It would have been the right thing to do, if they believed having slaves was wrong and it wasn't about preserving slavery.
It was not about slavery. The actions of the North in passing the Corwin Amendment and sending it to the states for ratification and the actions of the original 7 seceding states in rejecting the Corwin Amendment prove it was not about the preservation of slavery within the US.
The only proof I need is that the North abolished slavery, and the slave holding states held on to their slaves until the North freed them.
The facts that slavery remained legal in the US and that the US passed the Corwin Amendment with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and got the signature of the president after the congressional delegations from the original 7 seceding states had withdrawn shows that both the North was not interested in banning slavery and that the original 7 seceding states were not concerned that slavery would be banned in the US. ie it was not "about slavery".
It was never ratified or even came close, and "the president" who signed it was James Buchannan, not Lincoln, for the purpose of preventing secession.
The North was hardly on some moral crusade to stamp out slavery due to their deep and abiding concern for the humanity of Black people.
No, they just did it, but they didn't mean to. It just accidentally happened.
I didn't "excuse" it. But I do not engage in what had until the PCers came along, been considered the cardinal sin for a historian, Presentism. judging people in the past who lived in societies with very different views and values by your own contemporary views and values.
Yet somehow the abolitionists managed to see through their times and see slavery was wrong. Let's see if you get around to praising them for it.
There were some (abolitionists). Opinions ran the gamut from blah blah blah.
I guess not.
The Southern states were as democratic in 1860 and 1861-1865
How democratic were they to the slaves who escaped, never mind the ones who didn't?
Ignoring the fact that Lincoln sent armed warships to invade their territory first which is what prompted them to open fire
Ignoring the fact that they were on federal property the whole time...
Acts of war are committed against sovereign entities - not individuals.
Thank you.
If you think the taking of slaves an act of war, then it was Yankee slave traders who committed that act of war.
Have you read anywhere where I excused anyone who participates in any kind of human trafficking, either selling or buying?
BTW, it wasn't just Yankees.
Douglas was one man and he was entitled to his opinion.
I'm sure the 100,000 plus escaped slaves who served in the Union had their opinions of the confederacy and abolition, too.
He was certainly a racist by our modern standards as was pretty much everybody else in the world in the mid 19th century. That said, he was an outspoken abolitionist. India was a colony of the British Empire. Indians were not however, slaves.
He said a lot worse than that. When I want to read about ghosts scaring cranky old millionaires into repenting, I'll go to Dickens. When I was to learn about slavery, I'll go to the people who lived through it.
Nobody said they believed having slaves was wrong.
The only proof I need is that the North abolished slavery, and the slave holding states held on to their slaves until the North freed them.
The only proof YOU need.....that slavery was abolished AFTER the war. An open minded person looking at the causes of secession and the war however would notice that the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and the original 7 seceding states turned that offer down.
It was never ratified or even came close, and "the president" who signed it was James Buchannan, not Lincoln, for the purpose of preventing secession.
It was never ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It doesn't matter that Buchannan signed it. If he had not, Lincoln would have signed it. He orchestrated it after all. "for the purpose of preventing secession". So what? They were fully prepared to support slavery effectively forever. These people were not interested in banning slavery.
No, they just did it, but they didn't mean to. It just accidentally happened.
They did it AFTER the fact when trying to put a fig leaf on the blood and carnage they caused by starting a war of aggression for money and empire.
Yet somehow the abolitionists managed to see through their times and see slavery was wrong. Let's see if you get around to praising them for it.
Great for them being ahead of their time. They were very few in number. Hey, great for those who believed in equality for women too. Great for those who believed in equality for people of all ethnic groups. They too were tiny in number at that time.
I guess not.
You guessed correctly then.
How democratic were they to the slaves who escaped, never mind the ones who didn't?
As democratic as they were at the time of the War of Independence from the British Empire and the ratification of the Constitution.
Ignoring the fact that they were on federal property the whole time...
Ignoring the fact that the federals were squatting on property that belonged to the sovereign state of South Carolina.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
BTW, it wasn't just Yankees.
The slave trade industry was overwhelmingly located in the North. Overwhelmingly. In fact, New England/NY was the hub of the slave trade for the entire western hemisphere in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Take a good look and see where the seed capital for the Ivy League and many large corporations that exist even today came from.
I'm sure the 100,000 plus escaped slaves who served in the Union had their opinions of the confederacy and abolition, too.
As did the tens of thousands of Blacks who served in the Confederate Army.
He said a lot worse than that. When I want to read about ghosts scaring cranky old millionaires into repenting, I'll go to Dickens. When I was to learn about slavery, I'll go to the people who lived through it.
Post what he said that you find so objectionable.