Monckton: It’s Time For ‘Texit’ — Texas Should Secede, Thatcher Advisor Says

[DiogenesLamp]

So the South's motivation for starting the war in the first place is irrelevant?  Good to know.

Your argument has descended to strawman repetition.   You keep asserting that the South started the war,   which is a point in dispute,  and you keep asserting that SLAVERY  justifies the North Invading,  though you tediously refuse to show any connection between slavery and the invasion.   

Yet you are the one claiming that the Union was motivated by slavery.

I am the one that is beginning to realize you won't remember what I actually said,  and will instead insist on beating up on a straw man version of what I said.   


I said the Union went to war to protect their income stream,  (European Trade) which happened to be the result mostly of slave labor,   and also to prevent the creation of competition in the form of European trade patronizing Southern ports.   

The two things together would likely have constituted a billion dollar loss to the Northern Economy when total GDP for the year was 4.5 billion.   


My explanation fits the available facts better than does yours.    I don't have to try to explain a Union objective of the war of which no one seemed to be aware for the first 18 months.   My theory doesn't require time travel. 

[DiogenesLamp]

They are adhering to tactics by some famous in history.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. " J. Goebbels

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign." S. Alinksy

Argument by repetition.   Yes,  that works,   but only on rubes.   The "herd"  is moved by constant pressure.   Thinking men are simply not convinced by assertion and/or popular opinion.    A thing must be demonstrably true before they will accept it as true. 


Unfortunately,  our supply of thinking men has been in steady decline.   

[DiogenesLamp]

The Southern states were part of the U.S. before the rebellion began.  They were part of the U.S. while the rebellion was ongoing.  They were part of the U.S. after the rebellion was put down.

Here is that going around in circles thing.    You are offering an assertion that is in blatant contradiction with the known standard established by the founders.   In order to support your claim,  you must also state that the founders were part of the U.K.  before the rebellion began,   that they were part of the U.K. while the rebellion was ongoing,   and that they were part of the U.K.   when their rebellion was over.   


Of course you won't answer that,  because it would demonstrate cognitive dissonance on your part.   You cannot make provable parts of history conform to your theory.   


And for what it's worth,  Multiple Supreme Court cases establish the creation of the Nation as July 4, 1776.    In other words,   the US was an independent nation as soon as the thirteen slave owning states seceded from the U.K.   




Oh,  and look!  The Cross of St. Andrews!  Now how did that get there? 

[Cowboyway]

Yes


OK, so I may not have been clear and if so then that's my fault.  But by "consent of the states" I mean consent as demonstrated by a vote in both houses of Congress.  If a majority of Senators and a majority of Congressmen approve then that's enough.

You're still not clear.  The yes answer above was to the question, would it take both consent of the states and congressional approval, then in this last answer you state that consent of the states and congressional approval are one in the same.

Which is it?

[Smokin Joe]

This is an idea that makes the conservatives look like a bunch of loony toon clowns to the rest of the population. Just like the loonies who took over that ranch in Oregon.

I understand the rancher's grievances, but the only loonies who took over ranchland in Oregon were Feds.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Your argument has descended to strawman repetition.   You keep asserting that the South started the war,   which is a point in dispute,  and you keep asserting that SLAVERY  justifies the North Invading,  though you tediously refuse to show any connection between slavery and the invasion.   



I am the one that is beginning to realize you won't remember what I actually said,  and will instead insist on beating up on a straw man version of what I said.   


I said the Union went to war to protect their income stream,  (European Trade) which happened to be the result mostly of slave labor,   and also to prevent the creation of competition in the form of European trade patronizing Southern ports.   

The two things together would likely have constituted a billion dollar loss to the Northern Economy when total GDP for the year was 4.5 billion.   


My explanation fits the available facts better than does yours.    I don't have to try to explain a Union objective of the war of which no one seemed to be aware for the first 18 months.   My theory doesn't require time travel.

Man, you have plucked that RH chicken so well, I have already started heating up the lard to fry it in.  Should taste good.

[Smokin Joe]

I said the Union went to war to protect their income stream,  (European Trade) which happened to be the result mostly of slave labor,   and also to prevent the creation of competition in the form of European trade patronizing Southern ports.   

The two things together would likely have constituted a billion dollar loss to the Northern Economy when total GDP for the year was 4.5 billion.   

Despite stereotypes, southerners were not stupid. Cities such as Atlanta were industrializing on their own, and the construction of railroads, textile mills (why ship raw material when you can ship finished or value-added goods?) even with imported European equipment, would eventually tear the profits out of the exploitation curve and compete with northern mills for the cotton crop, with the advantage of cheaper shipping.  There were ample economic reasons to disrupt the developing industry of the South in order to maintain economic advantages.

The slavery issue was an economic sanction (removal of a significant part of the labor force when the crops were labor intensive, not to mention the devaluation of the not insignificant investment represented by slaves) as much as a moral issue.