Because the original 7 seceding states turned down the offer. What is this the 30th time I've answered this?
The states never ratified the Corbomite Manuever, and many that voted for its passage and the president who signed it were out of work the following year.
They never ratified it because the original 7 seceding states turned the offer down. 31st time.
They had JD fooled. He cited them as the justification for secession in 1858.
Yes both sides amped up the rhetoric. The fact remains that abolitionists simply could not win elections.
This isn't funny, and it certainly isn't true, especially the last part, as JD's speech in 1858 above makes clear.
Oh its very much true. If the original 7 states were seceding over slavery they could have simply accepted the Corwin Amendment to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South obviously did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war.
This seems to make your point that it was the EP that caused desertions, although now that I look at it, it actually says that there were desertions when it happened. Since troops were deserting before the EP, we can conclude the EP wasn't the cause.
No we can't. There was a desertion crisis in the Union Army caused by the EP. That's exactly what McPherson admitted.
No, I see him as Frederick Douglas described him. A flawed man, but one who had to work with the people of his day to get things done. We can easily talk about how appalling slavery is today and no one, including anyone in the modern South, would disagree. That wasn't how it was in the mid 1800s. It wasn't even that way in the entire North in the 1860s, as you and your friend are so fond of pointing out. He had to work with that to keep the Union together and get things done, and whatever personal demons he had to deal with, he overcame them to do just that.
There is zero evidence that it was some kind of political maneuver. He was not an abolitionist and said so many times both in public and in private.
You haven't answered it. The question is, why didn't the states ratify it if they intended to preserve slavery, which they could have done regardless of what the seceding states did? And the answer is because they never had any intention of preserving slavery.
You don't need to answer this again, because I've done it for you.
Yes both sides amped up the rhetoric. The fact remains that abolitionists simply could not win elections.
1858, 1860, 1864.
The Upper South obviously did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war.
The war didn't start until after the slave holding states had seceded, and it was the Confederacy who fired the first shots regardless of what their justification was.
No we can't. There was a desertion crisis in the Union Army caused by the EP. That's exactly what McPherson admitted.
McPherson "admitted"? Here's an interview with him, where he is clearly trying to tie those who opposed abolition with "the right wing in American politics", his words. This interview is from the World Socialist Web Site, so the readers can draw their own conclusions from that.
He's doing exactly what you're doing, which is tying slavery to the modern right.
There is zero evidence that it was some kind of political maneuver. He was not an abolitionist and said so many times both in public and in private.
How many times do I have to answer this? He made those comments to audiences that wanted to hear what he was saying. The 4th debate with Douglas in 1858 was a prime example, where he made appalling comments to cheering crowds. If you read how the audience responded, you see what he was working with.
That didn't stop those sympathetic to slavery from accusing him of being an abolitionist, because they saw through this. JD said so in 1858 without giving any other reason for secession. Some of the declarations of secession said so. You want to believe Lincoln when he said this even though he pushed to get abolition done, but you don't what to take the Confederacy's word when they accused him of being an abolitionist.