Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

[Asclepias]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

 

[reconmark]

The Idiots pushing this ignorant "it wasn't about slavery" b.s. are the same idiot's blaming the actions of the past conservative's actions on today's Democrats.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

 

[reconmark]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

 

[Asclepias]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

Oh brother....

Dont tell me you dont know what extemporaneously means?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

Oh brother....

Dont tell me you dont know what extemporaneously means?

Sure I do, obviously you don't.

Allow me to educate your dumb ass.

extemporaneously
adjective
1. done, spoken, performed, etc., without special advance preparation; impromptu:
an extemporaneous speech.
2. previously planned but delivered with the help of few or no notes:
extemporaneous lectures.

 

[Asclepias]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

Oh brother....

Dont tell me you dont know what extemporaneously means?

Sure I do, obviously you don't.

Allow me to educate your dumb ass.

extemporaneously
adjective
1. done, spoken, performed, etc., without special advance preparation; impromptu:
an extemporaneous speech.
2. previously planned but delivered with the help of few or no notes:
extemporaneous lectures.

Good job. Now look up transcript and tell me what you find.

 

[reconmark]

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

Oh brother....

Dont tell me you dont know what extemporaneously means?

Sure I do, obviously you don't.

Allow me to educate your dumb ass.

extemporaneously
adjective
1. done, spoken, performed, etc., without special advance preparation; impromptu:
an extemporaneous speech.
2. previously planned but delivered with the help of few or no notes:
extemporaneous lectures.

Good job. Now look up transcript and tell me what you find.

The reporters lied!!!!...lol.

 

[Asclepias]

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

Oh brother....

Dont tell me you dont know what extemporaneously means?

Sure I do, obviously you don't.

Allow me to educate your dumb ass.

extemporaneously
adjective
1. done, spoken, performed, etc., without special advance preparation; impromptu:
an extemporaneous speech.
2. previously planned but delivered with the help of few or no notes:
extemporaneous lectures.

Good job. Now look up transcript and tell me what you find.

The reporters lied!!!!...lol.

This first part of his post pretty much killed his argument. Remember he said in the same post no transcripts were made.

"The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers."

Dumbass lonelystar....

"The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made"

You cant make this kind of comedy up....

 

[reconmark]

Your comment is asinine. I didnt say why the north went to war. I said slavery is the reason the south went to war.

Then you're wrong about that too. Tariffs were a bigger issue to the south than slavery. Lincoln said he had neither the inclination nor the authority to end slavery. THINK

If tariffs were the bigger issue why was slavery mentioned first and more times than tariff? The cornerstone speech only mentions tariff once. Slavery is the reason. You cant possibly be that stupid SS.

Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration

Ten percent of Southern whites owned slaves and you idiots think the war was about slavery.

There is nothing to think about. Its a certainty thats why the hill billy losers went to war. They documented the reason in their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. It was slavery.

There were many reasons, slavery was a minor one.

If it was so minor why did it get first mention in the cornerstone speech?

The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

9th paragraph of the Cornerstone Speech clearly makes the coming conflict about the South's states' right to own and sell human flesh. There is no doubt about what Stephens meant.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

9th paragraph of the Cornerstone Speech clearly makes the coming conflict about the South's states' right to own and sell human flesh. There is no doubt about what Stephens meant.

The board notes how you keep changing the subject. The issue is NOT whether the south supported slavery since everyone knows they did. The issue is that the north also had slave states, four of them in fact, and thus they supported slavery too.

No way the war can be about slavery when both sides approve of it. Why can't you think?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, the OP is about the supposed hate for the Confederacy, not whether the South supported slavery or whether the border states had slavery. Everybody knew they did. The Union was strong enough to hold all of the border states in control. After the war was over, the slavery was ended there.

If the North approved of slavery, it would not have ended it in the border states when it did not need to do so. ShootSpeeders, you need to think because you shot down the OP.

 

[cnm]

Boy, the methane off the regressive bullshit would put paid to any doubts about AGW.

 

[Asclepias]

9th paragraph of the Cornerstone Speech clearly makes the coming conflict about the South's states' right to own and sell human flesh. There is no doubt about what Stephens meant.

The board notes how you keep changing the subject. The issue is NOT whether the south supported slavery since everyone knows they did. The issue is that the north also had slave states, four of them in fact, and thus they supported slavery too.

No way the war can be about slavery when both sides approve of it. Why can't you think?

Sure it can be about slavery for the south. They said so in the their articles of secession and the cornerstone speech. I already told you that but you keep pretending you didnt see it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers. Stephens sometimes complained of the inaccuracy of such reporting, and singled out Savannah reporters in at least one instance, "who very often make me say things which I never did" [speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860]. But I have not found that he said at any time after the Cornerstone Speech that they got any part of it fundamentally wrong.

Stephens was educating the people of his state and preparing them for a fight he had tried to keep them out of. In the state legislature in July 1860, he fought hard against Georgia's call for a secession convention, then at that convention Stephens spoke out against secession so vehemently that the North circulated copies of his speech as propaganda during the Civil War.

The "Cornerstone Speech," in its praise of slavery, is a personal justification of Stephens's career. His post-bellum history book that downplays slavery's role ("Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States") is another. They both are public, political rhetoric. Yet commentators tend to treat the one as an utter lie and the other as absolute truth. To see the offhand paragraph in the speech as some defining Genesis moment of the Confederacy, out of the mouth of the eternal spirit of the nation instead of one political man, is a gross exaggeration
The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made. What you read is what a reporter from Savannah reported and Stephens complained about the inaccuracies of the reporting.

Oh brother....

Dont tell me you dont know what extemporaneously means?

Sure I do, obviously you don't.

Allow me to educate your dumb ass.

extemporaneously
adjective
1. done, spoken, performed, etc., without special advance preparation; impromptu:
an extemporaneous speech.
2. previously planned but delivered with the help of few or no notes:
extemporaneous lectures.

Good job. Now look up transcript and tell me what you find.

The reporters lied!!!!...lol.

This first part of his post pretty much killed his argument. Remember he said in the same post no transcripts were made.

"The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers."

Dumbass lonelystar....

"The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made"

You cant make this kind of comedy up....

Transcript was the wrong word, the fact is the speech was not a written speech the only record of what was said it is what reporters have reported.

You idiots pick and choose what you take literally.

 

[Asclepias]

Oh brother....

Dont tell me you dont know what extemporaneously means?

Sure I do, obviously you don't.

Allow me to educate your dumb ass.

extemporaneously
adjective
1. done, spoken, performed, etc., without special advance preparation; impromptu:
an extemporaneous speech.
2. previously planned but delivered with the help of few or no notes:
extemporaneous lectures.

Good job. Now look up transcript and tell me what you find.

The reporters lied!!!!...lol.

This first part of his post pretty much killed his argument. Remember he said in the same post no transcripts were made.

"The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers."

Dumbass lonelystar....

"The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made"

You cant make this kind of comedy up....

Transcript was the wrong word, the fact is the speech was not a written speech the only record of what was said it is what reporters have reported.

You idiots pick and choose what you take literally.

No transcript was the right word. You just fucked up as usual. The speech didnt have to be written down prior him giving it. The reporter transcribed word for word. Are you claiming the reporter wrote it down knowing that the south would lose and he wanted the narrative to be that it was about slavery for the south?

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-MLK

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sure I do, obviously you don't.

Allow me to educate your dumb ass.

extemporaneously
adjective
1. done, spoken, performed, etc., without special advance preparation; impromptu:
an extemporaneous speech.
2. previously planned but delivered with the help of few or no notes:
extemporaneous lectures.

Good job. Now look up transcript and tell me what you find.

The reporters lied!!!!...lol.

This first part of his post pretty much killed his argument. Remember he said in the same post no transcripts were made.

"The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers."

Dumbass lonelystar....

"The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made"

You cant make this kind of comedy up....

Transcript was the wrong word, the fact is the speech was not a written speech the only record of what was said it is what reporters have reported.

You idiots pick and choose what you take literally.

No transcript was the right word. You just fucked up as usual. The speech didnt have to be written down prior him giving it. The reporter transcribed word for word. Are you claiming the reporter wrote it down knowing that the south would lose and he wanted the narrative to be that it was about slavery for the south?

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-MLK

Word for word? Of course you can't prove that.

 

[Asclepias]

Good job. Now look up transcript and tell me what you find.

The reporters lied!!!!...lol.

This first part of his post pretty much killed his argument. Remember he said in the same post no transcripts were made.

"The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers."

Dumbass lonelystar....

"The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made"

You cant make this kind of comedy up....

Transcript was the wrong word, the fact is the speech was not a written speech the only record of what was said it is what reporters have reported.

You idiots pick and choose what you take literally.

No transcript was the right word. You just fucked up as usual. The speech didnt have to be written down prior him giving it. The reporter transcribed word for word. Are you claiming the reporter wrote it down knowing that the south would lose and he wanted the narrative to be that it was about slavery for the south?

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-MLK

Word for word? Of course you can't prove that.

I dont have to prove anything. You have to prove the reporter made up the part about slavery being the reason. Until you can do that you just look like a silly little fool claiming it was made up.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The reporters lied!!!!...lol.

This first part of his post pretty much killed his argument. Remember he said in the same post no transcripts were made.

"The Savannah speech exists in transcripts. There is no original version of Stephens's speech, because he spoke extemporaneously. His words were jotted down and printed in the Savannah newspapers."

Dumbass lonelystar....

"The speech was never written, no transcript has ever been made"

You cant make this kind of comedy up....

Transcript was the wrong word, the fact is the speech was not a written speech the only record of what was said it is what reporters have reported.

You idiots pick and choose what you take literally.

No transcript was the right word. You just fucked up as usual. The speech didnt have to be written down prior him giving it. The reporter transcribed word for word. Are you claiming the reporter wrote it down knowing that the south would lose and he wanted the narrative to be that it was about slavery for the south?

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-MLK

Word for word? Of course you can't prove that.

I dont have to prove anything. You have to prove the reporter made up the part about slavery being the reason. Until you can do that you just look like a silly little fool claiming it was made up.

Your concession is duly noted.