Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[Syriusly]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

Their representatives did

We the People formed a country and each state signed up for it. Once you sign up and are accepted you gain all the benefits of the country and all the responsibilities

States do not get to just "Opt out"

A contract has to be signed by the people who have to comply with its terms. What about the people who didn't vote for these "representatives?" What about all the following generations who never had a chance to vote for them? The Constitution simply isn't a valid contract.

There is no language in the Constitution that prevents a state from seceding, so your claim is fatuous, to say the least.

You think our government does things by unanimous consent?

We are a Republic....look it up

That is the reason "We the People" formed a Constitution.....to define that government

Contracts require unanimous consent by all who are bound by their terms. Anything lacking that is not a valid contract.

You are right, government seldom does anything with the consent of those who the government does it to. That's the nature of government. It's the opposite of voluntary cooperation. It's nothing but pure force.

Conservatives are not regressive ... that we leave to your kind both progressives and the old democrat libertarians

You're a "conservative?" You must be one of those paleo-conservatives who worships totalitarianism.

Son because I read history and don't believe the lies you believe doesn't mean I am a totalitarian.

You read propaganda. Everything you believe is a lie. That's one of the principle ways that totalitarianism works, by brainwashing its followers to believe that its the highest form of freedom.

Yet you are unable to prove that- your posts are propaganda- anti-American propaganda- you have been brainwashed by neo-Confederates and are unable to accept the facts that your Confederate States both seceded to protected slavery- and started the war, when they fired on Federal troops.

I have proved everything I say a dozen times over in this forum. There have been other threads on this subject that have thousands of posts. You and some other Lincoln worshipping turds have participated in those threads.

Who do you think you're fooling, asshole?

Does anyone think that Brip could make a post without sounding like a petulant 12 year old boy on the playground, thrilled to be able to use 'dirty' language without grownups stopping him?

 

[rightwinger]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

 

[kaz]

It's not that simple.

It's a deflection since it's irrelevant to the discussion. e

Actually it is pretty much that simple.

If people would stop arguing that the preserving slavery was not one of the reasons, if not the primary reason the Confederacy formed and states seceded, we wouldn't be pointing out that the States very clearly identified slavery as that proximate reason.

No one said it wasn't, Syriously Stupid. The discussion is about support for THE RIGHT of secession, the slavery crap is all coming from you idiot liberals

No- clearly not- unless you are calling yourself an 'idiot liberal'

You keep posting to show states that that didn't include 'slavery' in their secession statements- your slavery crap is right there. You don't want to talk about slavery- don't talk about slavery.

Kaz

OK, let's start with Virginia

-------------------------------------

TRANSCRIPTION
Page 1 of 1
The Virginia Convention Voted For Secession, April 17, 1861

An Ordinance

To repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution.



Kaz



Let's try North Carolina. Oops:

------------------------------------

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled "The Constitution of the United States."

I didn't claim anything, I was responding to your fuck buddy's claims that zero States did not reference slavery when they seceded.

I posted Virgina, North Carolina and South Carolina. Virginia I missed one reference. South Carolina, apparently I read the short version.

North Carolina still stands, not seeing a contradiction. Since the claim was and seconded that every one did, I'm winning, Holmes

Kaz:

The discussion is about support for THE RIGHT of secession, the slavery crap is all coming from you idiot liberals

So apparently you are an 'idiot liberal'- since I just pointed out your two posts discussing slavery in regards to secession.

So if I respond then I'm the one bringing it up. Gotcha. A question, do you dress yourself?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Another lunatic leftwing thread that has no basis in reality.

3 randoms on the net make stupid statements and the morons on the left attribute it to everyone.

 

[bripat9643]

A contract has to be signed by the people who have to comply with its terms. What about the people who didn't vote for these "representatives?" What about all the following generations who never had a chance to vote for them? The Constitution simply isn't a valid contract.

There is no language in the Constitution that prevents a state from seceding, so your claim is fatuous, to say the least.

You think our government does things by unanimous consent?

We are a Republic....look it up

That is the reason "We the People" formed a Constitution.....to define that government

Contracts require unanimous consent by all who are bound by their terms. Anything lacking that is not a valid contract.

You are right, government seldom does anything with the consent of those who the government does it to. That's the nature of government. It's the opposite of voluntary cooperation. It's nothing but pure force.

You're a "conservative?" You must be one of those paleo-conservatives who worships totalitarianism.

Son because I read history and don't believe the lies you believe doesn't mean I am a totalitarian.

You read propaganda. Everything you believe is a lie. That's one of the principle ways that totalitarianism works, by brainwashing its followers to believe that its the highest form of freedom.

Yet you are unable to prove that- your posts are propaganda- anti-American propaganda- you have been brainwashed by neo-Confederates and are unable to accept the facts that your Confederate States both seceded to protected slavery- and started the war, when they fired on Federal troops.

I have proved everything I say a dozen times over in this forum. There have been other threads on this subject that have thousands of posts. You and some other Lincoln worshipping turds have participated in those threads.

Who do you think you're fooling, asshole?

Does anyone think that Brip could make a post without sounding like a petulant 12 year old boy on the playground, thrilled to be able to use 'dirty' language without grownups stopping him?

Do you morons actually believe you are entitled to be treated with respect or something?

 

[kaz]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

 

[bripat9643]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

Right. Slavery ended in every Western country in the world by 1889, but you think the Confederacy would have still had slaves?

More proof that you're a moron.

 

[-S-]

The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself

I've been in this discussion and never seen bripat remotely say that. Back it up

The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate

Right, my point was in response to this point, back it up

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

No, my claim was based on this one, you made the false claim. I see one leftists after another say things about bripat that I haven't seen in thread after thread from bripat. So back it up

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

Nice deflection, Kaz.

Not.

You didn't address the part where you claimed that I equated supporting the right of secession with supporting slavery. The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself. Just because you believe his most recent opinion doesn't he didn't state the other as well.

But I digress: The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate. NOWHERE did I say that supporting the right to secede is the same as supporting slavery.

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

Making shit up is Kaz's bread and butter. When you want a chuckle, ask me about Kaz and 'British Intelligence'. Or 'black bakers and the KKK'.

Its a hoot.

I might have to PM you on those haha.

I don't understand why he is defending Bripat so defiantly. You and I BOTH know he stated that there was nothing "more American" than what the Confederacy fought for. He puts puts false words in my mouth, and denies the words coming out of his BFF Bripat

Two reasons:

1) I'm not on the side of a person or an ideology, I am on the side of truth and I have participated extensively in this thread and many more with bripat and never seen him say what you leftists keep saying he said, and you never back up your claims with quotes

2) You keep tying supporting secession to supporting slavery and keep using him to do it killing any actual discussion. So I'm bitch slapping you for fun. Hope that clears it up.

Here's what would advance the argument. Stop saying he's a slavery supporting racist and start actually showing quotes he says that. I keep seeing quotes from him saying he doesn't support slavery or racism

I don't know who you're kidding, but your literal claim against me that you can't back up is:


KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."


You are wrong, sir. Wrong. I have nowhere tied the two together. Even in the post you tried to "prove me wrong" with:


-S- SAID: ↑
"So you only believe the south had the right to secede? You don't support the Confederacy's cause over the Union's cause?"


I draw a CLEAR LINE between the two stances that you say I equate with one another. The word 'ONLY' in the first sentence denotes that I am asking WHICH OF THE TWO STANCES she agrees with. If your claim was correct, I would have considered them THE SAME STANCE, and therefore would have no reason to ask which she agrees with..

Even in it's isolated form, out of context, it still in NO way proves your point.


You're not "bitch slapping me for fun", you just look like a confused bitch. There's a difference, Kaz.





Don't make claims you can't substantiate.

 

[Syriusly]

So you presume to tell us why the seceded even though you haven't got a shred of actual evidence?

Hmmm well lets see
South Carolina
Viriginia
Georgia
Mississippi
Texas
Alabama
Virginia

All mention slavery in their secession or causes of secession statements. Other states- well not every state made a 'secession statement' or causes statement- but there are other documents:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.

I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
....
The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. ...
Geo. Williamson Commissioner of the State of Louisiana City of Austin Feby 11th 1861

Well there you go. There's nothing more 'American' per Britpat than seeking to 'preserve the blessings of African Slavery'.

Not really an American thing.

More like an African Tribal thing.

More like an Arab-Berber-Muslim Slaver thing.

More like a Spanish and Portugese and English thing.

Americans were pikers and johnny-come-latelies compared to those guys.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Denying our past is exactly what brainwashed turds like you do.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union

 

[Syriusly]

The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself

I've been in this discussion and never seen bripat remotely say that. Back it up

The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate

Right, my point was in response to this point, back it up

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

No, my claim was based on this one, you made the false claim. I see one leftists after another say things about bripat that I haven't seen in thread after thread from bripat. So back it up

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

Nice deflection, Kaz.

Not.

You didn't address the part where you claimed that I equated supporting the right of secession with supporting slavery. The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself. Just because you believe his most recent opinion doesn't he didn't state the other as well.

But I digress: The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate. NOWHERE did I say that supporting the right to secede is the same as supporting slavery.

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

Making shit up is Kaz's bread and butter. When you want a chuckle, ask me about Kaz and 'British Intelligence'. Or 'black bakers and the KKK'.

Its a hoot.

I might have to PM you on those haha.

I don't understand why he is defending Bripat so defiantly. You and I BOTH know he stated that there was nothing "more American" than what the Confederacy fought for. He puts puts false words in my mouth, and denies the words coming out of his BFF Bripat

Two reasons:

1) I'm not on the side of a person or an ideology, I am on the side of truth and I have participated extensively in this thread and many more with bripat and never seen him say what you leftists keep saying he said, and you never back up your claims with quotes

2) You keep tying supporting secession to supporting slavery and keep using him to do it killing any actual discussion. So I'm bitch slapping you for fun. Hope that clears it up.

Here's what would advance the argument. Stop saying he's a slavery supporting racist and start actually showing quotes he says that. I keep seeing quotes from him saying he doesn't support slavery or racism

I don't know who you're kidding, but your literal claim against me that you can't back up is:


KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."


You are wrong, sir. Wrong. I have nowhere tied the two together. Even in the post you tried to "prove me wrong" with:


-S- SAID: ↑
"So you only believe the south had the right to secede? You don't support the Confederacy's cause over the Union's cause?"


I draw a CLEAR LINE between the two stances that you say I equate with one another. The word 'ONLY' in the first sentence denotes that I am asking WHICH OF THE TWO STANCES she agrees with. If your claim was correct, I would have considered them THE SAME STANCE, and therefore would have no reason to ask which she agrees with..

Even in it's isolated form, out of context, it still in NO way proves your point.


You're not "bitch slapping me for fun", you just look like a confused bitch. There's a difference, Kaz.





Don't make claims you can't substantiate.

Kaz does this on a regular basis- then he just ignores the fact that he was wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

 

[kaz]

Don't make claims you can't substantiate.

Exactly, so where is your quote from bripat that he supports slavery?

And you substantiated my claim.

I said you are equating support for secession and support of slavery. You agreed you are, but only claimed you are doing it for bripat because he said that. Why exactly are you asking me to substantiate what you already agreed to?

So follow your own statement and substantiate where bripat said he supports slavery. Every reference I read said he doesn't

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm well lets see
South Carolina
Viriginia
Georgia
Mississippi
Texas
Alabama
Virginia

All mention slavery in their secession or causes of secession statements. Other states- well not every state made a 'secession statement' or causes statement- but there are other documents:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.

I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
....
The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. ...
Geo. Williamson Commissioner of the State of Louisiana City of Austin Feby 11th 1861

Well there you go. There's nothing more 'American' per Britpat than seeking to 'preserve the blessings of African Slavery'.

Not really an American thing.

More like an African Tribal thing.

More like an Arab-Berber-Muslim Slaver thing.

More like a Spanish and Portugese and English thing.

Americans were pikers and johnny-come-latelies compared to those guys.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Denying our past is exactly what brainwashed turds like you do.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union

Not denying our past doesn't mean adopting your moronic conclusions. Every Western country in the world ended slavery by 1889. The idea that the American confederacy would be the lone exception that lasted into the 20th century is too stupid for words to describe. However, that's what it takes for turds like you to alleviate the guilt of slaughtering 850,000 Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

You mean like every other nation that practiced slavery?

Another idiot posts his moron theories to the forum.

 

[Syriusly]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

Right. Slavery ended in every Western country in the world by 1889, but you think the Confederacy would have still had slaves?

More proof that you're a moron.

I was going to respond to your post in kind, but I realized upon re-reading it that it is possible you misinterpreted my intent- because I poorly wrote my statement- here is my revised post

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But slavery would probably have been abolished- eventually.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind that many states were first territories of the United States, aka, possessions. As soon as they renounced their statehood in the form of secession,

the land those states occupy would revert to territorial possessions of the United States. Secession for those particular states would amount to attempted theft of US property.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

You mean like every other nation that practiced slavery?

Another idiot posts his moron theories to the forum.

The Southern states even after being returned to the US maintained a form of apartheid for 100 years.

 

[bripat9643]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

You mean like every other nation that practiced slavery?

Another idiot posts his moron theories to the forum.

The Southern states even after being returned to the US maintained a form of apartheid for 100 years.

That wouldn't have anything to do with being invaded by foreign armies that proceeded to rape, pillage and loot and burn their cities to the ground, do you suppose?

 

[Syriusly]

Well there you go. There's nothing more 'American' per Britpat than seeking to 'preserve the blessings of African Slavery'.

Not really an American thing.

More like an African Tribal thing.

More like an Arab-Berber-Muslim Slaver thing.

More like a Spanish and Portugese and English thing.

Americans were pikers and johnny-come-latelies compared to those guys.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Denying our past is exactly what brainwashed turds like you do.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union

Not denying our past doesn't mean adopting your moronic conclusions. Every Western country in the world ended slavery by 1889. The idea that the American confederacy would be the lone exception that lasted into the 20th century is too stupid for words to describe.

That you presume to know how history would turn out just shows your ignorant arrogance.

The United States was already among the last few countries in the Western Hemisphere to have legal slavery when the Confederate States seceded specifically to protect slavery.

Mexico abolished slavery in 1821
Peru- 1854
Chile- 1825
Venezuala- 1854

The only Western Hemisphere countries other than the United States where slavery was still legal in 1860 were Cuba- and Brazil. Why do you think that the South would have chosen to give up the slavery that it left the United States to protect?

So what year do you say the South would have voluntarily liberated its slaves- and given up the South's single largest capital investment?