@Metal-Brain saidI'll pass on reading an opinion piece by a Holocaust denier about history.
Take your own advice and read.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/20/the-cause-of-the-so-called-civil-war/
@no1marauder saidStill working on that confirmation bias I see. You will not even debate the facts because you know I am right. That is why you are resorting to attacking the source. If PCR's history is wrong then prove it.
Paul Craig Roberts is a right wing economist, not a historian, who happens to be a Holocaust denier and admirer of Hitler:
"The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production l ...[text shortened]... i/
The whole article is filled with despicable lies; it's no surprise he's an admirer of the CSA.
Don't attack the author with rumors and slander, attack the lies and prove his history claims are wrong.
@no1marauder saidYou are a coward. You call his history claims lies and you have no intention of proving it. The reason is obvious. You don't want to be confused with facts.
I'll pass on reading an opinion piece by a Holocaust denier about history.
@Metal-Brain saidA Holocaust denier is incapable of dealing with facts.
You are a coward. You call his history claims lies and you have no intention of proving it. The reason is obvious. You don't want to be confused with facts.
That you rely on such a source shows what a complete idiot you are.
@Metal-Brain said"Rumors and slander"? Read what he wrote, you goddamn fool.
Still working on that confirmation bias I see. You will not even debate the facts because you know I am right. That is why you are resorting to attacking the source. If PCR's history is wrong then prove it.
Don't attack the author with rumors and slander, attack the lies and prove his history claims are wrong.
@no1marauder saidIt almost did.
You continually saying something without a shred of evidence to support it doesn't make it so.
A tariff passed in 1828(!) didn't cause the Civil War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
This is how it was avoided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1833
@no1marauder saidRead what from who? Stick to the subject. Stop trying to digress into the holocaust and other irrelevant issues. Only people losing debates resort to that crap as you well know.
"Rumors and slander"? Read what he wrote, you goddamn fool.
@Metal-Brain saidBut it didn't.
It almost did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
This is how it was avoided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1833
@no1marauder
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
On July 1, 1832, before Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to run for the Senate, where he could more effectively defend nullification,[3] Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress.[4] South Carolina remained unsatisfied, and on November 24, 1832, a state convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833.[5] South Carolina initiated military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement,[6] but on March 1, 1833, Congress passed both the Force Bill—authorizing the president to use military forces against South Carolina—and a new negotiated tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which was satisfactory to South Carolina. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 15, 1833, but three days later, nullified the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture of principle.
@Metal-Brain saidYou relied on a source writing about history who's not only not a historian, but is a Holocaust denier. You told me to read a piece he wrote; I'll pass.
Read what from who? Stick to the subject. Stop trying to digress into the holocaust and other irrelevant issues. Only people losing debates resort to that crap as you well know.
You're not "winning" a debate by concocting some theory with zero evidence to support it. The South had been bitching about tariffs for a long time, true, but secession had nothing to do with them. And you've offered nothing to support your claim it did.
I'll take their word for why they seceded.
@no1marauder saidhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
You relied on a source writing about history who's not only not a historian, but is a Holocaust denier. You told me to read a piece he wrote; I'll pass.
You're not "winning" a debate by concocting some theory with zero evidence to support it. The South had been bitching about tariffs for a long time, true, but secession had nothing to do with them. And you've offered nothing to support your claim it did.
I'll take their word for why they seceded.
On July 1, 1832, before Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to run for the Senate, where he could more effectively defend nullification,[3] Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress.[4] South Carolina remained unsatisfied, and on November 24, 1832, a state convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833.[5] South Carolina initiated military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement,[6] but on March 1, 1833, Congress passed both the Force Bill—authorizing the president to use military forces against South Carolina—and a new negotiated tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which was satisfactory to South Carolina. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 15, 1833, but three days later, nullified the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture of principle.
@Metal-Brain saidI'm perfectly aware of the history of the Nullification Crisis.
@no1marauder
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
On July 1, 1832, before Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to run for the Senate, where he could more effectively defend nullification,[3] Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress.[4] Sou ...[text shortened]... n March 15, 1833, but three days later, nullified the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture of principle.
It had nothing to do with the outbreak of the Civil War almost 30 years later.
@Metal-Brain saidIs this where you keep repeating the same post that is irrelevant to the issue at hand because you have nothing to support your central claim?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
On July 1, 1832, before Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to run for the Senate, where he could more effectively defend nullification,[3] Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress.[4] South Carolina remained unsati ...[text shortened]... n March 15, 1833, but three days later, nullified the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture of principle.
@no1marauder saidThat is not true and you know it. It almost caused SC to be invaded by the federal government. Read my last post. Tariffs caused that, not slavery.
But it didn't.
@no1marauder saidFirst of all you are a liar. You said "no it didn't" to my claim those tariff almost caused a civil war. Now you are trying to digress away from the Nullification crisis because it proved you wrong. The Nullification crisis almost led to a civil war with SC being invaded by the federal government.
Is this where you keep repeating the same post that is irrelevant to the issue at hand because you have nothing to support your central claim?