Replies

What about self determination for the slaves?

Nobody was concerned about that at the time....nor the self determination of Indians, nor of women, etc

How?

By getting him to write it. Corwin was a political ally. There have been numerous books written about it.

They never offered anything. The previous congress approved largely on party lines, and the previous president who signed it was voted out and is considered one of the worst presidents in history. It was never ratified in any state until the slave holding states seceded and the war had already started. The North offered nothing because there was nothing to offer.

They offered it. Lincoln did so in his first inaugural address. I've posted it here before. Lincoln orchestrated its passage and was a big advocate of it. It became a dead letter when the original 7 seceding states turned it down. The North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Facts. Deal with it.

Then why did the declarations of secession cite them as a reason for seceding?

Because they were examples of the Northern states violating the constitution. How many times do you need to read that?

Did you not read where the "negro" was called inferior and his best use was as a slave? Comments like these aren't legal justification for anything.

Sure I read that. Those sentiments were common....the abolitionists were a tiny minority. The Northern states had incredibly discriminatory Black Codes on the books at the time.

From Jefferson Davis, "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861

“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess

“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/

Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).

Was he expecting vindication about what he said about the "negro"?

Even Stephens had other motivations - Southerners wanted self determination for economic reasons and they were against the centralization of power and were for states rights. They were for these things philosophically - not as a cover for protecting slavery. They were for this before slavery was even an issue nationally and they're still in favor of decentralization and states' rights now long after slavery is no longer an issue.

Why do I need to care what someone who called "the negro" an "inferior race" "that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" has to say about anything?

Odd. You care about what Lincoln has to say and yet he said the same things about Negroes (ie Blacks) being subordinate and inferior and Whites being superior. This was the overwhelming view at the time. What we would consider to be massive egregious racism was the norm the world over in the mid 19th century.

OK, what were the numbers who weren't forced as slaves to serve or were slave owners themselves?

We know from union accounts, confederate accounts and pensions paid to veterans by Southern states in later years that there were thousands at least.

Here you post the same spam that has already been refuted.

He was wrong, as the North did abolish slavery.

He was right. The North did not go to war to put down slavery. In fact it was willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. No. The Federal Government under Lincoln went to war for money and empire - no other reason.

quoted: "Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524)."

Why Davis would lie about this is obvious -- because slavery was the sticking point that kept European powers like Britain & France from openly supporting the Confederacy.

Nevertheless, the truth is that Davis was not a 1860 Fire Eater and so Davis began the Corwin amendment in December 1860 as a proposal for "compromise" legislation guaranteeing slavery, hoping to keep his home state of Mississippi from seceding.

"December 1860 Compromise Proposal by Jefferson Davis of Mississippi

Resolved, That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof."

But Davis' proposals were rejected by Republicans and so Mississippi did declare secession, their official "Reasons for Secession" document making clear that slavery was the only major issue:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

So Jefferson Davis' home state made perfectly clear why they seceded -- Davis himself was not part of that, tried to prevent it with a Corwin-like proposal, but Davis' proposal was rejected by Republicans.

After seven Deep Cotton South states declared secession, Democrats tried again with numerous proposals, all rejected by Republicans, until RINO Corwin's proposal, still rejected by the majority of Republicans, but just barely enough RINOs (lead by Senator Seward) supported unanimous Democrats to pass it.
Corwin may (or may not) have helped keep Border South states from seceding in 1861.

Bottom line: when Democrat Jefferson Davis claimed secession was not about slavery, he was simply lying, being a Democrat, doing what Democrats by their natures do -- concocting nonsense to explain the inexplicable and justify the unjustifiable.

Nobody was concerned about that at the time....nor the self determination of Indians, nor of women, etc

The abolitionists were and there were enough of them to win. The slave holding states noted them as being one of the reasons they were seceding.

By getting him to write it.

What?!? According to you it was passed by the congress and signed by the president, but it was never writ...oh never mind.

They offered it. Lincoln did so in his first inaugural address. I've posted it here before. Lincoln orchestrated its passage and was a big advocate of it.

It never passed. It was passed by the previous congress and signed by the previous president, then died. It was never ratified by any states until after the slave holding states had seceeded and the war had already started.

It became a dead letter when the original 7 seceding states turned it down.

Did the original 7 seceding states abolish slavery? No.

The North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.

Then it was ratified by enough Northern states to make it law, is that what you're saying? If not, then it was nothing.

Because they were examples of the Northern states violating the constitution. How many times do you need to read that?

Calling blacks inferior and saying their best use was as slaves is your idea of citing "examples of the Northern states violating the constitution"? Seriously?

Sure I read that. Those sentiments were common....the abolitionists were a tiny minority. The Northern states had incredibly discriminatory Black Codes on the books at the time.

When I search for this, all of the examples that come up were from the South. How about posting something in support of this?

"“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861"

“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess

"“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/"

Did he free the slaves after saying any of this? No. His mouth said one thing, but his actions said another.

Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).

The issue wouldn't have even come up if it the war wasn't about slavery, never mind whether we have to believe JD.

I'll grant that, but there is a difference. The confederacy held on to their slaves until forced by defeat to release them. Lincoln and the North freed them. Whatever racist demons Lincoln had prior, he overcame them to get abolition done.

We know from union accounts, confederate accounts and pensions paid to veterans by Southern states in later years that there were thousands at least.

I can accept there were thousands, but how many?

Here you post the same spam that has already been refuted.

I posted two referces from two different sources that showed that Dickens supported the South over the North because he didn't believe the North was serious about freeing the slaves. Here they are again.

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."

Where was that refuted?

He was right.

Do you mean slavery wasn't abolished after the war?