Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
In what way was what you wrote an answer to what I wrote?
They couldn't abolish slavery in the South before 1865, and they were hesitant about abolishing it in the border states for fear of driving them to the Confederacy. In 1865 they finally had the power and the mandate to abolish slavery, and they did it.
Nope. Murdered in cold blood. https://www.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_person_killed_in_the_raid_at_Harper's_ferry
Well it took you long enough, but there's no excusing that. It was bad, but so was the slavery they were trying to fight.
Repeat, there's no excusing that.
This is a silly tangent. Acts of war are only committed against countries or the citizens of countries, not individuals.
And how many slaves were taken? What number is needed to become an act of war against a country?
Next, the slaves that were sold were enslaved by other Africans.
And whites shoved other whites into the ovens.
Next, it was Yankee slave traders who sailed there and bought those slaves.
I never excused them, but they were breaking the law and were stopped before the CW. They were no different from modern human traffickers.
And no matter who trafficked them, it was the buyers who created the market for the slave trade, legal or illegal, and made it profitable. If you've read my posts on human trafficking, you'll see I'm consistant on this. Just as modern johns are making abusive pimps and human traffickers rich for the purpose of having a warm wet spot to stick it into, the slave holders made the human traffickers of their day rich.
A position not unlike Lincoln's.
Wrong. Lincoln opposed slavery but understood he didn't have the power to abolish it and had to deal with a population that wasn't all in for abolition. When he got the power he acted on it.
Dickens inveighed against slavery consistently including while in the Southern states.
He left the South as soon as he saw how bad it was.
So much for the claim that nobody could speak out against slavery in the South.
Ask Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. OK, both of them rebelled against their masters, but a whole lot of people were executed as a result.
And ask the Underground Railroad who had to operate in secrecy. Oh, wait, they were "stealing property", so that's different.
And yet that was the original constitution of the state.
The constitution the voters elected representatives to abolish in 1858.
BTW, other Northern states were adopting more and greater restrictions against Blacks at the same time that Kansas dropped its formal ban on Blacks ever settling there.
I didn't realize blacks had faced discrimination in the North after the CW. Did anyone else know that? I wonder if the Democrats running the South imposed any discriminatory policies against the blacks living there after the CW. I'll need to look into that.
Correct. Republicans were not abolitionists pre-war. Explicitly not abolitionists.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
OBTW, Cassius Clay was an abolitionist who co-founded the party for that reason. When they finally got the power in 1865, they did it.
I accept that more eventually did serve in the Union armies....though I will note that plenty were forced to join as the Union army conquered various areas and came across slaves whom they pressed into service.
I'll refute that with your own comment on blacks serving in the Confederate military, "Its tough to "force" anybody that you have to give guns to". Now you're saying the North did exactly that even though they had no pressing need to do so.
The point is that many thousands of Blacks both slave and free served and indeed fought in the Confederate Army by numerous eyewitness accounts from the Union side. Any claims that only a few served or that there were only 7 eyewitness accounts of such like that book claims are simply false.
We can go back and forth over whose sources we chose to believe. If you want to make the point that blacks willingly defended a nation that enslaved them, then preach your claims in front of a black church and see how many agree with you.
spell it out. Be specific.
No, this is more fun. I'll add "strike 2". I hope I don't have to repeat.
See Woodpusher's answer above
They couldn't abolish slavery in the South before 1865, and they were hesitant about abolishing it in the border states for fear of driving them to the Confederacy. In 1865 they finally had the power and the mandate to abolish slavery, and they did it.
They were not abolitionists as they themselves said over and over again. They only emancipated slaves in territories they did not control even as late as 1863.
Well it took you long enough, but there's no excusing that. It was bad, but so was the slavery they were trying to fight.
They were terrorists and murderers. Practically every other western country got rid of slavery via compensated emancipation - and without bloodshed. The people who supported them were criminals and terrorist sponsors. Those who sheltered them harbored terrorists. The US considers it an act of war to do what they did - ask the Taliban.
And how many slaves were taken? What number is needed to become an act of war against a country?
When those in power in that country willingly sell them? You do realize that's what happened in Africa right? Yankee slave traders bought slaves from African kings and warlords.
And whites shoved other whites into the ovens.
Yes but the point is, buying something the local rulers were willing to sell is not an act of war. Its morally repulsive given we are talking about human beings as the "product". But it is certainly not an act of war.
I never excused them, but they were breaking the law and were stopped before the CW. They were no different from modern human traffickers.
It was common in the Northeast long after 1810. The graft and corruption were rife. This was a major industry for the Northeast well into the mid 19th century.
And no matter who trafficked them, it was the buyers who created the market for the slave trade, legal or illegal, and made it profitable. If you've read my posts on human trafficking, you'll see I'm consistant on this. Just as modern johns are making abusive pimps and human traffickers rich for the purpose of having a warm wet spot to stick it into, the slave holders made the human traffickers of their day rich.
I don't deny that....though the vast majority of Yankee Slave Traders' customers were in Latin and South America - that is especially the case after 1810.
Wrong. Lincoln opposed slavery but understood he didn't have the power to abolish it and had to deal with a population that wasn't all in for abolition. When he got the power he acted on it.
Lincoln didn't like slavery but was not an abolitionist and was even willing to protect it forever via express constitutional amendment and by strengthened fugitive slave laws. Lee also didn't like it for moral reasons but was not a politician. He emancipated the few slaves he inherited and successfully lobbied the Confederate Congress to agree to emancipation for slaves and their families in exchange for military service.
He left the South as soon as he saw how bad it was.
Yes, but he openly spoke out against it while in the South as a known abolitionist - something you said people could not do. That was the whole point.
Ask Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. OK, both of them rebelled against their masters, but a whole lot of people were executed as a result.
Dickens openly spoke against it while in the South. No harm came to him. He was not blacklisted or "cancelled" as the woke mob does now toward anybody they don't like. Nat Turner was a murderous lunatic. He even cold bloodedly murdered infants - not a good example to cite.
The constitution the voters elected representatives to abolish in 1858.
The constitution originally adopted by the voters nontheless.
I didn't realize blacks had faced discrimination in the North after the CW. Did anyone else know that? I wonder if the Democrats running the South imposed any discriminatory policies against the blacks living there after the CW. I'll need to look into that.
Yes. Why do you think Blacks almost all stayed in the economically devastated South until very late in the 19th century? They were not allowed to move North.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
See Woodpusher's answer above.
OBTW, Cassius Clay was an abolitionist who co-founded the party for that reason. When they finally got the power in 1865, they did it.
Oh by the way, the Republicans including Lincoln were not abolitionists and said so many many times. That includes every prominent Republican. Those who were abolitionists could not gain power or influence. Read Republican party controlled newspapers and what they said about slavery...or just read their statements or read the Corwin Amendment. Republicans were not abolitionists until very late in the war. and no matter how many times you say "but 1865" that does not make them abolitionists earlier.
I'll refute that with your own comment on blacks serving in the Confederate military, "Its tough to "force" anybody that you have to give guns to". Now you're saying the North did exactly that even though they had no pressing need to do so.
They didn't force many of the unwilling to fight - merely to serve the Union Army. As for why the Union Army wanted Blacks to fight? I'll let the Governor of Maine answer.
"Numerous [Union] army officials who advocated the use of black troops viewed Negroes as little more than cannon fodder. 'For my part,' announced an officer stationed in South Carolina, 'I make bold to say that I am not so fastidious as to object to a negro being food for powder and I would arm every man of them.' Governor Israel Washburn of Maine agreed. 'Why have our rulers so little regard for the true and brave white men of the north?' asked Washburn. 'Will they continue to sacrifice them? Why will they refuse to save them by employing black men? . . . Why are our leaders unwilling that Sambo should save white boys?'" (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 93)
They needed cannon fodder.
We can go back and forth over whose sources we chose to believe. If you want to make the point that blacks willingly defended a nation that enslaved them, then preach your claims in front of a black church and see how many agree with you.
Both sides enslaved Blacks. I have already cited numerous Union Army sources indicated thousands of Blacks fought in the Confederate Army.
No, this is more fun. I'll add "strike 2". I hope I don't have to repeat.
I'll just ignore you on this since you have nothing to say and are obviously not interested in an honest conversation on the point.