re: Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"

quote:

---

Hence why they seceded.

---

Another bullshite reply. I am shocked. You wonder why I emoji your bullshite.

quote:

---

Incorrect. It wasn't until the late-19th century that the Republican Party began to adopt this idea.

I do appreciate your ad hoc Wikipedia research though. Most impressive.

---

I wasn't talking about the republican party. I appreciate your assumption though. Most impressive...

quote:

---

And yet you agree with me that the North would have eventually legislated slavery out of existence with the admittance of the western territories as free states into the Union...

---

Slavery, in that form, will eventually be legislated out of every place on earth. Again, just more bullshite that doesn't challenge either of my points.

quote:

---

You are creating a complex narrative to avoid admitting a simple truth, that the south seceded for many political and economic reasons and lincoln was the personification of those issues.

---

quote:

---

Where have I ever avoided this truth? I merely stated that slavery was the primary cause of secession. Which it was.

---

Virtually every reply has been an avoidance of this truth. Before you know it, a confederate space program with the mission of colonizing mars for slavers will be the new "primary issue" of the confederacy. My contention was that with or without slavery, that conflict would have occurred, and I bolstered that statement by showing that the south could have kept slavery and stayed in the union, but chose against it. Then I explained why they would exit the union, suddenly and at great cost, despite having the option to take the most slaver friendly road possible. The one offered by Lincoln. The reasons are numerous, and are not merely extensions of the legal ownership of slaves.

Your rebuttal to that was that the south wanted to expand slavery in the future, so they left the union and started a war with a competing nation with the long-shot hope that they could compete with the much more powerful union for those regions. Of course that is a stretch by even a basic analysis. Even more so when one can read formal and informal documents outlining the much more pressing issues, complaints, and predictions of those living in the south. Many of which were realized days into Lincoln's presidency, during the war, and after the war. You haven't addressed any of those points, but instead chose to focus on the racism of a Georgia resident, and largely independent and extremely small scale incursions into south America. You ignored Georgia's formal letter outlining specific injustices against the slaveholding states and those not tied to seafaring and industrial interests. A huge portion of that document had nothing specifically to do with the rights of the slave owners and slave states, but general discontent with the aforementioned interests that could not be solved politically due to a large scale shift in political power in all three branches. A shift most obvious when Abe won office without appearing on the ballot of 10 southern states. You boil all of that down primarily to slavery, when the evidence is that slavery was one aspect of reason for secession.

quote:

---

Obviously the South can't expand westward once they have seceded. Hence why they had the Latin America plan in their back pocket. Once war was enjoined the dynamic changed. If they had come out on top there was a good possibility they could have held onto the Arizona territory as well as gained control of the New Mexico territories from the Union.

---

There is no possibility, because as you said, the dynamic changed in a very predictable way. As I argued, this "back pocket" plan was out of necessity AFTER they seceded, they did not secede in order to overtake South American geography, or to preserve slavery. To believe that this was the South's primary reason for secession is to ignore an enormous amount of other very important political and economic reasons, some of which I have already covered.