it was about states not recognizing property? you fucking clown lmao it was about (southern) states not recognizing people

No it wasn’t. Emancipation is the outcome not the cause, even after Sumter was attacked Lincoln refused to act on slavery. The feds got involved to preserve state sovereignity and reenforce Lincoln’s position that states did not have the right to secede. Slavery was certainly involved it wasn’t however the cause of federal intervention.

You’re pushing American mythology and ignoring the factual basis for federal involvement. Did you never wonder why Lincoln went with essentially an executive order (that by the way lost him 30+ Republican seats in Congress) rather than passing an amendment rather then passing an amendment first? It’s because he didn’t have the support needed to pass it because the North was also racist and also wanted to keep slaves they just wanted a different mechanism for gaining and keeping slaves ie. Lawful imprisonment.

I would love to see your evidence about that one. I’m quite sure free states cared very very much about state sovereignity hence their objections to shave owning states attempting to exert their authority in free states what with the war about it and all.

They used the states right excuse to uphold the practice of slavery, and completely ignored these rights when they were used against slavery.

No shit? I wonder if we went over this already? Oh yes, we did in fact already talk about this and simply disagreeing with the framework they chose to make their argument does not make it any less of a fact.

That was myth invented after the war was lost to whitewash the people who fought for the “right” to own and abuse human beings.

I already provided pre war evidence that directly refutes your feelings on the matter.

This isn’t lost cause theory, it’s stating a series of facts you simply don’t agree with.

I’m not promoting anything you buffoon, you’re simply trying to call me a racist because you can’t win the argument because the facts simply aren’t on your side.

That’s one states articles of succession and I’m fairly sure the president of the Confederacy is probably a more definitive source as to the Confederacy and btw Lincoln agreed.

Here’s a fun question you’ve yet to address, why is slavery still legal in the United States if the war was to abolish slavery? Why were people still treated as property well into the 1900s?

Yes because that’s the property right they were trying to protect in interstate travel. I’m sorry two things can be true but learn to deal with it I guess.

No I’m not, you’ve apparently not read what I’ve wrote or you’re intensely confused.

I know that, you know that. It however was not tested until the civil war. I think it was Davis himself that said they found out first hand there is no right secede.

Yes a kindergartner could but you’ve apparently missed the point entirely so you’re where in that scale? Preschool? Somewhere in the neighborhood of lacking object permanence?

What you call gobbledygook (racist term btw) are actual facts, you may not like it but they are indisputable facts.

The rest is just weak attempts at personal attacks because you can’t find evidence against my position.

For Congress it means good insurance for life.

And I quoted him before in the legislature and after the war both specifically referring to states rights.

Racism and slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy, as stated by the people that started it.

No shit?

States rights is a bullshit excuse.

That does not change it from being the framework for succession and their main complaint.

The confederate states wanted to force non-slave states to return escaped slaves, despite them have the rights (specifically a state right) not to return human beings to slavers.

Ah you mean they challenged state sovereignity which is… A state right!

Fuck off with this fake ass daughter of the Confederacy propaganda.

You just admitted it was fact, when I was taught in school they would specifically tell you it was not about states rights when in fact it was. The federal government did not intercede because of slavery they interceded because of state sovereignity.

You fuckoff, as I recall you chose to interject yourself. Did you not?

It’s not an echo chamber if there’s differing opinion.

Can’t help but notice you gave up without providing evidence against my argument. Want to try that again or simply cry about a disagreement you willingly took part in?

It was. Read a book, no one is saying they weren’t also racists or that they the state right they wanted preserved was property rights over people in interstate travel.

positions are factually correct, but it completely misses the inhuman and immoral pretexts that lead to those actions.

Duh, I went over that specifically and at length.

states rights

Uh huh, states rights. The federal government did not intercede because of slavery, they likely wouldn’t have acted at all past flimsy legislation if not for fort Sumter.

Don’t believe me, listen to Lincoln, listen to Jefferson Davis.

It’s not white washing it, when people say it isn’t about states rights they are the ones removing context not the other way round.

You just admitted it was about states rights… Hence myopic. We had the same issue with drugs pre federalization as others have pointed out and notably slavery was never outlawed in the United States.

No one said the meme was wrong, I said it was myopic.

Pension for them is like 5 years or something absurd like that.

A pension is available to members 62 years of age with 5 years of service; 50 years or older with 20 years of service; or 25 years of service at any age. A reduced pension is available depending upon which of several different age/service options is chosen. If Members leave Congress before reaching retirement age, they may leave their contributions behind and receive a deferred pension later.[1]

Ya huh.

Insightful rebuttal.

That was an actual issue in America, nice of you to point that out for me and it’s also why drug prohibition was federalized.

Correct, that was their property right claim. It’s nonsensical but quite a lot of wars are over nonsensical shit.

So in conclusion, the whole states rights argument doesn’t work because what they actually wanted was to have their state’s laws apply across the country.

No one said it worked, they fought and lost a war about it but that doesn’t actually make it not their argument nor does it imply we shouldn’t teach that property rights across state lines were the cause of the civil war, not in particular slavery as slavery was never outlawed and people were still considered property until well into the 1900s.

Nuance is sometimes difficult to deal with but that doesn’t mean we should pare away inconvenient truths.

Morality is subjective and therefore difficult to argue which is why they fought it as a property rights issue instead.

It’s an actual fact bud. It may not be one you like but it’s a fact none the less.

To retain ownership across state lines where the property is considered a limited person in the other state. What part of this makes you think I do not know the property in question were people, that isn’t however why the feds got involved. State sovereignity was. Even after emancipation it was still legal to own people and still technically is to this day as slavery was never outlawed it was simply limited. To add to that children were still held as property until I want to say 1930 to the point that the first successful children’s welfare group was the goddamn ASPCA arguing children are property like livestock that it’s morally and economically unreasonable to abuse.

Your myopic and arguably ignorant meme usage and is implication is exactly what I mean by mythology.

Nah, that’s how we get here in the first place.

All these people that aren’t doing that currently? Uh huh, is your argument so poorly thought out you need some congregation of the ignorant to argue it for you?

I’m right, you’re wrong but more importantly you’re buying into American mythology because accepting the fact slavery was never outlawed in this country makes you feel weird.

I’m the type of leftist that will tell you to read a goddamn history book and mind your goddamn business while your at it. Personal attacks are after all very good evidence your argument sucks and you can’t defend it without disparaging me.