The concept of replying to a well conceived counter argument is not alien to me. Since yours wasn't I asked you to clarify the specific lie "that" signifies. Since you won't and only want to be condescending I feel no need to spend time on you.What specifically is "that" if you want me to respond?If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.Name a specific other one please?Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
Why did Lincoln lie about that then?
YOu made a point. My reply was addressing your point.
"That", was a reference to your point.
I understand that this is very alien to you.
Now, to take this back to my point.
Why did Lincoln lie about that then?
(i hope you were able to follow that. I know it was a lot of information and very complex, what with you saying something and me asking you a question about it)