MUH TARIFFS

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

...There are actual people on this forum defending the existence of and supporting the idea of fighting for a nation based entirely on slavery.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And, just to reiterate: I'm NOT defending 1850's/60's Southern society.

How is stating you would fight for the Confederacy not a defense of 1850s/60s Southern society?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And, just to reiterate: I'm NOT defending 1850's/60's Southern society.

How is stating you would fight for the Confederacy not a defense of 1850s/60s Southern society?

First of all, when did I say that I would? That would probably depend on where I lived. If I actually lived in the South at the time, I'd likely would as a matter of self-defense, but otherwise I don't think I'd leave my home to join the Confederates.

Secondly, one need not be a defender of every or even most aspects of the society one lives in to want to defend one's home against an invader who is invading with the stated purpose of NOT changing those aspects but rather the imposition of taxes designed to enrich special interests.

First of all, you seem to prioritize defending your "country" over defending basic moral principles, because any support of the Confederacy is tantamount to support for slavery as every sane person has previously stated in this thread.

Secondly, I think one must be a defender of the certain aspect of society upon which the very existence of that "home" is based to defend it with a clean conscience. Do you deny that the Southern secession was because of slavery, that the Confederacy was built on slavery, that the purpose of the Confederacy's existence was the preservation of slavery against all threats real or imagined?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

First of all, you seem to prioritize defending your "country" over defending basic moral principles, because any support of the Confederacy is tantamount to support for slavery as every sane person has previously stated in this thread.

Secondly, I think one must be a defender of the certain aspect of society upon which the very existence of that "home" is based to defend it with a clean conscience. Do you deny that the Southern secession was because of slavery, that the Confederacy was built on slavery, that the purpose of the Confederacy's existence was the preservation of slavery against all threats real or imagined?

The reasons for secession were complex, which is why I object to the notion that every single person who fought for the Confederacy did so for the sole purpose of defending slavery (which, as I've noted many times previously, was not under attack by Lincoln or the invading Union forces).

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." - Alexander Stephens

Is that very complex to you? Furthermore, it doesn't matter what purpose Robert E. Lee thought he had, he was fighting to preserve the existence of a nation based on slavery. If he really opposed slavery he wouldn't have betrayed his country for his state.

To illustrate, let's take Jim. Let's say Jim's a good god-fearing man from Jackson, Mississippi who's too poor to own slaves but fights for the Confederacy because he feels he's being "invaded". Let's just say that the presence of Jim in the Confederate army causes the South to win at Antietam or Gettysburg or whatever crucial battle you want and therefore win the war. If the South wins the war, slavery is extended for an indeterminate period of time instead of being repealed outright in 1865. Do you agree with me that Jim's actions directly caused the extension of slavery? Do you then continue on with me to the inevitable conclusion that Jim's actions were tantamount to supporting slavery whether?