona and how it led to the Monroe Doctrine or how one of the plotters for Lincoln's assassination was found working for the Pope and why all diplomatic ties to the head of the Catholic church were severed until 1984. Jake doesn't know near as much as he would have you believe he does. States that agreed to not join the confederacy were allowed to keep their slaves.....funny, that.
 
Confederate-Flag-Design.jpg

/---- the flag in your meme is the confederate battle flag. I've attached the flag of the confederacy.
IMG_0124.JPG



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
 

Forum List

Back
Top