TLHLIM

[Jaw]

Ahh yes, it's the north's fault for the south seceding because they wanted to keep slavery.

THe logic fails are ****ing hysterical.

Oh no, your ignorance! It's sticking out again!

Having seceded, the South turned down three offers by Lincoln to return to the Union and keep slavery. The first was an absolute Constitutional guarantee that slavery could never be banned by congressional action – the Corwin Amendment. The second was a promise in the EP that if the South returned to the Union before the proclamation went into effect it could keep slavery. The third was an assurance at Hampton Roads that if the South returned to the Union it could defeat the 13th Amendment banning slavery. The South turned down every offer. Why? Because its cause was not slavery, but rather independence from a section of the country that had long violated the Constitution and now stood in a position to centralize power in DC because it controlled a majority of States. Economic exploitation was now unavoidable in the Union. These actions prove the South’s purpose in secession was not the preservation or extension of slavery. But that is not all. Further proving the South’s cause was not slavery was its willingness to end it in hopes of gaining foreign support in its effort for independence. As early as July 1862, seven Northern Congressmen send corroborating testimony in a letter to Lincoln that the CS was looking to end slavery in hopes of gaining independence. These Union loyal congressmen call it a “fact now become history” that the South was seeking to end slavery:

“We are the more emboldened to assume this position from the fact, now become history, that the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.”

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.171...,2.636,3.213,0

[acesfull86]

[zitothebrave]

Oh no, your ignorance! It's sticking out again!

Having seceded, the South turned down three offers by Lincoln to return to the Union and keep slavery. The first was an absolute Constitutional guarantee that slavery could never be banned by congressional action – the Corwin Amendment. The second was a promise in the EP that if the South returned to the Union before the proclamation went into effect it could keep slavery. The third was an assurance at Hampton Roads that if the South returned to the Union it could defeat the 13th Amendment banning slavery. The South turned down every offer. Why? Because its cause was not slavery, but rather independence from a section of the country that had long violated the Constitution and now stood in a position to centralize power in DC because it controlled a majority of States. Economic exploitation was now unavoidable in the Union. These actions prove the South’s purpose in secession was not the preservation or extension of slavery. But that is not all. Further proving the South’s cause was not slavery was its willingness to end it in hopes of gaining foreign support in its effort for independence. As early as July 1862, seven Northern Congressmen send corroborating testimony in a letter to Lincoln that the CS was looking to end slavery in hopes of gaining independence. These Union loyal congressmen call it a “fact now become history” that the South was seeking to end slavery:

“We are the more emboldened to assume this position from the fact, now become history, that the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.”

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.171...,2.636,3.213,0

Hahahahahhahahhahahhahaha

I know facts aren't your strong suit but it's ****ign comical.

SO you linked the appeal to border states. These were the states were slavery was still legal who didn't join the traitors. Lincoln proposed a slow emancipation multiple times. That still was something the south couldn't fathom.

Hampton Roads mind you all the accounts from it first hand were from Confederates. And I think you're likely confusing Lincoln and Seward likely conceding that the Southern States could rejoin the union and ruin ratification with having that Lincoln offering it from a position of weakness. Lincoln drafted an amnesty resolution that terms of it were ratification of the 13th Amendment.

No the reason they didn't want to come back was lincoln wanted to stop expansion of slavery to new states. Which means in a matter of time with expansion non-slave states would dominate slave states leading to emancipation. It had nothing to do with "state's rights" other than their right to own slaves.

There's a 0.0% chance the confederacy would have abolished slavery. First off the confederacy was so poorly run they couldn't organize ****. Second, it's literally why multiple fo the states seceded.

[Jaw]

Hahahahahhahahhahahhahaha

I know facts aren't your strong suit but it's ****ign comical.

SO you linked the appeal to border states. These were the states were slavery was still legal who didn't join the traitors. Lincoln proposed a slow emancipation multiple times. That still was something the south couldn't fathom.

Hampton Roads mind you all the accounts from it first hand were from Confederates. And I think you're likely confusing Lincoln and Seward likely conceding that the Southern States could rejoin the union and ruin ratification with having that Lincoln offering it from a position of weakness. Lincoln drafted an amnesty resolution that terms of it were ratification of the 13th Amendment.

No the reason they didn't want to come back was lincoln wanted to stop expansion of slavery to new states. Which means in a matter of time with expansion non-slave states would dominate slave states leading to emancipation. It had nothing to do with "state's rights" other than their right to own slaves.

There's a 0.0% chance the confederacy would have abolished slavery. First off the confederacy was so poorly run they couldn't organize ****. Second, it's literally why multiple fo the states seceded.

Uhh nope, try again. Not what you thought it was.

[Tapate50]

Bold prediction:

Zito disappears from this one

[Tapate50]

Lol

So do you go around crowing about the accomplishments of people in the 1800s like a coat tail riding loser ?

It couldnt matter less

[zitothebrave]

Uhh nope, try again. Not what you thought it was.

Yes it was. And basically everything I said is verifiably factual. Unlike what you said. The article you quoted from that letter was from congressmen from Borderstates still in the union saying they think the confederacy will abolish slavery, that never was a plan. If the only reason Lincoln did the emancipation was to stop England from aiding the confederacy, surely the confederacy would have been wise enough to then follow it up with abolishing slavery to get England's aid? You realize the massive logic fallacy you walked into right?

Hampton Roads was organized by someone who was a friend with both Lincoln and Davis. SOme people believe Davis had no interest in going there with anything other than an attempt to rally people with propaganda, but really we know that Lincoln drafted a for lack of better term a resolution for Amnesty for the Confederacy.

You're confusing Lincoln's scholarliness with what he feels in his heart.

You still think Lincoln for some reason is some kind of racist who didn't want to free slaves for some reason even with specific information I've provided to prove you wrong.

I don't care what Podcast you got your information from, it's not accurate. The South fought the civil war for the right to own slaves, the north fought it to preserve the union. Honestly would have been better for Lincoln to let the traitors go then come crawling back after their asses were invaded by another country.

[zitothebrave]

So do you go around crowing about the accomplishments of people in the 1800s like a coat tail riding loser ?

It couldnt matter less

Lol

[thethe]

[thethe]

It may be time to invade Canada and free their people.

[sturg33]

lol the media knows that leftists do not live in a world of reality

[acesfull86]

[Garmel]

It's terrifying to these libs like Colbert that Trump actually has rights.

[cajunrevenge]

Did you people seriously get duped by a joke?

[acesfull86]

Did you people seriously get duped by a joke?

I didn’t want to start a “deeply unfunny late night ‘comedians’” thread, so I figured I’d just post here

[cajunrevenge]

Well thank you for keeping us up to date on comedians you dont like.

[acesfull86]

Well thank you for keeping us up to date on comedians you dont like.

You’re very welcome

[goldfly]

It's terrifying to these libs like Colbert that Trump actually has rights.

you this far down the cult hole that you believe this ****?

[goldfly]

I didn’t want to start a “deeply unfunny late night ‘comedians’” thread, so I figured I’d just post here

well, unfollowing and not reposting things Stephen L. ****ing Miller posts would help you not fall into this situation of looking like a clown

ftr

[Garmel]

lol