3 ms·

> I'm not sure treachery is the right word. You are rejecting the literal words they used to describe the Republican party, which I quoted. Those are by defini

> I'm not sure treachery is the right word. You are rejecting the literal words they used to describe the Republican party, which I quoted. Those are by definition the right words for describing their viewpoints because that is what they wrote. You also reject the reasons they wrote to justify secession, because you think it did not make sense. Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty", and whose use of slave labor enriched their economy - you have different belief in what God wanted, so cannot use your beliefs as a lens to interpret what made rational sense to them. You cannot have a good understanding of history if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you.

qwytw 3y ago
> You also reject the reasons they wrote to justify secession, because you think it did not make sense No, I never said that. > Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free How is this relevant? I never defended slavery or claimed that the southern states did not rebel to protect slavery. > if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you. I'm not doing that either. Did you read the quote you posted? > "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations Could you explain how exactly am I misinterpreting it? If you reading that quote as "we believe that the abolition of slavery is imminent and will happen in the next years" that's a pretty obvious misinterpretation.

qwytw 3y ago

> You also reject the reasons they wrote to justify secession, because you think it did not make sense No, I never said that. > Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free How is this relevant? I never defended slavery or claimed that the southern states did not rebel to protect slavery. > if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you. I'm not doing that either. Did you read the quote you posted? > "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations Could you explain how exactly am I misinterpreting it? If you reading that quote as "we believe that the abolition of slavery is imminent and will happen in the next years" that's a pretty obvious misinterpretation.