What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

Douchebag K said:
so how long does it take until the other candidates drop out and you find out whether the second choice has a serious challenge to trump ?
Click to expand...
February 24. That is the night of the South Carolina primary. That date will mark the end of either Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis if both of them make it that far.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
March 3. That is Republican "Super Tuesday" where 13 states all have their primaries on the same day, including delegate monster California. If no competitors have made a serious dent by that date, it is over.
Click to expand...
gotcha thanks. I take it with todays result so far it's probably already over ??
 
Al-O-Meter said:
You’re saying the southern states wanted the northern states to comply more thoroughly with the fugitive slave laws so they seceded from the union because secession would make the northern states more likely to comply with fugitive slave laws? That makes absolutely zero sense.
Click to expand...
I agree that this train of thought makes no sense. You could have asked yourself what made sense.

Freedom of movement was enshrined in 1823. Being a separate nation ends freedom of movement to the North.

Al-O-Meter said:
Before you, BabyPeterzz, or anyone else in the comments tells me once again that “Brawndo’s got what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes”, I know I’m not going to change your mind. You’ve surrendered on the Civil War being caused by secession and disagreement over the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution giving states the power to leave the Union.
Click to expand...
Again, this is like saying cancer doesn't kill people.

Al-O-Meter said:
I can show universal support for what I’m saying in the secession documents from all seceding states,
Click to expand...
I would really appreciate seeing them.

Al-O-Meter said:
, while you can’t find the same level of evidence for your claims
Click to expand...
I linked to the secession declarations of four states, and the status of fugitive slave was prominent in all of them, and described as a primary reason for secession. So far, you have linked to 0 documents.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
You’re saying the southern states wanted the northern states to comply more thoroughly with the fugitive slave laws so they seceded from the union because secession would make the northern states more likely to comply with fugitive slave laws? That makes absolutely zero sense.

BabyPeterzz’s new line of the southern states wanted slavery to expand westward and seceding from the union would make the union’s western states more likely to allow slavery is just as nonsensical.

Before you, BabyPeterzz, or anyone else in the comments tells me once again that “Brawndo’s got what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes”, I know I’m not going to change your mind. You’ve surrendered on the Civil War being caused by secession and disagreement over the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution giving states the power to leave the Union.

You’ve taken the fallback position of arguing the cause of secession. I can show universal support for what I’m saying in the secession documents from all seceding states, the clear intentions Abraham Lincoln claimed early in the war in the letter to Horace Greeley, and Lincoln’s endorsement of the Corwin Amendment to enshrine slavery in his inaugural address along with letters to each of the governors in the seceding states to communicate his assurances of his protecting their ability to own slaves, while you can’t find the same level of evidence for your claims because you say the southern states were too chicken to write it down or communicated in dog whistles and Brawndo’s got what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes.

None of this is new information to me. The part I can’t wrap my head around is that you think “the Civil War ended slavery” is a white washing of history but “the Civil War was fought to end slavery” is not. Both statements are white washes. They are the same white wash. The Civil War was fought to keep the Union intact, and the Union won. The Union was kept intact. The ending of chattel slavery in the United States was advanced as a collateral consequence of the war and didn’t just happen on April 9, 1865 when Robert E. Lee surrendered because the war wasn’t about that. It is only the story we tell.

If you want to tell me one more time that Brawndo’s got what plants crave, I’ll let you have the last word.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I’ll allow Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy, to provide the last word in his “Cornerstone Speech” in 1861. Guess what the “cornerstone” is….

“But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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.
Click to expand...

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
Click to expand...

"Cornerstone Speech" by Alexander Stephens in Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861 | State Historical Society of Iowa

Full Transcript of Alexander Hamilton Stephens' Speech Transcribed Excerpts from Alexander Hamilton Stephens' Speech
history.iowa.gov history.iowa.gov


This is my last post on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top