Lincoln orchestrated the Corwin Amendment. It was not ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It does not matter that it was Buchanan who signed it rather than Lincoln. Lincoln would have signed it because once again, he orchestrated it. You say it was to "prevent" secession. So? The fact is that the North was so willing to bargain away any prospect of banning slavery that they were perfectly happy to offer it up right away. Get it? The North was not interested in banning slavery.
Well, let's see. All declarations of secession mention slavery as a reason for seceding, including Virginia's which mentioned the treatment of the slave holding states, and the confederacy never freed their slaves until forced to by their defeat in the war, but you say secession wasn't about slavery.
Yes the 4 states which did issue declarations of causes did mention the North's violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution.....because that was irrefutable proof that the Northern states had broken the deal. The CSA did not free their slaves though they offered to, until after the war. How does this show the war was "about" slavery when the North was said over and over again that they did not want to ban slavery and when the first thing they offered was slavery forever by express constitutional amendment?
After the war, the North abolished slavery in all states, but you say it wasn't about abolishing slavery.
Not only I say that. They themselves said they did not enter the war to abolish slavery. Yet you refuse to take them at their word.
The corwin ammendment was never ratified, but you say the North offered the South perpetual protection for slavery signed, sealed, and delivered.
No. I said they offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. So they did. The original 7 seceding states turned it down. That's why more states did not ratify it - it was a dead letter at that point.
The South had slaves but the North were racists.
Racism was universal in the world at the time.
So yes, you are the one reaching for alternate realities.
Nah. That's you.
How many times does this have to be explained to you? Not everyone in the North was on board with abolishing slavery, and Lincoln had to work with all sides. After the war when they had full authority to abolish slavery, they did.
Hardly anybody was on board with abolishing slavery. They did so ONLY in areas they did not control ONLY after waiting 2 years to do so as a war measure. They did so in the few border states that still had slavery after the war.
Some did. I don't care how small a minority they were, they grew up during the same time and they could see slavery was wrong. The slave holding states were clearly on the wrong side of history, and that error cost hundreds of thousands of lives to correct.
It need not have cost any lives to correct. Practically everybody else in Europe and the Americas got rid of slavery without a massive bloodbath at this time. It only cost lives because it was connected to a war of Independence that was mostly about the same thing wars are usually about - money. The reason I point out very few were abolitionists is to show that there was no real threat of abolition in 1860.
And there were enough of them for the slave holding states to cite them as a reason for seceding. Do I need to post those snippets again?
There were enough $ for the original 7 seceding states to leave. Their economy was geared toward producing cash crops for export. They needed low tariffs to facilitate trade. The North which was industrializing needed captive markets and tariffs to raise the price of foreign goods it could not compete with otherwise. It also found the tax money raised very convenient in building up its infrastructure. Had every slave instead been a sharecropper as they were after the war, none of the above economic realities would have changed.
Since South Carolina seceded, their laws meant little to the federal government.
You have it backwards. South Carolina is sovereign. Any claims of the federal government meant nothing to them in their sovereign territory.
Did you mean 1910? Those laws were passed in Southern states. Even after hundreds of thousands killed, they weren't going to give it up until forced.
No, I meant 1810. That's when slave trading became illegal in the United States. Yankee slave traders continued however well into the mid 19th century - illegally - by greasing the palms of corrupt government officials.
Not all of them were by choice, and many deserted to the North when they got the chance. I suggest rereading it.
The vast majority by choice. Desertions among Black Confederates were not noted to be particularly high.
BTW, in all of that blah blah blah, you accounted for less than 6,000 troops even if you count the two mentions of 1400 troops as separate groups.
BTW, other than the examples of individual troops there were accounts of entire companies and of "thousands, manifestly a part of the Confederate Army."
Charles Dickens' vicious racist remarks (1857) against Indians Racism in the work of Charles Dickens
That he was a racist I have never doubted. Pretty much everybody was in the mid 19th century. Still, he was an outspoken abolitionist. He did not support for example enslaving Indians even though he thought them inferior.
See the previous link. Cooborated here. Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War And as I said, he was wrong. The North did abolish slavery.
The previous link does not make your case. He supported the Southern states because he supported their right to self determination and because he clearly saw that the North had been economically exploiting the South for many years. Any claims of concern about the welfare of slaves on the part of Northerners were pure pretense. They hated Blacks and would not tolerate their company. They passed laws to exclude and drive out Blacks from their territory. They were only interested in maintaining economic control over the Southern states so as to continue lining their pockets.
The original 7 seceding states had seceded, duh! The Union could have ratified the amendment if they had intended to, but even Buchanan admitted it was just an attempt to prevent secession.
It does not matter that it was Buchanan who signed it rather than Lincoln. Lincoln would have signed it because once again, he orchestrated it.
In which way did he orchestrate it?
You say it was to "prevent" secession. So?
Buchanan said it.
The fact is that the North was so willing to bargain away any prospect of banning slavery that they were perfectly happy to offer it up right away.
That's nonsense. The previous administration had pushed for it. That's like blaming Trump for the pictures of caged children that were taken during the Obama administration.
Nonsense like this leads me to believe you're one of those lefty dems who are trying to stick our side with their history.
Get it? The North was not interested in banning slavery.
Right. The abolitionists weren't interested in banning slavery. The escaped slaves who joined the Union Army and Navy weren't interested in abolishing slavery. No one was interested in abolishing slavery. They just accidentally did it.
Yes the 4 states which did issue declarations of causes did mention the North's violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution.....because that was irrefutable proof that the Northern states had broken the deal.
I can spam too.
Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom:
Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
From Selected Quotations from 1830-1865
And, from the declarations of secession.
From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
Not only I say that. They themselves said they did not enter the war to abolish slavery. Yet you refuse to take them at their word.
We've been over that. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain about having to keep the country united when many opposed or didn't care about abolition. If you can't understand it by now, you won't if I explain it again.
Racism was universal in the world at the time.
Granted.
Hardly anybody was on board with abolishing slavery.
Nope, just enough to abolish it after the war.
Practically everybody else in Europe and the Americas got rid of slavery without a massive bloodbath at this time.
I know. All of those quotes above didn't come from the North, the UK, or South America.
You have it backwards. South Carolina is sovereign. Any claims of the federal government meant nothing to them in their sovereign territory.
Fort Sumter wasn't their sovereign territory.
No, I meant 1810. That's when slave trading became illegal in the United States. Yankee slave traders continued however well into the mid 19th century - illegally - by greasing the palms of corrupt government officials.
I never denied the illegal slave trade continued, in fact I pointed that out.
BTW, other than the examples of individual troops there were accounts of entire companies and of "thousands, manifestly a part of the Confederate Army."
Confederacy approves Black soldiers (March 13, 1865)
The previous link does not make your case.
I should have known you wouldn't read them. Allow me to help.
From "Racism in the work of Charles Dickens", "Ackroyd also notes that Dickens did not believe that the North in the American Civil War was genuinely interested in the abolition of slavery, and he almost publicly supported the South for that reason."
And from "Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War" "Dickens implicitly supported the South, suggesting that the Northern calls for abolition merely masked a desire for some type of economic gain."
Of course he was right and wrong. Right in that the CW was about slavery, and wrong in that the North did follow through after winning.