Will Blacks Abandon the Democrat Party?

[Asclepias]

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

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.

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again? The next thing we will hear from you is that Virginia was technically not a confederate state.

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

Certainly it wasn't only about slavery, but slavery was for more than "one of the issues."

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

 

[paperview]

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

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.

They don't have estimates, do they?

The number comes from the Conservative National Review Online which I linked:

Lost On Cold Mountain National Review Online

" Indeed, the dirty little secret of the Confederacy–swept under the rug by the Lost Cause school–is that 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."

The writer no doubt was taking it from the records the well regarded historian (and man who literally wrote the Encyclopedia of the Confederacy, Richard Nelson Current work Lincoln's Loyalists:

Lincoln s Loyalists Union Soldiers from the Confederacy - Richard Nelson Current - Google Books

"With this path-breaking book, Richard Nelson Current closes a major gap in our understanding of the important role of white southerners who fought for the Union during the Civil War. The ranks of the Union forces swelled by more than 100,000 of these men known to their friends as "loyalists" and to their enemies as "tories". They substantially strengthened the Union, weakened the Confederacy, and affected the outcome of the Civil War.

Despite the assertions of southern governors that Lincoln would get no troops from the South to preserve the Union, every Confederate state except South Carolina provided at least a battalion of white troops for the Union Army. The role of black soldiers (including those from the South) continues to receive deserved attention. Curiously, little heed has been paid to the white southern supporters of the Union cause, and nothing has been published about the group as a whole.

Relying almost entirely on primary sources, Current here opens the long-overdue investigation of these many Americans who, at great risk to themselves and their families, made a significant contribution to the Union's war effort. Current meticulously explores the history of the loyalists in each Confederate state during the war. Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia provided over 70 percent of the loyalist troops, but 10,000 from Arkansas, 7,000 from Louisiana, and thousands from North Carolina, Texas, and Alabama volunteered as well. "

The total number of blacks that served as soldiers for the Union cause in the Civil War was 180,000.

It's relevant because you can't even follow a conversation.

Oh, and you're still stupid as a rock.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

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.

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

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

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.

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

State =/= People

Duh.

 

[Asclepias]

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

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.

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well then why did you need an explanation as to why it was relevant? Were you confused or something?

 

[paperview]

And not all slave states joined the confederacy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

I clarified after I seen that you took what I said out of context.

Look the bottom line is, I'm right again and your once again wrong. No big deal.

Your analysis doesn't back up the facts

 

[Asclepias]

And West Virginia was formed by withdrawing from a confederate Virginia.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

I clarified after I seen that you took what I said out of context.

Look the bottom line is, I'm right again and your once again wrong. No big deal.

Your analysis doesn't back up the facts

After "I seen"? I think you meant "saw" or "observed".

You clarified because you were tripped up by your own logic and wanted to back pedal. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong.....again.

My analysis was of your statement. I wouldnt describe your statements as facts. More like the musings of a 4 year old.

 

[paperview]

More than a year before Lincoln stepped into office - he had the South figured out, and predicted Republicans would be blamed for the actions the rebels were intending to inflict on the country - because they made it clear, if Lincoln -- who was against the expansion of slavery -- .was elected, they intended to secede.

Something they banged the war drums about decades earlier, and especially heated in the previous election, when the first republican was a candidate for office, in 1856.

Read this and tell me how the man was not only prescient then, but could very well have been said when the republicans shut down the government :

"You will not abide the election of a Republican president!

In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us!

That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"
[Cooper - Union Speech]

<Kudos too for the man mid-19th century saying "That is cool.">

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well then why did you need an explanation as to why it was relevant? Were you confused or something?

The way you two jump around different issues does make it confusing. But I understand that neither of you can help it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

I clarified after I seen that you took what I said out of context.

Look the bottom line is, I'm right again and your once again wrong. No big deal.

Your analysis doesn't back up the facts

You clarified because you were tripped up by your own logic and wanted to back pedal. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong.....again.

My analysis was of your statement. I wouldnt describe your statements as facts. More like the musings of a 4 year old.

Never been tripped up in my life.

Never made any such admission.

You on the other hand have and I appreciate it.

Analyzing a statement I made instead of focusing on the subject at hand? More pettifogging.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

I clarified after I seen that you took what I said out of context.

Look the bottom line is, I'm right again and your once again wrong. No big deal.

Your analysis doesn't back up the facts

You clarified because you were tripped up by your own logic and wanted to back pedal. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong.....again.

My analysis was of your statement. I wouldnt describe your statements as facts. More like the musings of a 4 year old.

Never been tripped up in my life.

Never made any such admission.

You on the other hand have and I appreciate it.

Analyzing a statement I made instead of focusing on the subject at hand? More pettifogging.

I'd say when you went to prison you were tripped up. Or do you consider that a well planned move?

I'm sure you were tripped up plenty of times before and afterwards as well. You cant help it. You are too dumb to get out of your own way.

Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your wrong statement. Seems like you are learning.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

You can jabber on all you want but you will never be right about it.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well then why did you need an explanation as to why it was relevant? Were you confused or something?

The way you two jump around different issues does make it confusing. But I understand that neither of you can help it.

When you try to change the narrative you tend to only confuse yourself. People that have superior intellect dont get confused by your deflections and diversions. You started talking about states when no one mentioned it. I saw it for the diversion it was and made you pay for it. Next time dont confuse yourself by attempting to outsmart someone smarter than yourself. Is that clear convict?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

I clarified after I seen that you took what I said out of context.

Look the bottom line is, I'm right again and your once again wrong. No big deal.

Your analysis doesn't back up the facts

You clarified because you were tripped up by your own logic and wanted to back pedal. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong.....again.

My analysis was of your statement. I wouldnt describe your statements as facts. More like the musings of a 4 year old.

Never been tripped up in my life.

Never made any such admission.

You on the other hand have and I appreciate it.

Analyzing a statement I made instead of focusing on the subject at hand? More pettifogging.

Your statement doesn't need much 'analysis'. It's quite clear and unequivocal.

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

The furthest thing from the truth in the above context means that the Civil War had absolutely nothing to about slavery.

That is idiocy. Nothing could be more idiotic on this subject than that claim.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You only clarified after I busted you out about being wrong......again. Thanks for admitting you had to clarify your original wrong statement. I dont have to accept your clarification so stop whining about it.

Your logic leaves something to be desired. You are too simplistic in your thinking which is probably the result of being a convict. IOW you have the reasoning skills of a 4 year old. If I attack you because you broke my window it does not follow you fight back to maintain your right to break my window. You are fighting to protect yourself. So you see 2 different people can be in a battle for 2 entirely different reasons. To further clarify that point 2 people can be on the same side in a battle and have different reasons for fighting.

I clarified after I seen that you took what I said out of context.

Look the bottom line is, I'm right again and your once again wrong. No big deal.

Your analysis doesn't back up the facts

You clarified because you were tripped up by your own logic and wanted to back pedal. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong.....again.

My analysis was of your statement. I wouldnt describe your statements as facts. More like the musings of a 4 year old.

Never been tripped up in my life.

Never made any such admission.

You on the other hand have and I appreciate it.

Analyzing a statement I made instead of focusing on the subject at hand? More pettifogging.

Your statement doesn't need much 'analysis'. It's quite clear and unequivocal.

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

The furthest thing from the truth in the above context means that the Civil War had absolutely nothing to about slavery.

That is idiocy. Nothing could be more idiotic on this subject than that claim.

Well what he meant was................