Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
IsWhy do you feel the need to edit what I posted? You can't bare for other forum members to see it because it's obviously right?"By authority" you mean ......How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?.....
Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
A Supreme Court justice is an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case is an authority on that case, stupid.
You appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it come true. The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. It was about tariffs, extortionate tariffs, and railroad welfare bills, as already been shown. Tariffs were in the news from nearly the first day SC seceded, and constantly reported on right up to Lincoln himself sniveling about 'the boys in Montgomery and their 10% tariff' while rejecting the last peace offer.
So why did the South lie about their reasons for seceding? Who were they trying to bullshit?
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.www.battlefields.org
Wrong....The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. ...
The shots fired at Fort Sumter prove otherwise, you idiot.
Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
You're a Lincoln cultist who isn't fooling anyone.On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
Lincoln cultist????? I had a tough day today, so thanks for the good belly laugh.You're a Lincoln cultist who isn't fooling anyone.On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
That's wrong, .....I've already told you numerous times. If you claim 'A' is true because so-called expert 'B' says so, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."I already know what it means. I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.I already know what it means. .....You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.How about every geologist in 1950? Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
.....
His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
...
One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?
....
Ok, tell me what you think it means.
...
Ok stupid, since you clearly aren't getting this, here:
"The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority."
.
....
That's wrong, moron. Nothing is fact simply because some authority says so.
.....
...
It doesn't matter what their reasons were. ...
Wrong....The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. ...
The shots fired at Fort Sumter prove otherwise, you idiot.
Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
The union was sacred only to warmongers who wanted to confiscate the wealth of the South.
Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
The union was sacred only to warmongers who wanted to confiscate the wealth of the South.
You know, I often find your posts totally ignorant. But in this case, you have nailed it. The reality is the North was perfectly willing to accept the slavery of the South as long as they got their money. You can read countless editorials from the time period that attest to precisely that. The real problem for the North was when the South planned to make Charlestown a duty free port. That blew everything all to hell. I mean that was the actual purpose of Fort Sumter, to collect the duties.
The truth of the matter is that the North profited as much from slavery as did the South. In some cases, even more so. Like New York City. The insurance and shipping brokers in New York City made so much money off the plantation owners of the South that they actually considered secession as well. And like I said, the prospect of a duty free port in Charlestown pretty much would have destroyed the harbors of New York City and Boston.
The reality of the situation is that laying the entire blame or slavery on the South is little more than a means of the North to escape their own responsibility for the slave trade. I mean can you say "Brown University". To prove the point a slave named Mark was Gibbeted in Massachusetts in 1755. Twenty years later Paul Revere rode past him and it is noted in the famous poem called Paul Revere's Ride. You people might want to look up Gibbeted. So the North does not get a free pass on slavery. Matter of fact, I would argue that they have a greater responsibility than the South. And it is laughable to proclaim all the damn Yankees fought to end slavery. That is historical revisionism of the highest order.
On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
...or much of anything.It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
BULLSHIT.
It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.
It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.
Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?
It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.
Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?
lol not hardly; you racists .....
Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
The union was sacred only to warmongers who wanted to confiscate the wealth of the South.
You know, I often find your posts totally ignorant. But in this case, you have nailed it. The reality is the North was perfectly willing to accept the slavery of the South as long as they got their money. You can read countless editorials from the time period that attest to precisely that. The real problem for the North was when the South planned to make Charlestown a duty free port. That blew everything all to hell. I mean that was the actual purpose of Fort Sumter, to collect the duties.
The truth of the matter is that the North profited as much from slavery as did the South. In some cases, even more so. Like New York City. The insurance and shipping brokers in New York City made so much money off the plantation owners of the South that they actually considered secession as well. And like I said, the prospect of a duty free port in Charlestown pretty much would have destroyed the harbors of New York City and Boston.
The reality of the situation is that laying the entire blame or slavery on the South is little more than a means of the North to escape their own responsibility for the slave trade. I mean can you say "Brown University". To prove the point a slave named Mark was Gibbeted in Massachusetts in 1755. Twenty years later Paul Revere rode past him and it is noted in the famous poem called Paul Revere's Ride. You people might want to look up Gibbeted. So the North does not get a free pass on slavery. Matter of fact, I would argue that they have a greater responsibility than the South. And it is laughable to proclaim all the damn Yankees fought to end slavery. That is historical revisionism of the highest order.
