Will Blacks Abandon the Democrat Party?

[Lonestar_logic]

Kay, Mr. Lost Causer. You've convinced yourself with cherry picks and lunacy.

We know the foundation from the Constitutional Convention forward, to things like the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1852 SC Convention, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown Affair, the threatened expansion of slavery in other territories... and every other ******* detail that led up to the Civil War...and what was the basis.

The rest of the world knows it to.

Go fly your rebel flag, dress up in gray and play slavemaster proud scout for all I care.

You do your fellow conservatives proud to hold up the banner of owning a race of human beings as farm animals.

Raise the flag high and give it your best to bellow for your white supremacist fellows!

States rights.

States rights to own slaves.

The North also owned slaves so to think they went to war to stop slavery is just plain stupid. But go ahead, stay stuck on stupid.

The North didn't go to war to stop slavery.

More stupid.

The South *did* go to war to preserve, protect and defend it though.

What was the North's reason for going to war?

By the way, I'm glad you admitting the war wasn't purely about slavery.

 

[Asclepias]

Kay, Mr. Lost Causer. You've convinced yourself with cherry picks and lunacy.

We know the foundation from the Constitutional Convention forward, to things like the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1852 SC Convention, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown Affair, the threatened expansion of slavery in other territories... and every other ******* detail that led up to the Civil War...and what was the basis.

The rest of the world knows it to.

Go fly your rebel flag, dress up in gray and play slavemaster proud scout for all I care.

You do your fellow conservatives proud to hold up the banner of owning a race of human beings as farm animals.

Raise the flag high and give it your best to bellow for your white supremacist fellows!

States rights.

States rights to own slaves.

The North also owned slaves so to think they went to war to stop slavery is just plain stupid. But go ahead, stay stuck on stupid.

The North didnt go to war to free the slaves. The south went to war to keep the slaves like they admitted in their speeches and documents of secession..

 

[Lonestar_logic]

out "it's about slavery" dude.

Preserving, protecting and expanding...slavery.

It was their literally the lifeblood of their economy.

Nearly four million men, women and children in chains out of a total population of nine million in the South. Nearly one in three southern families owned slaves. Everything was built around the institution.

The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure, Think on that.

The South was not about to give that up.

It was. About. Slavery. Preserving, protecting & expanding.

Wrong!! One state The Seceding states told us what the was was about, and they said straight

Stephan Dodson Ramseur, Confederate general: "...Slavery, the very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us."

Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, December 27, 1860: "Mr. President, it seems to me that northern Senators most pertinaciously overlook the main point at issue between the two sections of our Confederacy. We claim that there is property in slaves, and they deny it. Until we shall settle, upon some basis, that point of controversy, it is idle to talk of going any further."

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama, speaking to the Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861: "The question of Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause of secession."

John B. Baldwin, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery...."

All that proves is slavery was part of the reason and openly debated. Why not post the other debates as well, such as tariffs, states rights and other issues that surrounded the reasons for secession.

Because we are refuting the claims that it was NOT about slavery.

You and these other people's problem is, you've never argued that it was not 100% about slavery; you're claiming it was ZERO percent about slavery.

Which makes you 100% wrong.

When Lonestar gets shown he is wrong he is not man enough to simply admit it. He has to back pedal until he can find a spot and point to a technicality then claim he was right all along. Typical convict.

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

But it wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights, slavery may have been one of the issues but not the primary one. It was more to do about taxes, tariffs etc....than slavery. Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves? Do you honestly think the Northerners who owned slaves would go to war to end slavery? You people have a one track mind and all you can focus on is one aspect of the broader picture.

 

[paperview]

Oh, and Fort Sumter was ceded to the US Government by SC in 1836.

Also, your "What, then, would become of my tariff?" is bogus. No record of Lincoln saying that. It comes from hearsay, and no evidence he ever said that.

It's cited...who it was said to, where it was said and the date.

but ok..I'll let you ignore that one...what about the others? Try to wriggle out of that.

LMAO..and what about black slaveholders? Any comments?

More Silliness about Tariffs from David John Marotta <-- Where the hearsay quote was culled from.

The black slaveholders has been discussed by me ad nauseum. It's no gotcha.

First off, much of the Black Slaveowners is pushed by David Grooms, Grooms plays fast and loose with his numbers and has been debunked repeatedly. Grooms writes for the Barnes Review. What is the Barnes Review?

Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is a bi-monthly magazine founded in 1994 by Willis Carto, dedicated to historical revisionism such as Holocaust denial. Willis Carto had earlier founded the Institute for Historical Review in 1979 but lost control of that organization in an internal takeover by former associates.

^ "Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History". Anti-Defamation League. Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History. Retrieved 2008-11-17. "The Spotlight announced in August 1994 that Liberty Lobby was launching a new publication devoted to historical revisionism called The Barnes Review (after the 20th century revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes)."

But let's get beyond that.

It is certainly true there were black slaveowners, but I'm sure, as you know, those free blacks were often prisoners in their own states. Law in many Southern states forbade them to even leave the state - unless it was permanent, they were restricted in commerce, legal matters, etc...; just simply living for a free black, even ones who had built up wealth was not as some would have you believe.

As the war approached, even more laws were written that could snatch away their "freedom" at any given moment
...and of course, Dred Scott made it clear they were not even citizens of the country they lived in. read that again: Even Free Blacks were not even citizens of the country they lived in

Yes, some black slaveowners bought slaves to purchase their kin's freedom, some did it for economic, pragmatic reasons, and some were just as dastardly as their fully white counterparts. All true.

But Grooms inflates numbers by playing with statistics and presenting a much different picture than actually was.
He also fails to mention a good portion of those "negro slaveowners" were mulattoes.

Mary Chestnut wrote about those mulattoes:

"God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system and wrong and iniquity. Perhaps the rest of the world is as bad; this only I see.

Like the patriarchs of our old men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines, and the mulattoes one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children;
and every lady tells you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own she seems to think drop from the clouds, or pretends so to think."[Link]

More often than not, those "black slaveowners" many refer to, were by all appearances, quite white. Still, all in all, the numbers were very, very small.

Which brings us back to those "white slaves" quite a few pages back some posters were popping up here. Remember those? There's a reason the Lost Causers keep referring to those, and the "black slaveholders."

It has a lot to do with assuaging the guilt of the fully white man, who sought to preserve his superiority over the black race, in some states where the population of slaves were more majority than free -- and was willing to die to keep white supremacy intact.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Kay, Mr. Lost Causer. You've convinced yourself with cherry picks and lunacy.

We know the foundation from the Constitutional Convention forward, to things like the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1852 SC Convention, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown Affair, the threatened expansion of slavery in other territories... and every other ******* detail that led up to the Civil War...and what was the basis.

The rest of the world knows it to.

Go fly your rebel flag, dress up in gray and play slavemaster proud scout for all I care.

You do your fellow conservatives proud to hold up the banner of owning a race of human beings as farm animals.

Raise the flag high and give it your best to bellow for your white supremacist fellows!

States rights.

States rights to own slaves.

The North also owned slaves so to think they went to war to stop slavery is just plain stupid. But go ahead, stay stuck on stupid.

The North didnt go to war to free the slaves. The south went to war to keep the slaves like they admitted in their speeches and documents of secession..

So the South went to war to keep slaves but the North wasn't trying to take the slaves away. So why did the North go to war?

Looks like another admission that the Civil War wasn't purely about slavery is about to be made.

 

[Asclepias]

Wrong!! One state The Seceding states told us what the was was about, and they said straight
All that proves is slavery was part of the reason and openly debated. Why not post the other debates as well, such as tariffs, states rights and other issues that surrounded the reasons for secession.

Because we are refuting the claims that it was NOT about slavery.

You and these other people's problem is, you've never argued that it was not 100% about slavery; you're claiming it was ZERO percent about slavery.

Which makes you 100% wrong.

When Lonestar gets shown he is wrong he is not man enough to simply admit it. He has to back pedal until he can find a spot and point to a technicality then claim he was right all along. Typical convict.

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

 

[Asclepias]

Kay, Mr. Lost Causer. You've convinced yourself with cherry picks and lunacy.

We know the foundation from the Constitutional Convention forward, to things like the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1852 SC Convention, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown Affair, the threatened expansion of slavery in other territories... and every other ******* detail that led up to the Civil War...and what was the basis.

The rest of the world knows it to.

Go fly your rebel flag, dress up in gray and play slavemaster proud scout for all I care.

You do your fellow conservatives proud to hold up the banner of owning a race of human beings as farm animals.

Raise the flag high and give it your best to bellow for your white supremacist fellows!

States rights.

States rights to own slaves.

The North also owned slaves so to think they went to war to stop slavery is just plain stupid. But go ahead, stay stuck on stupid.

The North didnt go to war to free the slaves. The south went to war to keep the slaves like they admitted in their speeches and documents of secession..

So the South went to war to keep slaves but the North wasn't trying to take the slaves away. So why did the North go to war?

Looks like another admission that the Civil War wasn't purely about slavery is about to be made.

Correct. The south was the only side that went to war to preserve slavery. I know your simple mind cant handle 2 sides having different reasons but in the real world things can be complex....well at least to you.

BTW the North went to war to preserve the union, save face worldwide, and take away more power from the south. Looks like they did what they set out to do.

 

[paperview]

Kay, Mr. Lost Causer. You've convinced yourself with cherry picks and lunacy.

We know the foundation from the Constitutional Convention forward, to things like the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1852 SC Convention, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown Affair, the threatened expansion of slavery in other territories... and every other ******* detail that led up to the Civil War...and what was the basis.

The rest of the world knows it to.

Go fly your rebel flag, dress up in gray and play slavemaster proud scout for all I care.

You do your fellow conservatives proud to hold up the banner of owning a race of human beings as farm animals.

Raise the flag high and give it your best to bellow for your white supremacist fellows!

States rights.

States rights to own slaves.

The North also owned slaves so to think they went to war to stop slavery is just plain stupid. But go ahead, stay stuck on stupid.

The North didnt go to war to free the slaves. The south went to war to keep the slaves like they admitted in their speeches and documents of secession..

So the South went to war to keep slaves but the North wasn't trying to take the slaves away. So why did the North go to war?

Looks like another admission that the Civil War wasn't purely about slavery is about to be made.

Like most schoolchildren learn in grammar school, the North went to War to preserve the Union.
Did you ever finish grammar school?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Because we are refuting the claims that it was NOT about slavery.

You and these other people's problem is, you've never argued that it was not 100% about slavery; you're claiming it was ZERO percent about slavery.

Which makes you 100% wrong.

When Lonestar gets shown he is wrong he is not man enough to simply admit it. He has to back pedal until he can find a spot and point to a technicality then claim he was right all along. Typical convict.

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Not all the 11 southern states that seceded got involved in the Civil War? You have to show evidence of that because I think it's total bullshit.

It should be noted that my use of the term "South (southern)" refers to the Confederate states and the term "North (northern)" refers to the Union.

 

[paperview]

Because we are refuting the claims that it was NOT about slavery.

You and these other people's problem is, you've never argued that it was not 100% about slavery; you're claiming it was ZERO percent about slavery.

Which makes you 100% wrong.

When Lonestar gets shown he is wrong he is not man enough to simply admit it. He has to back pedal until he can find a spot and point to a technicality then claim he was right all along. Typical convict.

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Yup.

Conservative estimate = over 100,000 White Southerners left the CSA to fight for the Union.

Every Southern state except South Carolina raised at least a battalion of Southern Unionists.

[Lincoln's Loyalists: Union Soldiers from the Confederacy]

[Also: "...some 100,000 white southerners (along with 150,000 blacks) — at least one battalion of white troops from every Confederate state except South Carolina — served in Union armies during the course of the war. " ]
Mackubin Thomas Owens on Cold Mountain on National Review Online

Other estimates place it well over a quarter million.

 

[Asclepias]

When Lonestar gets shown he is wrong he is not man enough to simply admit it. He has to back pedal until he can find a spot and point to a technicality then claim he was right all along. Typical convict.

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Not all the 11 southern states that seceded got involved in the Civil War? You have to show evidence of that because I think it's total bullshit.

It should be noted that my use of the term "South (southern)" refers to the Confederate states and the term "North (northern)" refers to the Union.

Did I say anything about states and did I say anything about what states got involved in the war? Read my post and try again. Lots of southerners Black and white left and fought for the Union. You said 100% of the south fought and you were wrong....again.

 

[Rotagilla]

Oh, and Fort Sumter was ceded to the US Government by SC in 1836.

Also, your "What, then, would become of my tariff?" is bogus. No record of Lincoln saying that. It comes from hearsay, and no evidence he ever said that.

It's cited...who it was said to, where it was said and the date.

but ok..I'll let you ignore that one...what about the others? Try to wriggle out of that.

LMAO..and what about black slaveholders? Any comments?

More Silliness about Tariffs from David John Marotta <-- Where the hearsay quote was culled from.

The black slaveholders has been discussed by me ad nauseum. It's no gotcha.

First off, much of the Black Slaveowners is pushed by David Grooms, Grooms plays fast and loose with his numbers and has been debunked repeatedly. Grooms writes for the Barnes Review. What is the Barnes Review?

Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is a bi-monthly magazine founded in 1994 by Willis Carto, dedicated to historical revisionism such as Holocaust denial. Willis Carto had earlier founded the Institute for Historical Review in 1979 but lost control of that organization in an internal takeover by former associates.

^ "Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History". Anti-Defamation League. Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History. Retrieved 2008-11-17. "The Spotlight announced in August 1994 that Liberty Lobby was launching a new publication devoted to historical revisionism called The Barnes Review (after the 20th century revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes)."

But let's get beyond that.

It is certainly true there were black slaveowners, but I'm sure, as you know, those free blacks were often prisoners in their own states. Law in many Southern states forbade them to even leave the state - unless it was permanent, they were restricted in commerce, legal matters, etc...; just simply living for a free black, even ones who had built up wealth was not as some would have you believe.

As the war approached, even more laws were written that could snatch away their "freedom" at any given moment
...and of course, Dred Scott made it clear they were not even citizens of the country they lived in. read that again: Even Free Blacks were not even citizens of the country they lived in

Yes, some black slaveowners bought slaves to purchase their kin's freedom, some did it for economic, pragmatic reasons, and some were just as dastardly as their fully white counterparts. All true.

But Grooms inflates numbers by playing with statistics and presenting a much different picture than actually was.
He also fails to mention a good portion of those "negro slaveowners" were mulattoes.

Mary Chestnut wrote about those mulattoes:

"God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system and wrong and iniquity. Perhaps the rest of the world is as bad; this only I see.

Like the patriarchs of our old men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines, and the mulattoes one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children;
and every lady tells you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own she seems to think drop from the clouds, or pretends so to think."[Link]

More often than not, those "black slaveowners" many refer to, were by all appearances, quite white. Still, all in all, the numbers were very, very small.

Which brings us back to those "white slaves" quite a few pages back some posters were popping up here. Remember those? There's a reason the Lost Causers keep referring to those, and the "black slaveholders."

It has a lot to do with assuaging the guilt of the fully white man, who sought to preserve his superiority over the black race, in some states where the population of slaves were more majority than free -- and was willing to die to keep white supremacy intact.

That's it, then?
Ok it's resolved;
The war of northern aggression was purposely provoked by lincoln invading charleston, a city that was not part of the united states. Clearly an unprovoked act of aggression that left the south no choice but to defend their nation from the invaders.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

States rights.

States rights to own slaves.

The North also owned slaves so to think they went to war to stop slavery is just plain stupid. But go ahead, stay stuck on stupid.

The North didnt go to war to free the slaves. The south went to war to keep the slaves like they admitted in their speeches and documents of secession..

So the South went to war to keep slaves but the North wasn't trying to take the slaves away. So why did the North go to war?

Looks like another admission that the Civil War wasn't purely about slavery is about to be made.

Like most schoolchildren learn in grammar school, the North went to War to preserve the Union.
Did you ever finish grammar school?

If preserving the union

States rights.

States rights to own slaves.

The North also owned slaves so to think they went to war to stop slavery is just plain stupid. But go ahead, stay stuck on stupid.

The North didnt go to war to free the slaves. The south went to war to keep the slaves like they admitted in their speeches and documents of secession..

So the South went to war to keep slaves but the North wasn't trying to take the slaves away. So why did the North go to war?

Looks like another admission that the Civil War wasn't purely about slavery is about to be made.

Correct. The south was the only side that went to war to preserve slavery. I know your simple mind cant handle 2 sides having different reasons but in the real world things can be complex....well at least to you.

BTW the North went to war to preserve the union, save face worldwide, and take away more power from the south. Looks like they did what they set out to do.

At least you two admit the Civil War wasn't purely about slavery.

It took y'all long enough!

 

[paperview]

Oh, and Fort Sumter was ceded to the US Government by SC in 1836.

Also, your "What, then, would become of my tariff?" is bogus. No record of Lincoln saying that. It comes from hearsay, and no evidence he ever said that.

It's cited...who it was said to, where it was said and the date.

but ok..I'll let you ignore that one...what about the others? Try to wriggle out of that.

LMAO..and what about black slaveholders? Any comments?

More Silliness about Tariffs from David John Marotta <-- Where the hearsay quote was culled from.

The black slaveholders has been discussed by me ad nauseum. It's no gotcha.

First off, much of the Black Slaveowners is pushed by David Grooms, Grooms plays fast and loose with his numbers and has been debunked repeatedly. Grooms writes for the Barnes Review. What is the Barnes Review?

Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is a bi-monthly magazine founded in 1994 by Willis Carto, dedicated to historical revisionism such as Holocaust denial. Willis Carto had earlier founded the Institute for Historical Review in 1979 but lost control of that organization in an internal takeover by former associates.

^ "Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History". Anti-Defamation League. Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History. Retrieved 2008-11-17. "The Spotlight announced in August 1994 that Liberty Lobby was launching a new publication devoted to historical revisionism called The Barnes Review (after the 20th century revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes)."

But let's get beyond that.

It is certainly true there were black slaveowners, but I'm sure, as you know, those free blacks were often prisoners in their own states. Law in many Southern states forbade them to even leave the state - unless it was permanent, they were restricted in commerce, legal matters, etc...; just simply living for a free black, even ones who had built up wealth was not as some would have you believe.

As the war approached, even more laws were written that could snatch away their "freedom" at any given moment
...and of course, Dred Scott made it clear they were not even citizens of the country they lived in. read that again: Even Free Blacks were not even citizens of the country they lived in

Yes, some black slaveowners bought slaves to purchase their kin's freedom, some did it for economic, pragmatic reasons, and some were just as dastardly as their fully white counterparts. All true.

But Grooms inflates numbers by playing with statistics and presenting a much different picture than actually was.
He also fails to mention a good portion of those "negro slaveowners" were mulattoes.

Mary Chestnut wrote about those mulattoes:

"God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system and wrong and iniquity. Perhaps the rest of the world is as bad; this only I see.

Like the patriarchs of our old men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines, and the mulattoes one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children;
and every lady tells you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own she seems to think drop from the clouds, or pretends so to think."[Link]

More often than not, those "black slaveowners" many refer to, were by all appearances, quite white. Still, all in all, the numbers were very, very small.

Which brings us back to those "white slaves" quite a few pages back some posters were popping up here. Remember those? There's a reason the Lost Causers keep referring to those, and the "black slaveholders."

It has a lot to do with assuaging the guilt of the fully white man, who sought to preserve his superiority over the black race, in some states where the population of slaves were more majority than free -- and was willing to die to keep white supremacy intact.

That's it, then?
Ok it's resolved;
The war of northern aggression was purposely provoked by lincoln invading charleston, a city that was not part of the united states. Clearly an unprovoked act of aggression that left the south no choice but to defend their nation from the invaders.

<rolling my eyes>

Incorrigible.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Not all the 11 southern states that seceded got involved in the Civil War? You have to show evidence of that because I think it's total bullshit.

It should be noted that my use of the term "South (southern)" refers to the Confederate states and the term "North (northern)" refers to the Union.

Did I say anything about states and did I say anything about what states got involved in the war? Read my post and try again. Lots of southerners Black and white left and fought for the Union. You said 100% of the south fought and you were wrong....again.

Yes 100 percent of the South. You would be correct only if one Confederate state didn't participate. But they all did so 100 percent is accurate.

I know what you're trying to do and that is to nitpick every word I type in an attempt to pettifog the argument and to cover up your admission that I was right about the war not being about slavery. After all you said it was about preserving the union.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When Lonestar gets shown he is wrong he is not man enough to simply admit it. He has to back pedal until he can find a spot and point to a technicality then claim he was right all along. Typical convict.

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Yup.

Conservative estimate = over 100,000 White Southerners left the CSA to fight for the Union.

Every Southern state except South Carolina raised at least a battalion of Southern Unionists.

[Lincoln's Loyalists: Union Soldiers from the Confederacy]

[Also: "...some 100,000 white southerners (along with 150,000 blacks) — at least one battalion of white troops from every Confederate state except South Carolina — served in Union armies during the course of the war. " ]
Mackubin Thomas Owens on Cold Mountain on National Review Online

Other estimates place it well over a quarter million.

I think your estimate is way off.

Southern Unionist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Asclepias]

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Not all the 11 southern states that seceded got involved in the Civil War? You have to show evidence of that because I think it's total bullshit.

It should be noted that my use of the term "South (southern)" refers to the Confederate states and the term "North (northern)" refers to the Union.

Did I say anything about states and did I say anything about what states got involved in the war? Read my post and try again. Lots of southerners Black and white left and fought for the Union. You said 100% of the south fought and you were wrong....again.

Yes 100 percent of the South. You would be correct only if one Confederate state didn't participate. But they all did so 100 percent is accurate.

I know what you're trying to do and that is to nitpick every word I type in an attempt to pettifog the argument and to cover up your admission that I was right about the war not being about slavery. After all you said it was about preserving the union.

No. 100% of the south did not fight for the confederates. I already explained to you Black and white southerners left and fought for the Union.

No. The south did fight for slavery. I dont need to pick your words. You just got caught being wrong.....again.

 

[paperview]

First you have to show where I'm wrong.

So far no one has.

Although you were shown to be wrong and I have yet to see you admit it.

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Yup.

Conservative estimate = over 100,000 White Southerners left the CSA to fight for the Union.

Every Southern state except South Carolina raised at least a battalion of Southern Unionists.

[Lincoln's Loyalists: Union Soldiers from the Confederacy]

[Also: "...some 100,000 white southerners (along with 150,000 blacks) — at least one battalion of white troops from every Confederate state except South Carolina — served in Union armies during the course of the war. " ]
Mackubin Thomas Owens on Cold Mountain on National Review Online

Other estimates place it well over a quarter million.

I think your estimate is way off.

Southern Unionist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

OK, little logc, what number did ya think they wiki'd at cha there?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Yup.

Conservative estimate = over 100,000 White Southerners left the CSA to fight for the Union.

Every Southern state except South Carolina raised at least a battalion of Southern Unionists.

[Lincoln's Loyalists: Union Soldiers from the Confederacy]

[Also: "...some 100,000 white southerners (along with 150,000 blacks) — at least one battalion of white troops from every Confederate state except South Carolina — served in Union armies during the course of the war. " ]
Mackubin Thomas Owens on Cold Mountain on National Review Online

Other estimates place it well over a quarter million.

I think your estimate is way off.

Southern Unionist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You were wrong when you said this:

"It wasn't about slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth."

And you were proven wrong by your own admission that slavery was part of it.

Now you're still wrong to claim that slavery was only a small part of it. Slavery was the biggest part of it.

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Yup.

Conservative estimate = over 100,000 White Southerners left the CSA to fight for the Union.

Every Southern state except South Carolina raised at least a battalion of Southern Unionists.

[Lincoln's Loyalists: Union Soldiers from the Confederacy]

[Also: "...some 100,000 white southerners (along with 150,000 blacks) — at least one battalion of white troops from every Confederate state except South Carolina — served in Union armies during the course of the war. " ]
Mackubin Thomas Owens on Cold Mountain on National Review Online

Other estimates place it well over a quarter million.

I think your estimate is way off.

Southern Unionist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

OK, little logc, what number did ya think they wiki'd at cha there?

OK, little logc, what number did ya think they wiki'd at cha there?

Did you not read it? Their estimates didn't match your 250,000 total estimate. But then again, they didn't mention blacks at all and no where near the quarter million you allege others have estimated.

Explain why any of this is even relevant.

The debate was whether of not the war was all about slavery as you have suggested but have since changed your mind, ergo I win.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you honesty think that 100 percent of the South would fight and risk their lives for the ten percent that owned slaves?

100% of the south did not fight. Only a moron would think that. The ones that did risked their lives for the few that owned the slaves. So yes.

Not all the 11 southern states that seceded got involved in the Civil War? You have to show evidence of that because I think it's total bullshit.

It should be noted that my use of the term "South (southern)" refers to the Confederate states and the term "North (northern)" refers to the Union.

Did I say anything about states and did I say anything about what states got involved in the war? Read my post and try again. Lots of southerners Black and white left and fought for the Union. You said 100% of the south fought and you were wrong....again.

Yes 100 percent of the South. You would be correct only if one Confederate state didn't participate. But they all did so 100 percent is accurate.

I know what you're trying to do and that is to nitpick every word I type in an attempt to pettifog the argument and to cover up your admission that I was right about the war not being about slavery. After all you said it was about preserving the union.

No. 100% of the south did not fight for the confederates. I already explained to you Black and white southerners left and fought for the Union.

No. The south did fight for slavery. I dont need to pick your words. You just got caught being wrong.....again.

You are indeed nitpicking. I clarified what I meant by the term "South" and you refuse to accept my clarification and want it to be about each individual citizen and not as a collective state.

If the South fought for slavery then the north fought against slavery. So explain why there was slavery in the north at a time they were fighting against slavery in the south. Oh that's right, you want us to believe that the two sides fought for reasons not related to one another, one for slavery the other for preservation of the union.