3 ms·

Are you denying that slavery was a factor that led to the civil war? Because that's incontrovertible. At the very least I can't see how you can credibly disagre

Are you denying that slavery was a factor that led to the civil war? Because that's incontrovertible. At the very least I can't see how you can credibly disagree that the issue of the spread of slavery was one driving factor. Pointing to Kentucky and Delaware misses the point. It's not like the thirteenth amendment -- ratified in the same year the war ended, which is not coincidental -- didn't apply to them.

nl 4y ago
Yeah this statement by the OP: "It was a war where one side had slave states and the other side was the confederacy" only gets away with not being an outright lie by stretching the English language into ways that wouldn't be parsed by most people. There were some slave states that remained in the Union. All Confederacy states were slave states.
- yrdmb 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - nl 4y ago
    "It was a war where one side had slave states and the other side was the confederacy" implies the following: [only] "one side had slaves states" "one side had slaves states" [and the other didn't]. [there was the side with slave states] "and the other side was the confederacy" All of these are wrong but all are implied by the most common, good-faith parse of that sentence. Indeed using a strict parse of that sentence and De Morgan's theorem for inference it is outright wrong. (Not buying into the "the civil war was not about slavery" argument. It was: https://www.tyseidule.com/excerpt.html https://www.tyseidule.com/excerpt.html)
    - yrdmb 4y ago
      > [only] "one side had slaves states" No. It implies the opposite. The assumption was that only the confederates had slave states. My comment debunks that notion. Everybody knows that the confederacy had slaves. Now they know both sides had slave states. Nice try.
yrdmb 4y ago
[flagged]