The Confederacy was About Slavery

ooh, I thought you just Od'd and were gone for good. IGNORE time again.
bye jackoff

Waves to the coward "scientist".

perhaps, but at least I can be cured of my cowardice. Im afraid you shall always be batshit crazy.

Should have read:

All American communists who refused to accept the sins of Stalin once revealed by the Party under Khrushchev were not godless, blood thirsty fanatics.

I already did.

You know that that is just part and parcel of you being an intellectual coward. You are great at slinging arrows but your science, which you profess you have, sure needs a lot of work.

I've noticed the new, kinder, gentler Finn. What's come over you?

Still reads:

All Americans who refuse to accept the sins of successive US governments, revealed to them by myriad sources still can only be described as godless, blood thirsty, war mongering fanatics.

And I've noticed you're still a one-trick pony JTT.

Why do you persist in such lame accusations, Finn? You guys all do this. You are completely unable to address these issues with facts and discussion. You, the plural you, have a total disregard for science and the scientific method.

See Mr Science himself, farmerman, at the top of this page. He is too cowardly to address the science.

JTT has this delusion that it understands something of forensic science about a specific event. It, and a few others, similarly obsessed, try to use false hypotheses,denial, and total non-understanding of stuff like metallurgy, as well as undeniable video evidence to attempt to revise the truth into something they have come to believe in their addle brains.
Im assuming JTT will soon reach the "three and youre gone for good"
prize level soon .

The real sad thing in all this, farmerman, is that you categorically deny science that is put right in front of you. Science that you bring up and then flee from.

You have lied, egregiously, on multiple occasions, in the thread where you came to specifically divert attention away from the science.

Just as you are lying here, now. You have no shame whatsoever. "scientist", you don't come close to that.

And all your phoney whining about "oh, you're back on ignore".

You're obviously not very bright as you catch yourself in all these lies.

If boring redundancy was a banishing offense he would have been sent packing the day he returned.

Why would you write what you know to be an outright lie, Finn?

Remember, you were the guy that badgered me to address a particular issue you raised. Then after I started a thread specifically to address your request, you never showed up.

Now you engage in these childish acts with farmerman, a scientist no less.

I knew that you would never be able to keep up with your new pretense of the sage, thoughtful Finn.

Why is it that with your newfound skills you aren't able to drive my arguments into the ground?

Why is it that with farmerman's science abilities he isn't able to drive the scientific arguments into the ground?

It doesn't puzzle a genius like you even a little that farmerman won't even try.

Don't you two "Americans" grasp the irony of you two wishing and hoping that the free discussion of ideas is somehow squelched.

If the confederacy was about slavery, like proving an algebraic equation by substituting another value, what if the north suddenly decided to be comfortable with a slave south, and each new territory would become slave or free, each taking its turn. Would there still have been a civil war? Well, the title of this thread implies, I thought that the Confederacy was ALL/ONLY about slavery. And, I've read that there were desires by the elitist class in the South to expand its land through conquering the Spanish speaking countries adjacent. And, then with a (perhaps) hostile southern nation to the South of the northern nation, the U.S. would have likely had to go back to Mother England (merge with Canada) for safety. Naturally, few want to hear this version of analysis. This in effect takes the belief that there were forces in the South that wanted autonomy from the north to effect long range plans. Slavery was just "that strange institution" that drove the southern economy. Also, it made the two regions (north and south) inconsolable, civil war, or no civil war aside.

Sorry, for not following the crowd.

I do not know if the outlawing of Nazi symbols was part of the Allies de-Nazification efforts; however, even if it was a voluntary code, it might be to just get on with life and have Germany re-join the family of nations after WWII.

But, where this German outlawing of Nazi symbols is not analogous to the U.S., after the Civil War, in my opinion, there were/are today northern families that do want to honor their families' Union soldiers in Civil War re-enactments, and if the Confederate symbols would get outlawed, what would be said to the northern Civil War re-enactors and their families? In other words, while Reconstruction was less than elegantly done, according to many, the focus of the north was to make the south function as though their seccession never happened and was illegitimate. So, while that might not sit well with some in the south, it would likely be most divisive to say Confederate Civil War re-enactors is verboten, but northern re-enactors are acceptable.

And, are there southern folk today that look upon the Confederate flag as just a reflection of a "dream gone with the wind." rather than some sort of hateful, racist symbolism?

In my northern opinion, where the cause of the Civil War in my 1960's American History class focussed on tariffs, the northern whites wanting a "white west," since plantations left no jobs for white males, I personally think that the strong feelings, on both sides, about Confederate symbols is sowing the seeds of something that can end in a weaker, divided country

I think this in context of many southern whites are still aware that Dixie is a mental place that they live and will not leave when they get a new job. Can't we get past the symbols, since it is like when some northern urban folks might not want "merry Christmas" to be the standard greeting at a store, but instead "happy holidays." It's just divisive, in my opinion.

I suggest that you read more deeply about the various "compromises" that preceded the Civil war. Three of the Union States were still slave states, did you know that??.
The articles of secession of most of the states clearly spelled out that their "unique culture of slavery" was a central issue to their leaving the Union . Of course their were other issues mentioned but none rang out as clearly as slavery when you read the articles of the several states.

You seem to want to mix it in a gumbo of ingredients , each no more important than the others. I think that most historians (that dont have their books under critical review, like Shelby Foote)agree that slavery was THE issue.

US historians, one must remind you, Mr scientist, who have never been honest about US history.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/10-facts-emancipation-proclamation

Mighty fishy, but then so is all US "history".

So, these 10 facts aren't presented by US historians? Or, if they are, they're fishy, because US historians have never been honest about US history?

Uuu, a game of "what if..!" and then to not follow the crowd thereof. What fun!