Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
In this case, both sides seem to agree on the motives. In addition, these people are long gone. We only have their own words left to judge them by. So you cannot ignore what both sides said to be true, call it propaganda, and then declare your own truth. Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
Most people in the south didn't own slaves.
This sounds like the same logic some democrats use when trying to explain how they are personally against abortion, but vote for politicians who support it because reasons. You are either truly against it or your are not.
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one...
Which I already acknowledged.
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom.
On the flip side, you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution. While I err on the side of states rights myself, there is a point that is too far and there really is no union any longer. Defining who gets to be human and have the rights of the constitution apply to them is definitely far on the other side of that line.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery. At some point there HAD to be a reckoning.
Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
Based on other source material. A TON of other source material. I gave you my assessment of having done an investigation into the matter. The source material that gave me my impression is extensive. Making a full case with all of the evidence is a book length work. Consider my statements the "abstract." Some of that evidence will be in later parts of my report.
You are either truly against it or your are not.
This is the Prison of Two Ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are forced into one side or the other. The whole "left-right" thing was created by the Cabal to control everyone. Real decisions by the individual are made based on a complicated decision making process. This decision making process is guided by propaganda and "laws" (again, all created by the Cabal). The propaganda and laws provide out's for cognitive dissonance (ignore or justify certain pieces of evidence) to guide decisions down one of the two provided paths.
This is how division is created, and how society is propelled forward down the path the Cabal intend. Mostly, society isn't guided by the differences in policy, but by where they agree; the things that the "two sides" don't argue about at all. (See the Aldritch plan (right) v. the Federal Reserve Act (left) e.g.)
you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution.
The Constitution is not what you think it was. It is a common error to conflate the DoI, which made flowery statements and the Constitution, which was a signed Treaty. The Constitution made perfectly clear that not all people were created equally. It is rife with such statements, made into law. The states didn't "want to change the definition of what a human was," they just didn't want to be subject to a Treaty violation. If I can find the link to the piece of (period) evidence that explains this clearly I will post it. I was looking, but I can't find it. I know I have it in my work somewhere.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery.
The "founding ideals" and the "founding" are fundamentally at odds. The "ideals" were the packaging. The packaging lied about what was inside. It was flawed from the very beginning, intentionally, to lead us to today. We don't realize this because the ideals are shoved at us constantly. We don't look at what's really in the laws themselves. When we do, and we see things that don't look right, we justify it with "that was just a product of the time," or "things have changed," etc., exactly as cognitive dissonance demands. But when you look at the actual "changes," you find even worse fuckery. For example, the 14th amendment ensured that the "3/5ths compromise" that was built into the constitution couldn't happen again, but it subsequently made everyone a slave to the all powerful government.
Based on "other" that turns out to be called "my report"? Come on.
This is the Prison of Two Ideas.
You are not applying the fallacy correctly. It only applies when you are trying to boil something complex down to a black and white argument. A non-political example would be, "if you are going from LA to Atalanta, you have to choose either by plane or by train." But if the question is binary in nature, "Is the car running?" then saying it "its either running or its not" is not a fallacy.
The Constitution made perfectly clear that not all people were created equally.
The constitution, the supreme law of the land (whether correctly observed or not), addresses "The People". Not "Some of the People". Not "Those People". So the only way not to uphold its contents to ANY people, would be to have to redefine what a person (that's singular for people) is. Just as I stated.
The rest of your argument falls apart, even worse, as it builds on your base misunderstanding.
To put it all in context.... There were a lot of northerners, mostly Whigs and many democrats even, that opposed slavery as a miscarriage of the founding ideals. As spelled out in many documents including the constitution. Did they target southern economies? Yes. Why? Because they opposed the foundation upon which it was built. Slavery.
There are people who target Apple today for very similar reasons. They use de facto slave labor. is it more correct to call them "anti-chinese industry" or more correct to call them "anti-slave labor"? I digress.
So what did the northerners do? They united in a new political party. The Grand Old Party. Republicans. With a mission to destroy these morale atrocities.
Did southern democrats know this? Of course they did. They said as much as I already documented. Why were they afraid of a brand new political party, that technically had done nothing to them? That only stated, we are going to end slavery. Why did they flip out and secede, a very radical reaction? If it was over states rights and over money, why didn't they do it before? Why didn't they wait to see what Republicans were really going to do? Why the extreme reaction? Because they knew the north was aggressive towards their slave practices. They knew the new Republican party was the north's new political realignment to combat it. And once Lincoln was elected, then knew NCSWIC and they freaked the fuck out. (stay tuned, NCSWIC 2.0 incoming)
And don't take my disdain for democrats as love or all things republican. For at least the last 50 years, they have been a colossal disappointment. Enter Donald J Trump. And before he could Make America Great Again, he had to Make Republicans Great Again.
Based on "other" that turns out to be called "my report"? Come on.
It's called "my report" because it's my report on my investigation. I suggest you read it. You might be enlightened. You might even enjoy it. A lot of people have. To be fair, it doesn't go into this particular topic (yet).
You are not applying the fallacy correctly.
You were talking explicitly about abortion. That is not black or white. There is a great deal of debate on the topic, and that debate doesn't happenbecause people take such strong stances that there can't be any. The very idea that you state that "abortion is black or white" proves my point.
The constitution, the supreme law of the land (whether correctly observed or not), addresses "The People". Not "Some of the People". Not "Those People".
Wrong. See the 3/5ths compromise as I stated (you probably aren't really reading what I'm writing or you would have seen that).
"Those people" didn't count as real people. It was built into it, from the very beginning.
For another easy example, see the end of the fifth amendment. It states explicitly that those who run the government have more rights to your property than you do. That is an explicit statement that not all people have equal rights. Some have more rights than others. Pure and simple. You have to really dig in to see it, and people don't. They ignore it. Those are just two examples. There are many more.
The rest of your argument falls apart, even worse, as it builds on your base misunderstanding.
You not seeing or knowing things is not "my misunderstanding".
Your entire argument is based on what is told to us in "History." It doesn't address what is left out, which is found when digging into the primary evidence that ISN'T included in official history. "Official history," or even subsequent scholarship doesn't look at who funded the effort. It doesn't look at how these entities that funded it create their conditional loans, nor at the conditions themselves. It doesn't look at who writes the propaganda that leads people to make all the decisions you are claiming were "the real motive." Everything you are talking about is what's on the surface. These are all the things they want you to believe. The evidence you allow yourself to look at creates an organic narrative, exactly as intended. Nothing is organic. Nothing. I suggest you can appreciate the real motive if you look at who created the propaganda and put out the loans, what they state was the intent.
If you look at MY REPORT, these systems will be elaborated. You can perhaps come to an appreciation of how not organic things really are. Again, I don't get to the Civil War yet, but it is sufficient to help you appreciate how society and history is manipulated.
In this case, both sides seem to agree on the motives. In addition, these people are long gone. We only have their own words left to judge them by. So you cannot ignore what both sides said to be true, call it propaganda, and then declare your own truth. Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
This sounds like the same logic some democrats use when trying to explain how they are personally against abortion, but vote for politicians who support it because reasons. You are either truly against it or your are not.
Which I already acknowledged.
On the flip side, you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution. While I err on the side of states rights myself, there is a point that is too far and there really is no union any longer. Defining who gets to be human and have the rights of the constitution apply to them is definitely far on the other side of that line.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery. At some point there HAD to be a reckoning.
"THAT was why the Civil War was fought."
Based on other source material. A TON of other source material. I gave you my assessment of having done an investigation into the matter. The source material that gave me my impression is extensive. Making a full case with all of the evidence is a book length work. Consider my statements the "abstract." Some of that evidence will be in later parts of my report.
This is the Prison of Two Ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are forced into one side or the other. The whole "left-right" thing was created by the Cabal to control everyone. Real decisions by the individual are made based on a complicated decision making process. This decision making process is guided by propaganda and "laws" (again, all created by the Cabal). The propaganda and laws provide out's for cognitive dissonance (ignore or justify certain pieces of evidence) to guide decisions down one of the two provided paths.
This is how division is created, and how society is propelled forward down the path the Cabal intend. Mostly, society isn't guided by the differences in policy, but by where they agree; the things that the "two sides" don't argue about at all. (See the Aldritch plan (right) v. the Federal Reserve Act (left) e.g.)
The Constitution is not what you think it was. It is a common error to conflate the DoI, which made flowery statements and the Constitution, which was a signed Treaty. The Constitution made perfectly clear that not all people were created equally. It is rife with such statements, made into law. The states didn't "want to change the definition of what a human was," they just didn't want to be subject to a Treaty violation. If I can find the link to the piece of (period) evidence that explains this clearly I will post it. I was looking, but I can't find it. I know I have it in my work somewhere.
The "founding ideals" and the "founding" are fundamentally at odds. The "ideals" were the packaging. The packaging lied about what was inside. It was flawed from the very beginning, intentionally, to lead us to today. We don't realize this because the ideals are shoved at us constantly. We don't look at what's really in the laws themselves. When we do, and we see things that don't look right, we justify it with "that was just a product of the time," or "things have changed," etc., exactly as cognitive dissonance demands. But when you look at the actual "changes," you find even worse fuckery. For example, the 14th amendment ensured that the "3/5ths compromise" that was built into the constitution couldn't happen again, but it subsequently made everyone a slave to the all powerful government.
Based on "other" that turns out to be called "my report"? Come on.
You are not applying the fallacy correctly. It only applies when you are trying to boil something complex down to a black and white argument. A non-political example would be, "if you are going from LA to Atalanta, you have to choose either by plane or by train." But if the question is binary in nature, "Is the car running?" then saying it "its either running or its not" is not a fallacy.
The constitution, the supreme law of the land (whether correctly observed or not), addresses "The People". Not "Some of the People". Not "Those People". So the only way not to uphold its contents to ANY people, would be to have to redefine what a person (that's singular for people) is. Just as I stated.
The rest of your argument falls apart, even worse, as it builds on your base misunderstanding.
To put it all in context.... There were a lot of northerners, mostly Whigs and many democrats even, that opposed slavery as a miscarriage of the founding ideals. As spelled out in many documents including the constitution. Did they target southern economies? Yes. Why? Because they opposed the foundation upon which it was built. Slavery.
There are people who target Apple today for very similar reasons. They use de facto slave labor. is it more correct to call them "anti-chinese industry" or more correct to call them "anti-slave labor"? I digress.
So what did the northerners do? They united in a new political party. The Grand Old Party. Republicans. With a mission to destroy these morale atrocities.
Did southern democrats know this? Of course they did. They said as much as I already documented. Why were they afraid of a brand new political party, that technically had done nothing to them? That only stated, we are going to end slavery. Why did they flip out and secede, a very radical reaction? If it was over states rights and over money, why didn't they do it before? Why didn't they wait to see what Republicans were really going to do? Why the extreme reaction? Because they knew the north was aggressive towards their slave practices. They knew the new Republican party was the north's new political realignment to combat it. And once Lincoln was elected, then knew NCSWIC and they freaked the fuck out. (stay tuned, NCSWIC 2.0 incoming)
And don't take my disdain for democrats as love or all things republican. For at least the last 50 years, they have been a colossal disappointment. Enter Donald J Trump. And before he could Make America Great Again, he had to Make Republicans Great Again.
It's called "my report" because it's my report on my investigation. I suggest you read it. You might be enlightened. You might even enjoy it. A lot of people have. To be fair, it doesn't go into this particular topic (yet).
You were talking explicitly about abortion. That is not black or white. There is a great deal of debate on the topic, and that debate doesn't happen because people take such strong stances that there can't be any. The very idea that you state that "abortion is black or white" proves my point.
Wrong. See the 3/5ths compromise as I stated (you probably aren't really reading what I'm writing or you would have seen that).
"Those people" didn't count as real people. It was built into it, from the very beginning.
For another easy example, see the end of the fifth amendment. It states explicitly that those who run the government have more rights to your property than you do. That is an explicit statement that not all people have equal rights. Some have more rights than others. Pure and simple. You have to really dig in to see it, and people don't. They ignore it. Those are just two examples. There are many more.
You not seeing or knowing things is not "my misunderstanding".
Your entire argument is based on what is told to us in "History." It doesn't address what is left out, which is found when digging into the primary evidence that ISN'T included in official history. "Official history," or even subsequent scholarship doesn't look at who funded the effort. It doesn't look at how these entities that funded it create their conditional loans, nor at the conditions themselves. It doesn't look at who writes the propaganda that leads people to make all the decisions you are claiming were "the real motive." Everything you are talking about is what's on the surface. These are all the things they want you to believe. The evidence you allow yourself to look at creates an organic narrative, exactly as intended. Nothing is organic. Nothing. I suggest you can appreciate the real motive if you look at who created the propaganda and put out the loans, what they state was the intent.
If you look at MY REPORT, these systems will be elaborated. You can perhaps come to an appreciation of how not organic things really are. Again, I don't get to the Civil War yet, but it is sufficient to help you appreciate how society and history is manipulated.