America thinks the unthinkable: More than half of Trump voters and 41% of Biden supporters want red and blue states to SECEDE from one another and form two new countries, shock new poll finds

See Woodpusher's answer above

I did. It was very nice of him/her/them to admit that "Jefferson Davis said nothing walking back his support of slavery."

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.

We've already been over that. Lincoln had to keep the Union united, and had to talk out of both sides of his mouth. In 1864 with the war still going on, the Republicans in Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere but were blocked by the party of Jefferson Davis. In 1865 with the war still going on, Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere.

They were terrorists and murderers. Practically every other western country got rid of slavery via compensated emancipation - and without bloodshed.

And that was meant to defend the Confederacy? I'll bet you can't even see what's wrong with what you posted.

The people who supported them were criminals and terrorist sponsors. Those who sheltered them harbored terrorists.

So were the people who harbored the resistance, according to the Nazis.

The US considers it an act of war to do what they did - ask the Taliban.

When did the Taliban attempt to free slaves?

Yes but the point is, buying something the local rulers were willing to sell is not an act of war.

They were traitors who sold their own people into slavery, so yes, siding with traitors to take them by force was an act of war.

The graft and corruption were rife. This was a major industry for the Northeast well into the mid 19th century.

How major? It had trickled down to nothing by the 1860s.

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.

Not that your answer to this would excuse the Confederacy, but numbers?

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.

You mean that football that Lucy tried to temp the Confederacy with, but unlike Charlie Brown they knew it was nothing?

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.

Details?

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.

That was weak. It's not like they could have just boarded planes or hopped on buses and migrate North. The migration started slowly at first, then picked up as the Democrats passed oppressive laws in the South. You can look up the great migration for more on the history of that.

And before you respond by saying the "great migration" didn't start until 1910, I know that, but migration itself started decades earlier and led up to that.

Oh by the way, the Republicans including Lincoln were not abolitionists and said so many many times.

The Republicans weren't abolitionists even though they voted to abolish slavery in Congress twice before the CW ended, and the South didn't secede over slavery even though they stated it several times and didn't give up slavery until after the war.

That includes every prominent Republican.

Like Cassius Clay who co-founded the Republican party?

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.

You mean that amendment that was voted on mostly by Democrats, was signed by a Democrat president who is considered one of the biggest failures in US history, and never got more than 5 or 6 states to ratify it?

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.

Then why did Jefferson Davis say they were in 1858?

Both sides enslaved Blacks.

Yes, and the Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, in the North voted to keep slavery in 1864. The voters responded by replacing many of them with Republicans.

I have already cited numerous Union Army sources indicated thousands of Blacks fought in the Confederate Army.

"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?"

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.

I struck out "add" and replaced it with "repeat". You didn't add anything, you just repeated the same nothing.

I did. It was very nice of him/her/them to admit that "Jefferson Davis said nothing walking back his support of slavery."

His source disproved the claim of the dubious source you kept citing.

We've already been over that. Lincoln had to keep the Union united, and had to talk out of both sides of his mouth. In 1864 with the war still going on, the Republicans in Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere but were blocked by the party of Jefferson Davis. In 1865 with the war still going on, Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere.

Yes we've been over that. Lincoln was not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said openly and repeatedly he was not an abolitionist. He never said anything to the contrary before very late in the war. The same is true of the Republican Party in general. They went to great pains to make it clear they were not abolitionists. They were quite willing to protect slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and even to strengthen fugitive slave laws.

And that was meant to defend the Confederacy? I'll bet you can't even see what's wrong with what you posted.

No. It was meant to point out that John Brown and his band were terrorists and murderers as were the people who supported them - exactly as I said. Do you ever try anything other than strawman arguments and red herrings?

So were the people who harbored the resistance, according to the Nazis.

Analogy fail. Neither side were the Nazis or even close. Anybody who has read Mein Kampf knows Hitler was more sympathetic to the North than the South - he hated states' rights.

When did the Taliban attempt to free slaves?

The Taliban harbored OBL and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks did they not?

They were traitors who sold their own people into slavery, so yes, siding with traitors to take them by force was an act of war.

They were the recognized rulers of those lands. You disapproving of them over 150 years later does not change that. There was no "act of war" in buying something the rulers of those lands were quite happy to sell. We can find it morally reprehensible, but that is different from being an act of war which it was not. Words have specific meanings.

How major? It had trickled down to nothing by the 1860s.

Very major. Read Complicity, how the North promoted, prolonged and profited from slavery. You can read several other books on the subject. Slave trading was THE largest industry in the Northeast for at least a century.

Not that your answer to this would excuse the Confederacy, but numbers?

Something like FIVE PERCENT of all slaves transported from Africa to the Western Hemisphere were sold in what is now the United States. The vast majority went to Brazil and the Caribbean. The Caribbean islands were disease ridden hellholes with staggering mortality rates. They needed constant replenishment with more slaves to keep the sugar plantations going.

You mean that football that Lucy tried to temp the Confederacy with, but unlike Charlie Brown they knew it was nothing?

I mean the constitutional amendment which the Republican Party and Lincoln supported and which gained a supermajority of both Houses of Congress after the Southern delegation had withdrawn. The one the original 7 seceding states rejected.

Details?

Already provided. Go back and read.

That was weak. It's not like they could have just boarded planes or hopped on buses and migrate North. The migration started slowly at first, then picked up as the Democrats passed oppressive laws in the South. You can look up the great migration for more on the history of that.

That was reality. People could move about and did throughout the 19th century when there were better opportunities elsewhere. Hell, tens of millions of Europeans sailed across the Atlantic Ocean. To imply that Blacks did not move North until late in the 19th century because of difficulty in being able to transport themselves is what is really weak.

And before you respond by saying the "great migration" didn't start until 1910, I know that, but migration itself started decades earlier and led up to that.

It did not start in any significant numbers until about 1890 when the Northern states finally lifted their exclusionary laws which had kept Blacks in the now devastated and impoverished Southern states.

The Republicans weren't abolitionists even though they voted to abolish slavery in Congress twice before the CW ended, and the South didn't secede over slavery even though they stated it several times and didn't give up slavery until after the war.

The Republicans weren't abolitionists and said so many times. They even supported slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and strengthened fugitive slave laws. Only 4 of the 12 states which seceded issued declarations of causes and of these all but Mississippi listed economic causes even though this was not unconstitutional while the Northern states violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution was. They then turned down the bona fide offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The 5 states of the Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln started a war.

Like Cassius Clay who co-founded the Republican party?

Like Lincoln, Seward and practically every elected Republican officeholder.

You mean that amendment that was voted on mostly by Democrats, was signed by a Democrat president who is considered one of the biggest failures in US history, and never got more than 5 or 6 states to ratify it?

You mean the amendment that was written by a Republican Senator and which was orchestrated by the President Elect who was the de facto leader of the Republican Party and which lots of Republicans in Congress supported?

Then why did Jefferson Davis say they were in 1858?

There was heated rhetoric on both sides. What is indisputable is that the Republicans themselves openly said they were not abolitionists and did not support abolition.

Yes, and the Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, in the North voted to keep slavery in 1864. The voters responded by replacing many of them with Republicans.

Yes and this doesn't change the fact that Republicans were not abolitionists and did not come around to supporting abolition until late in the war.

"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.]

Yet we know even from Union Army sources that many thousands of Blacks did fight in the Confederate Army.

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?"

"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83

“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).

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA

"Next to the demands for safety and equality, the secessionist leaders emphasized familiar economic complaints. South Carolinians in particular were convinced of the general truth of Rhett's and Hammond's much publicized figures upon Southern tribute to Northern interests." (Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, Ordeal of the Union, Volume 2, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950, p. 332)

I struck out "add" and replaced it with "repeat". You didn't add anything, you just repeated the same nothing.

Hell, that's all you've been doing for a month.

My previous: I did. It was very nice of him/her/them to admit that "Jefferson Davis said nothing walking back his support of slavery."

His source disproved the claim of the dubious source you kept citing.

You're not off to a very good start. That quote WAS WP's rebuttal to my "dubious source". Maybe you and WP can debate whether JD walked back his support of slavery.

Yes we've been over that. Lincoln was not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said openly and repeatedly he was not an abolitionist. He never said anything to the contrary before very late in the war. The same is true of the Republican Party in general. They went to great pains to make it clear they were not abolitionists.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

They were quite willing to protect slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and even to strengthen fugitive slave laws.

Then why didn't they ratify it when they could have?

Analogy fail. Neither side were the Nazis or even close. Anybody who has read Mein Kampf knows Hitler was more sympathetic to the North than the South - he hated states' rights.

Like the Confederacy, Hitler thought owning slaves was one of those states' rights.

The Taliban harbored OBL and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks did they not?

Yes. Did the terrorists they harborded try to free slaves?

They were the recognized rulers of those lands.

Recognized especially by the human traffickers and the slave owners who wanted their product.

You disapproving of them over 150 years later does not change that. There was no "act of war" in buying something the rulers of those lands were quite happy to sell.

It most certainly was an act of war against a people, committed by the slave owners, the slave traders, and their own government.

We can find it morally reprehensible, but that is different from being an act of war which it was not. Words have specific meanings.

A lot of people saw it this way then. The slave holding states were clearly on the wrong side of history. As you said, "Practically every other western country got rid of slavery via compensated emancipation - and without bloodshed." Very major. Read Complicity, how the North promoted, prolonged and profited from slavery.

"The North" didn't promote or prolong slavery. It was some bad actors in the Northern states and some of the border states who did this.

You can read several other books on the subject. Slave trading was THE largest industry in the Northeast for at least a century.

That is refuted by you below.

Something like FIVE PERCENT of all slaves transported from Africa to the Western Hemisphere were sold in what is now the United States.

Some numbers say it was a lower percentage, but it still amounted to millions. As I said, being such a low percentage doesn't excuse the Confederacy.

I mean the constitutional amendment which the Republican Party and Lincoln supported

The majority of the Republicans voted against it, and those that voted for it did so in an attempt to prevent what happened, and with the understanding it didn't give the slave holding states any protections they didn't already have at that time. The Constitution already implicitly protected slavery.

That was reality. People could move about and did throughout the 19th century when there were better opportunities elsewhere. Hell, tens of millions of Europeans sailed across the Atlantic Ocean. To imply that Blacks did not move North until late in the 19th century because of difficulty in being able to transport themselves is what is really weak...It did not start in any significant numbers until about 1890 when the Northern states finally lifted their exclusionary laws which had kept Blacks in the now devastated and impoverished Southern states.

I never said they didn't migrate North early on "difficulty in being able to transport themselves", because I never said they didn't migrate North early on. It just happened a lot slower than you seem to think it should have.

They left because of the rampant discrimination they faced in the South even after they were freed. I don't deny there was discrimination in the North too, but to imply they didn't want to leave the South because they had it so good there is beyond belief.

BTW, the settlers had ships ready to take them to the "New World".

and which gained a supermajority of both Houses of Congress

Many of whom found themselves unemployed afterwards.

after the Southern delegation had withdrawn.

Of course. They knew what everyone but you knows. It was nothing.

The one the original 7 seceding states rejected.

And all but 5 or 6 in what would become the Union rejected.

Yet we know even from Union Army sources that many thousands of Blacks did fight in the Confederate Army.

Even if every last one had enlisted into the Confederate military and fought willingly which we know isn't the case, it was still a fraction of the number that escaped to the North, joined the Union Army and navy, and fought against the Confederacy.

"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83

"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939." Adolf Hitler, April 29, 1945

“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

Both were from an interview in 1864. What was JD saying eariler?

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

Was JD walking back from his statements from 1858?

Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/

Before I click, who is this "cwcrossroads" that I need to read them?

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).

Of course he did.

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA

Here's some history, written by the Confederacy.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

"Next to the demands for safety and equality, the secessionist leaders emphasized familiar economic complaints. South Carolinians in particular were convinced of the general truth of Rhett's and Hammond's much publicized figures upon Southern tribute to Northern interests." (Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, Ordeal of the Union, Volume 2, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950, p. 332)

So they gave other reasons. So what? Even if we accept there were other reasons, it doesn't change the fact that slavery was one of them.

You're not off to a very good start. That quote WAS WP's rebuttal to my "dubious source". Maybe you and WP can debate whether JD walked back his support of slavery.

That was in response to the rest of the claims made obviously.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

Yes we've been over that. Lincoln was not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said openly and repeatedly he was not an abolitionist. He never said anything to the contrary before very late in the war. The same is true of the Republican Party in general. They went to great pains to make it clear they were not abolitionists.

Then why didn't they ratify it when they could have?

Because the original 7 seceding states turned down their offer.

Like the Confederacy, Hitler thought owning slaves was one of those states' rights.

Like Lincoln, Hitler thought all power should be concentrated and that people who got in the way of his ambitions - like the plains Indians for example - should be ethnically cleansed.

Yes. Did the terrorists they harborded try to free slaves?

The terrorists they harbored tried to start a bloodbath and had no qualms about cold bloodedly murdering even Black people to do it.

Recognized especially by the human traffickers and the slave owners who wanted their product.

Recognized by everybody. Take it up with Africans that their kings sold slaves to Yankee slave traders.

It most certainly was an act of war against a people, committed by the slave owners, the slave traders, and their own government.

Acts of war are only committed against sovereign entities.

A lot of people saw it this way then. The slave holding states were clearly on the wrong side of history. As you said, "Practically every other western country got rid of slavery via compensated emancipation - and without bloodshed."

A lot of people....not in the United States at the time. Most people in the United States were not abolitionists prior to very late in the war.

"The North" didn't promote or prolong slavery. It was some bad actors in the Northern states and some of the border states who did this.

The slave trade carried on on a large scale in New England well after the grandfather clause expired in 1810. It was common knowledge. Minor officials took bribes and with a wink and a nod ignored the fact that slave trading was still being conducted on a large scale out of those ports.

That is refuted by you below.

No its not. Yankee slave traders sold most of their "cargo" in the Carribean and South America.

Some numbers say it was a lower percentage, but it still amounted to millions. As I said, being such a low percentage doesn't excuse the Confederacy.

this is about the slave trade, not the Confederacy - keep up. I doubt millions were transported to what is now the US. The survival rates of those who were transported there was much higher than the survival rates of those transported to more tropical locations and particularly to produce sugar where conditions were often more brutal. Given the natural growth rate of about 27% per decade, it would not have required there to have been a huge number delivered to what is now the US to amount to a population of 4.5 million by the 1860s.

The majority of the Republicans voted against it, and those that voted for it did so in an attempt to prevent what happened, and with the understanding it didn't give the slave holding states any protections they didn't already have at that time. The Constitution already implicitly protected slavery.

A Republican wrote it and sponsored it. He did so at the behest of the de facto leader of the party Abraham Lincoln, and plenty of Republicans voted for it.

I never said they didn't migrate North early on "difficulty in being able to transport themselves", because I never said they didn't migrate North early on. It just happened a lot slower than you seem to think it should have.

Had they been free to settle there, it is obvious millions of Blacks would have migrated North immediately after the war. The Southern states were left destitute by the ravages of war, the massive theft of the occupation governments and by the massively high Morrill Tariff which tripled pre-war Tariff rates.

They left because of the rampant discrimination they faced in the South even after they were freed. I don't deny there was discrimination in the North too, but to imply they didn't want to leave the South because they had it so good there is beyond belief.

ummmmm I never said anything of the kind.

BTW, the settlers had ships ready to take them to the "New World".

The journey was not safe and plenty died along the way.

Many of whom found themselves unemployed afterwards.

Irrelevant and you have yet to prove that that was why voters elected different representatives later on.

Of course. They knew what everyone but you knows. It was nothing.

it was a bona fide offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment made by the overwhelmingly Northern dominated Congress. Own it.

And all but 5 or 6 in what would become the Union rejected.

No they didn't. Republicans stopped pushing for its ratification by the states once it became obvious the Southern states were not going to accept it and would not return.

Even if every last one had enlisted into the Confederate military and fought willingly which we know isn't the case, it was still a fraction of the number that escaped to the North, joined the Union Army and navy, and fought against the Confederacy.

Deflection noted. Tens of thousands joined the Confederate Army and thousands fought in the Confederate Army.

"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939." Adolf Hitler, April 29, 1945

Davis said this during the war to a couple of Northern representatives. In fact he consistently said so.

Both were from an interview in 1864. What was JD saying eariler?

Davis had consistently said similar things.

Beginning in 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).

1861...notice how he didn't talk about slavery here?

"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861

Of course he did.

That answered your question above. You have no good response here.

Here's the same spam I posted before Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

Asked and answered above.

So they gave other reasons. So what? Even if we accept there were other reasons, it doesn't change the fact that slavery was one of them.

I never denied slavery was ONE of them. I never even denied it was an important reason for the strife between the regions. I do deny however that it was "all about" slavery or that slavery was the sine qua non of either secession or the war.

Polls are BS...always have been...

Why Freeper's post them...I do not know.

That was in response to the rest of the claims made obviously.

Really. Show me where the speech below was shown to be bogus.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

Yes we've been over that. Lincoln was not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said openly and repeatedly he was not an abolitionist. He never said anything to the contrary before very late in the war.

Actually, he spoke out against it frequently but acknowledged he didn't have the legal means to abolish it. In areas where people supported slavery, and your provided an example in Illinois, he claimed he had no intention of abolishing it to cheering crowds. I never denied that.

The same is true of the Republican Party in general. They went to great pains to make it clear they were not abolitionists.

Cassius Clay, and The Republican party's platform in 1856.

Because the original 7 seceding states turned down their offer.

That wouldn't have stopped them, if they believed slavery should be preserved. They didn't.

Like Lincoln, Hitler thought all power should be concentrated and that people who got in the way of his ambitions - like the plains Indians for example - should be ethnically cleansed.

You had to go there. Lincoln didn't get much of a chance to grab more territory given that he was dealing with the CW during his first term and was assassinated a year into his second, but that's something the entire nation has to answer for, not just Lincoln.

I don't have an answer for this.

Recognized by everybody. Take it up with Africans that their kings sold slaves to Yankee slave traders.

Do you also blame kidnapped women for the human traffickers who kidnap them?

Acts of war are only committed against sovereign entities.

The villages considered themselves sovereign entities.

A lot of people....not in the United States at the time. Most people in the United States were not abolitionists prior to very late in the war.

In 1858, Kansas joined a lot of other free states by voting to abolish their constitution and make Kansas a free state.

Were there a lot of people in the North who were not abolitionists? Yes, I'll grant that (no pun intended). The Democrats who voted against passing the 13th Amendment in 1864 were elected, but the Republicans who voted to pass the 13th amendment were also elected.

The slave trade carried on on a large scale in New England well after the grandfather clause expired in 1810. It was common knowledge. Minor officials took bribes and with a wink and a nod ignored the fact that slave trading was still being conducted on a large scale out of those ports.

I never denied it happened then. It happens now across the country, but that doesn't mean the country itself is doing it.

this is about the slave trade, not the Confederacy - keep up. I doubt millions were transported to what is now the US. The survival rates of those who were transported there was much higher than the survival rates of those transported to more tropical locations and particularly to produce sugar where conditions were often more brutal. Given the natural growth rate of about 27% per decade, it would not have required there to have been a huge number delivered to what is now the US to amount to a population of 4.5 million by the 1860s.

It is about the Confederacy. If slaves were bred as if they were animals instead of bought, then you can't blame anyone but the slave states for that.

A Republican wrote it and sponsored it. He did so at the behest of the de facto leader of the party Abraham Lincoln, and plenty of Republicans voted for it.

You didn't respond to my point, which was that the Republicans at the time didn't see it as giving the slave states anything they didn't already have. I know we look at it now and say it would have protected slavery, but at the time the Constitution already did. As I pointed out earlier, if the free states wanted to protect slavery they could have ratified it regardless of what the slave holding states did. They didn't.

Had they been free to settle there, it is obvious millions of Blacks would have migrated North immediately after the war. The Southern states were left destitute by the ravages of war, the massive theft of the occupation governments and by the massively high Morrill Tariff which tripled pre-war Tariff rates.

Millions did. In fact, many escaped to the North BEFORE the end of the war. The fact that it didn't happen as fast as you think it should have doesn't prove a thing.

The journey was not safe and plenty died along the way.

The risks were known and accepted, just as we take risks when we fly. Of course the risk is much lower now, but 600 years from now they may look at how we travelled through the air and marvel at the risks we were willing to take, just to go on vacation.

Irrelevant and you have yet to prove that that was why voters elected different representatives later on.

What needs to be proven? The Democrats blocked passage of the 13th Amendment in 1864, the voters voted them out, and the Republicans they elected voted to pass the 13th Amendment. I won't pretend I can read their minds, but based on their actions they got what they voted for.

Deflection noted. Tens of thousands joined the Confederate Army and thousands fought in the Confederate Army.

Confederacy approves Black soldiers

Davis had consistently said similar things.

Beginning in 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).

PR, nothing more.

1861...notice how he didn't talk about slavery here?

And Hitler didn't talk about genocide.

"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861

This is consistant with his speech in 1858 where he said secession was about slavery and the elections of "abolitionists", his words, not mine, in the North. The only difference is he didn't come out and say slavery.

So you are correct in a way, in that he was consistent.

I never denied slavery was ONE of them. I never even denied it was an important reason for the strife between the regions. I do deny however that it was "all about" slavery or that slavery was the sine qua non of either secession or the war.

Then your argument is with JD in 1858.

Really. Show me where the speech below was shown to be bogus.

See above, already posted.

Actually, he spoke out against it frequently but acknowledged he didn't have the legal means to abolish it. In areas where people supported slavery, and your provided an example in Illinois, he claimed he had no intention of abolishing it to cheering crowds. I never denied that.

He said he had no desire to abolish it where it existed AND he was willing to protect it forever by express constitutional amendment AND he was willing to pass strengthened fugitive slave laws. He was no abolitionist.

Cassius Clay, and The Republican party's platform in 1856.

What elected Republican was an open abolitionist prior to the war? I'll wait.

That wouldn't have stopped them, if they believed slavery should be preserved. They didn't.

They were willing to offer it up as the very first bargaining chip to be sacrificed.....they just wanted to keep that sweet sweet Southern cash flowing North.

You had to go there. Lincoln didn't get much of a chance to grab more territory given that he was dealing with the CW during his first term and was assassinated a year into his second, but that's something the entire nation has to answer for, not just Lincoln.

Damn Right I went there. Read 38 Nooses. Lincoln refused to pay the Santee Sioux the money they were owed under the terms of their treaty with the US. When they were starving on their reservation as a result of crooked Indian Traders, they revolted. When they were put down, the Union Army just grabbed whatever men or boys happened to be nearby and after "trials" lasting on average TEN MINUTES EACH sentenced them to death. Lincoln chose not to spare them and so he became the only POTUS in American history to order a mass execution.

But the story gets even worse than that. The rest of the tribe was ethnically cleansed from Minnesota and was starved in a Union Army camp. Then when they were dropped off in the Dakotas, the federal government made sure it was in the Fall after the harvest season so they would starve again. Then members of the Lincoln administration through their connections, were able to snap up large swathes of land in Minnesota that had belonged to the Santee Sioux at knock down prices and flip it immediately for huge profits. Oh but wait! It gets even better. The federal government treated the nearby Winnebago the same - and they had not even participated in the uprising.

Do you also blame kidnapped women for the human traffickers who kidnap them?

We're not talking about the slaves here - the victims. We are talking about the African kings who enslaved and sold them.

The villages considered themselves sovereign entities.

They were ruled by kings. The kings tended to sell off political opponents, nearby tribes that had been defeated in wars, disfavored people, etc.

In 1858, Kansas joined a lot of other free states by voting to abolish their constitution and make Kansas a free state.

Were there a lot of people in the North who were not abolitionists? Yes, I'll grant that (no pun intended). The Democrats who voted against passing the 13th Amendment in 1864 were elected, but the Republicans who voted to pass the 13th amendment were also elected.

By late in the war views had changed...on both sides. Davis got approval from the Confederate Congress to offer emancipation in treaties of recognition being negotiated with Britain and France while in the Northern states, people had started to come around to the idea of abolishing slavery. Remember that the EP in 1863 had been wildly unpopular and even sparked desertions in the Union army and a massive riot in New York.

I never denied it happened then. It happens now across the country, but that doesn't mean the country itself is doing it.

It was widespread. There was an awful lot of complicity in slavery and profiteering from slavery in the Northeast in particular. I've never denied the share of blame the Southern states are due for still allowing slavery, but the myth of the virtuous North is something I will always call out. The North deserves a massive share of the blame as well.

It is about the Confederacy. If slaves were bred as if they were animals instead of bought, then you can't blame anyone but the slave states for that.

Its tough to generalize but in many cases slaves were allowed to marry and had families. They were not generally "Bred as if they were animals". and because I know you are going to challenge this, see below:

The U.S. slave population increased by an average of 27 percent per decade after 1810, almost the same natural growth rate as for the white population. This rate of increase was unique in the history of bondage. No other slave population in the Western Hemisphere even maintained, much less increased, its population through natural reproduction. In Barbados, for example, the decennial natural decrease from 1712 to 1762 was 43 percent. At the time of emancipation, the black population of the United States was ten times the number of Africans who had been imported, but the black population of the West Indies was only half the number of Africans who had been imported. Of the ten million Africans brought across the Atlantic by the slave trade, the United States received fewer than 6 percent; yet at the time of emancipation it had more than 30 percent of the hemisphere's black population. (Ordeal By Fire, pp. 34-35)

McPherson notes other interesting facts: Although Southern law did not recognize marriages between slaves, 66 to 80 percent of slave marriages were not broken up by their masters (Ordeal By Fire, pp. 35-36). Not only did many if not most slaveowners permit their slaves to marry, but some masters allowed their slaves to earn money and in some cases to buy their freedom (Ordeal By Fire, p. 34). Economic historians Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman contend that not only could slaves earn money and rise to responsible positions in the slave system but that in some cases they received a greater share of the product of their labor than did many factory workers in the North (Time on the Cross, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1974; see also John Niven, The Coming of the Civil War, Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1990, pp. 160-161).

Abolition doubts notwithstanding, thousands of slaves were married in Southern churches between 1800 and 1860. For example, out of a total of 1,228 marriages performed in Episcopal churches in South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia in 1860, at least 460, or 38.1 percent, were slave weddings. At many times between 1830 and 1860 more slaves were married in the Episcopal churches in some states than were whites. Between 1841 and 1860 Episcopal ministers performed 3,225 weddings in South Carolina; 1,705, or 52 percent, of these were slave marriages. (The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South, Revised and Enlarged Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 169)

and no, I'm not saying slavery was anything other than awful so let's not go there. What I'm saying is they were not generally "bred like animals" and that marriage seemed to be the norm - yes even during slavery.

You didn't respond to my point, which was that the Republicans at the time didn't see it as giving the slave states anything they didn't already have. I know we look at it now and say it would have protected slavery, but at the time the Constitution already did. As I pointed out earlier, if the free states wanted to protect slavery they could have ratified it regardless of what the slave holding states did. They didn't.

My point is that the Republicans and the Northerners at the time were not abolitionists and whatever objections they had to slavery, that was the very first thing they were willing to offer up in order to keep Southern Cash flowing northward whether it be tariff revenue for subsidies and infrastructure projects or by servicing goods produced at least in part with slave labor. What the North most wanted was profits/money. Any qualms about slavery were a minor considering compared to lining their own pockets.

Millions did. In fact, many escaped to the North BEFORE the end of the war. The fact that it didn't happen as fast as you think it should have doesn't prove a thing.

Millions? No, not millions. Large scale Black migration to the Northern states did not start until about 1890. What this shows is that for the first 25 or so years after the war, Blacks simply couldn't move to the Northern states. The laws in place in the Northern states prevented it - as they were designed to do.

The risks were known and accepted, just as we take risks when we fly. Of course the risk is much lower now, but 600 years from now they may look at how we travelled through the air and marvel at the risks we were willing to take, just to go on vacation.

The point is that what kept Blacks in the economically devastated Southern states was the laws in place in the Northern states - not anything else. They simply had nowhere else to go.

What needs to be proven? The Democrats blocked passage of the 13th Amendment in 1864, the voters voted them out, and the Republicans they elected voted to pass the 13th Amendment. I won't pretend I can read their minds, but based on their actions they got what they voted for.

Public sentiment in the Northern states did not support abolition until late in the war.

Confederacy approves Black soldiers

As has already been established, many thousands of Blacks served in the Confederate Army long before the Confederate Congress finally got round to approving it.

PR, nothing more.

What PR? He was talking to Confederate Senators and Congressmen then later Northern military officers at about the same time there were massive desertions in the Union Army and rioting in New York City over the EP.

And Hitler didn't talk about genocide.

And Lincoln didn't talk about ethnic cleansing.

This is consistant with his speech in 1858 where he said secession was about slavery and the elections of "abolitionists", his words, not mine, in the North. The only difference is he didn't come out and say slavery.

He said consistently that neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. He had said in the Senate for years that what the North - specifically New England - was seeking was to profiteer and build up their industry at the South's expense using the federal government as "an engine of Northern aggrandizement".

So you are correct in a way, in that he was consistent.

Yes, he was.

Then your argument is with JD in 1858.

Jeff Davis consistently said it was about the economics and not about slavery. He was right.

See above, already posted.

Post it again. Here's the link you're trying to prove is bogus.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

He said he had no desire to abolish it where it existed

He said that to cheering audiences who wanted to hear what he was saying, but JD didn't go for it.

AND he was willing to protect it forever by express constitutional amendment

Which was never ratified, even though there was nothing stopping the Union states from ratifying if they had wanted to preserve slavery which they didn't. Repeats snipped.

AND he was willing to pass strengthened fugitive slave laws. He was no abolitionist.

So he said to those who wanted to hear it, but he never did and escaped slaves were allowed to immigrate to the Lincoln run North.

What elected Republican was an open abolitionist prior to the war? I'll wait.

I've already given them. Not abolitionists wearing it on their sleeves, but elections in which representatives who were either elected to vote for abolition, or defeated for trying to preserve slavery. If you want to wait for me to post them again, enjoy waiting.

Damn Right I went there. Read 38 Nooses. Lincoln refused to pay the Santee Sioux the money they were owed under the terms of their treaty with the US...

Once again I agree with you, and once again you're so blinded by rage that you can't see it. Some of your points are distorted anyway, but I won't go into it because it doesn't change my response. I'll post my reply again.

"that's something the entire nation has to answer for, not just Lincoln."

I agree with you. Got it?

We're not talking about the slaves here - the victims. We are talking about the African kings who enslaved and sold them.

Maybe you are, but none of that would have happened if there wasn't a market for them.

They were ruled by kings. The kings tended to sell off political opponents, nearby tribes that had been defeated in wars, disfavored people, etc.

And you think there's a difference between that and paying someone to do it?

and no, I'm not saying slavery was anything other than awful so let's not go there. What I'm saying is they were not generally "bred like animals" and that marriage seemed to be the norm - yes even during slavery.

Good points, but how did the slave holders see it? As humans with families, or as additional chattel

Millions? No, not millions. Large scale Black migration to the Northern states did not start until about 1890. What this shows is that for the first 25 or so years after the war, Blacks simply couldn't move to the Northern states. The laws in place in the Northern states prevented it - as they were designed to do.

Of course you snipped what I said about blacks escaping to the North during the war, but that's OK. I'm sure anyone who is still interested in this thread saw it.

Public sentiment in the Northern states did not support abolition until late in the war.

I would point to the elections in kansas in 1858, and in the Union after Congress passed the Corbomite Manuever and one of the biggest presidential failures in the US signed it, but I won't.

As has already been established, many thousands of Blacks served in the Confederate Army long before the Confederate Congress finally got round to approving it.

Just because you buy that doesn't mean it has been established. As I said, take your evidece to the black church of your choice, and see what their response is.

What PR? He was talking to Confederate Senators and Congressmen then later Northern military officers

He was trying to take the focus off of slavery, but earlier he clearly stated abolitionists as the reason for seceding.

at about the same time there were massive desertions in the Union Army

The desertions were largely over the incompetence of the military leadership.

and rioting in New York City over the EP.

That was over the draft.

And Lincoln didn't talk about ethnic cleansing.

Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making about JD.

He said consistently that neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. He had said in the Senate for years that what the North - specifically New England - was seeking was to profiteer and build up their industry at the South's expense using the federal government as "an engine of Northern aggrandizement".

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

Jeff Davis consistently said it was about the economics and not about slavery. He was right.

Find that in his 1858 speech.

Post it again. Here's the link you're trying to prove is bogus.

Nah. Asked and answered above.

He said that to cheering audiences who wanted to hear what he was saying, but JD didn't go for it.

He said it repeatedly. There is no reason to think Lincoln did not mean exactly what he said.

Which was never ratified, even though there was nothing stopping the Union states from ratifying if they had wanted to preserve slavery which they didn't. Repeats snipped.

there was no reason to pass it after the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

So he said to those who wanted to hear it, but he never did and escaped slaves were allowed to immigrate to the Lincoln run North.

He never did because the original 7 seceding states rejected the offer.

I've already given them. Not abolitionists wearing it on their sleeves, but elections in which representatives who were either elected to vote for abolition, or defeated for trying to preserve slavery. If you want to wait for me to post them again, enjoy waiting.

The correct answer is "zero". You could have saved a lot of time by admitting that instead of trying to spin.

Once again I agree with you, and once again you're so blinded by rage that you can't see it. Some of your points are distorted anyway, but I won't go into it because it doesn't change my response. I'll post my reply again.

Rage? You've obviously done a poor job of gauging my emotions - hint: I don't feel any when discussing this on a message board with someone I've never met.

"that's something the entire nation has to answer for, not just Lincoln."

Just as the entire nation bears the blame for slavery.

Maybe you are, but none of that would have happened if there wasn't a market for them.

or willing flesh peddlers eager to profit.....

And you think there's a difference between that and paying someone to do it?

Can you EVER stay on point? I think its not an act of war against those kingdoms to buy what they wanted to sell.

Good points, but how did the slave holders see it? As humans with families, or as additional chattel

They probably saw it as they would be a lot more content and easier to control if they were allowed to have families which is the normal human state. I'm sure they were happy to see their slaves have children because that meant they would not have to go buy more.

Of course you snipped what I said about blacks escaping to the North during the war, but that's OK. I'm sure anyone who is still interested in this thread saw it.

Certainly some did move north during the war but it wasn't millions. Remember the entire Black population was about 4.5 million at the time.

I would point to the elections in kansas in 1858, and in the Union after Congress passed the Corbomite Manuever and one of the biggest presidential failures in the US signed it, but I won't.

Voting to strip a provision that barred any Blacks from settling in a territory does not equal support for abolition on the part of voters in all the Northern states. As for the Corwin Amendment, I get that its inconvenient for you but it was done at the hand of Republicans and passed by the North's elected representatives overwhelmingly.

Just because you buy that doesn't mean it has been established. As I said, take your evidece to the black church of your choice, and see what their response is.

I've posted numerous Union Army accounts of lots of Blacks fighting in the Confederate Army before 1864.

He was trying to take the focus off of slavery, but earlier he clearly stated abolitionists as the reason for seceding.,/p>

He did not believe secession or the war were about slavery. He was quite clear in that and he said so from the start.

The desertions were largely over the incompetence of the military leadership.

No. There were a lot of desertions over the EP specifically.

When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil War.

That was over the draft.

the draft and the EP.

Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making about JD.

Thanks for agreeing with my point about Lincoln.

The same spam

You have no answer.

Find that in his 1858 speech.

Find that in the numerous comments he made in the US Senate or in his first Inaugural Address as President and in his comments to Confederate Senators and in his comments to Union negotiators.

I wouldn't call it enthralling and it certainly isn't everything he said about preserving slavery in that speech, but how about "You too know, that among us, white men have an equality resulting form a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race."
That wasn't from Mein Kampf. That was from Jefferson Davis.

You imagine some sort of achievement in finding that a leader of a slave state favored slavery and thought the black race to be inferior. And yet, Abraham Lincoln openly espoused the inferiority of the Black race, and believed in the elimination of all Black labor in competition with White labor.

The words of Lincoln bear a remarkable agreement with the comments of Jefferson Davis of the same year. And yet, you have tried to represent Lincoln to have been an abolitionist. As Black historian Lerone Bennett, Jr. stated, "In fact, it is impossible to conceive of an abolitionist Abraham Lincoln." Attempts to defend Lincoln by quoting Davis fail. They merely provide further evidence that Lincoln was a racist of the same nature as Davis.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate #1, August 21, 1858

When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.
When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

Regarding the myth of the Lincoln origin of the quote, "You can fool some of all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time," Lerone Bennett, Jr. cogently observed, "By turning a racist who wanted to deport all Blacks into a national symbol of integration and brotherhood, the Lincoln mythmakers have managed to prove Lincoln or whoever said it wrong."

Notably, membership in the cottage industry of Lincoln mythmakers is practically lily white.

Moreover, the revisionist Lincoln claim that the Union created the States is remarkably echoed by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. It is the polar opposite of the beliefs of Jefferson Davis. Lincoln purposed to rid the nation of what he perceived to be inferior races—so did Hitler. The Davis family chose to take in and foster or adopt James Henry Brooks.

I'm not sure how I got the link to the wrong post, but you are correct. Since I acknowledge my mistake, I'm sure you're going to insult me again.

Fewer mistaken claims would be preferable to more acknowledgements of mistake.

You could have given that answer without burying it in other people's work for post after post, and I would have accepted it.

I reply to erroneous claims in my own way. I rebut the claim and provide documentation to support my contention. You are free to use your method, exemplified here, of responding with some complaint about the documentation which you do not actually address.

Neither Davis nor Reagan would ever subscribe to the horse pucky stated by Lincoln.
Neither had to deal with the Democrats splitting the nation in an admitted attempt to preserve slavery.

Lincoln did not have to deal with Democrats splitting the nation. It was the GOP who split the nation with their anti-slavery, or anti-territorial slavery, issue, and their defiance of the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution. The Whigs had imploded and joined the John Adams Federalists upon the ash heap of history. The Republicans could not have won in 1860 had they not divided the nation and the Democrats. The Republicans only won about 40% of the vote. The Democrats got about 60%, divided between two flavors of Democrat.

The nation had existed with legal slavery since its birth. More than 80 years later, the Democrats were not trying to divide the nation by advocating the status quo. "Riddle said 'the most conspicuous feature' of Lincoln's congressional career on the slavery issue was his "discreet silence." "Never before [the Kansas-Nebraska Act] had Lincoln run for office on the slavery issue," Riddle says, "but never afterward would he run on any other. There were, he noted, thirty-six full-length speeches on slavery in the short session, but none by Lincoln." Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory Johnson Publishing Company (2000), pp. 301, 213, quoting Donald W. Riddle, Congressman Abraham Lincoln, Westport, 1979, pp. 179, 252. The Republican party used the anti-slavery issue to divide and conquer, and to achieve political power.

[TwelveOfTwenty #641] We've already been over that. Lincoln had to keep the Union united, and had to talk out of both sides of his mouth. In 1864 with the war still going on, the Republicans in Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere but were blocked by the party of Jefferson Davis. In 1865 with the war still going on, Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere.
[FLT-bird #642] Yes we've been over that. Lincoln was not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said openly and repeatedly he was not an abolitionist. He never said anything to the contrary before very late in the war. The same is true of the Republican Party in general. They went to great pains to make it clear they were not abolitionists. They were quite willing to protect slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and even to strengthen fugitive slave laws.

In 1860, the Democratic Party split into the Southern Democrats and the Northern Democrats, with different nominees and incompatible platforms. The party of Jefferson Davis was the Southern Democrats. The Northern politicians spoken of in 1864 were not of the party of Jefferson Davis. Davis.

Jefferson Davis' Address to the National Democracy

Washington, D.C., May 7, 1860

[excerpt]

What is the history of the recent Convention at Charleston?
Seventeen States, forming a majority of the whole, adopted with remarkable unanimity a platform of principles so worded as to avoid the possibility of misconstruction—principles deemed political axioms by all who uphold the equal rights of the States as the very basis of the Confederacy. Many delegates from the remaining sixteen States concurred in opinion with this majority, conspicuous amongst whom were delegates from Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The States which adopted this platform give electoral votes which can be relied on with absolute certainty in favor of democratic nominees, and well-grounded confidence is entertained of a like result in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. These seventeen States united with Pennsylvania alone comprise a majority of the entire electoral vote of the United States, able to elect the democratic nominees against the combined opposition of all the remaining States.
This platform was deliberately rejected by a combination composed of a small fraction of the delegates from the seventeen democratic States and a very large majority of the delegates of the remaining sixteen States; and a resolution was adopted in its stead simply reaffirming the principles of the Cincinnati platform, without explanation or interpretation of its disputed meaning. This was done with the openly-avowed purpose of enabling the democratic party to wage battle with some chance of success in certain Northern and Western States by presenting to the people as its doctrines principles openly and expressly repudiated by a majority of the democratic State delegations, and by a majority approaching unanimity of the democratic electoral votes of the Union.

In a speech at Washington D.C., July 9, 1860, Jeffferson Davis referred to the Northern Democrats as that spurious and decayed off-shoot of democracy, which, claiming that this Federal government has no power, leaves the people our next greatest evil, despotism; and denies protection to our Constitutional rights.

Lincoln did not support abolition in 1858, nor for years thereafter. Even had the EP been incorporated into the Constitution, it would not have affected slavery in the Union states. Lawful slavery continued in the Union states until the 13th Amendment became effective.

Nobody voted to abolish slavery in 1864. It was beyond the power of the Federal legislature to abolish slavery. Votes were taken in Congress to propose an Amendment to the Constitution for consideration by the States. Amendments are acts of the sovereign States, not acts of the Federal government, or the legislature thereof.

With two-thirds supermajorities of both houses, the Federal Congress may propose Amendments. Alternatively, with a simple majority of two-thirds of the State legislatures, the Federal Congress role is reduced to a ministerial one wherein Congress "shall call a convention for proposing Amendments."

Either the Congress or the People as States may propose, but only the People, as States, may ratify a proposed Amendment.

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) #16, which was to become the 13th Amendment, was introduced by Senator John B. Henderson of Missouri, a Democrat. Congressional Globe (CG) 11 Jan 1864, pg. 145.

S.J.R. #16 was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, CG, 8 Apr 1864, pg. 1490. The recorded vote was Yeas 38, Nays 6. "The VICE PRESIDENT annouunced that the joint resolution, having received the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present, was passed. Its title was amended to read: A joint resolution submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States."

S.J.R. #16 was considered by the House on June 15, 1864, CG, 15 Jun 1864, pg. 2995. The vote was yeas 93, nays 65, not voting 23. The Result was announced, "So the joint resolution was not passed, two thirds not having voted in favor thereof."

S.J.R. #16 was reconsidered by the House on January 31, 1865. CG, 31 Jan 1865, pg. 531. The recorded vote was yeas 119, nays 56, not voting 8. "So, the two-thirds required by the Constitution of the United States having voted in favor thereof, the joint resolution was passed."

Ratification required approval by three-fourths of ALL the states in the Union. Unless the Confederate States were considered to have left the Union, in 1864 ratification would have required the approval of 27 States, necessarily including several Confederate states, a more considerable problem than party politics in the North. Eventually, with the refusal of several Union States to ratify, 4 former Confederate States were required for ratification. Ratifying votes came from Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia by December 11, 1865 after their claims to being Confederate States had been extinguished. On December 18, 1865, the secretary of State proclaimed the Amendment to be in full effect with 27 States ratifying.

Just adding new states to the Union would not have been much of a solution. Additional states would increase the number required for ratification. It would have required the creation of 16 new states, all ratifying, to achieve ratification of the Amendment without support of any former rebel state.

In 1865, Congress still could not vote to abolish slavery. It could only propose an Amendment to the Constitution asking the people to decide whether they wanted to effect a change to their organic law, the same organic law by which the People created the Congress.

Aside from a lack of delegated authority to abolish slavery, it would have been impossible for Congress to abolish slavery without nullifying the Fugitive Slave Clause, Art. 4, Sec. 3. Any Federal statute repugnant to any part of the Constitution is considered null and void ab initio, as though it never existed.

As it is frequently asserted that Lincoln "approved" the Resolution with his signature, I note that the President plays no role whatever in Amendments to the Constitution. Lincoln's signature was legally meaningless, and drew congressional action to make that clear. CG 7 Feb 1865, pg. 629, Senator Trumbull speaking:

In 1798 a case arose in the Supreme Court of the United States depending upon the amendment to the Constitution proposed in 1794, and the counsel in argument before the Supreme Court insisted that the amendment was not valid, not having been approved by the President of the United States. This was his argument:
“The amendment has not been proposed in the form prescribed by the Constitution, and therefore it is void. Upon an inspection of the original roll, it appears that the amendment was never submitted to the President for his approbation. The Constitution declares that ‘every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be be passed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives,’ &c. (Article one, section seven.) Now, the Constitution likewise declares that the concurrence of both Houses shall be necessary to a proposition for amendments. (Article five.) And it is no answer to the objection to observe that as two thirds or both Houses are required to originate the proposition; it would be nugatorv to return it with the President’s negative to be repassed by the same number, since the reasons assigned for his disapprobation might be so satisfactory as to reduce the majority below the constitutional proportion. The concurrence of the President is required in matters of infinitely less importance, and whether on subjects of ordinary legislation or of constitutional amendments the expression is the same, and equally applies to the act of both Houses of Congress.”
Mr. Lee, the Attorney General, in reply to this argument, said:
“Has not the same course been pursued relative to all the other amendments that have been adopted? And the case of amendments is evidently a substantive act, unconnected with the ordinary business of legislation, and not within the policy or terms of investing the President with a qualified negative on the acts and resolutions of Congress.”
The court, speaking through Chase, Justice, observes:
“There can surely be no necessity to answer that argument. The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation. He has nothing to do with the proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution.”
The court would not hear an argument from the Attorney General on the point, it was so clear. If the approval of the President were necessary, none of the amendments which have been made to the Constitution since its adoption would be valid, for not one of them ever received his approval.

woodpusher: "Context is everything.
That's why you bastardize quotes and rip away context, to give appearance of support for your lame, baseless argument.
Try the quote with context and describe what wardaddy was arguing."

And yet... and yet... it remains true that wardaddy was the first to bring up the name Hitler on this thread, and for anyone not familiar with the alleged ins-&-outs of Godwin's law, that would seem to offer permission for others to also use the "H-word".

Indeed, while we're talking about "Godwin's law", let's remember that Godwin himself is a raving nut-case:

"In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: 'If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician.'[12]"

So... according to Godwin himself, it's A-OK to call Donald Trump a Nazi, just not those Godwin favors.

woodpusher: "Context is everything.
That's why you bastardize quotes and rip away context, to give appearance of support for your lame, baseless argument.
Try the quote with context and describe what wardaddy was arguing."
And yet... and yet... it remains true that wardaddy was the first to bring up the name Hitler on this thread, and for anyone not familiar with the alleged ins-&-outs of Godwin's law, that would seem to offer permission for others to also use the "H-word".

You are merely blinded by your blatant prejudices and unable to restrain yurself from interjecting them into all your deliberately out-ot-context quotes.

Try the quote with context and describe what wardaddy was arguing.
wardaddy #448
Bro’s mini me brownie claims he’s a “professor”
Well when I was at ole miss 40 years ago most professors were right leaning....I was libertarian leaning.....a long haired southern kid
Erwin Neumaier was a classical liberal...a veteran of Hitler youth brigades sent here and adopted as a wounded teen,,,.an orphan ... he had seen totalitarianism up close as a kid......he was my political theory advisor....I adored him.....steel trap mind
From Socrates to Kant we covered it all....even Fromm and Sartre and Camus and Bill Shakespeare ....and Aquinas....he was a devoted Catholic in Oxford
He figured Hobbes Leviathan as our warning sign. And who do you think he blamed most in the USA for that....ahem......care to hunch?.....he was a Jeffersonian idealist ...Erwin was though he also loved Madison and Mason.....and across the pond. Burke
Today nearly all liberal arts teachers are lefties .....if Bro is not he’s a unicorn

Obviously, you proved unable to discuss the quote of wardaddy, preferring your typical skewed, prejudiced, and out-of-context bullcrap. Your screed adds nothing but the additional out-of-context absurdity:

Indeed, while we're talking about "Godwin's law", let's remember that Godwin himself is a raving nut-case:
"In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: 'If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician.'[12]"
So... according to Godwin himself, it's A-OK to call Donald Trump a Nazi, just not those Godwin favors.
[cartoon WikiWorld by Greg Williams]

In explaining Godwin’s Law, why one would prefer a cartoon from WikiWorld to Mr. Godwin is a matter of personal prejudice.

How a statement of Godwin (go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician) is twisted into “So... according to Godwin himself, it's A-OK to call Donald Trump a Nazi, just not those Godwin favors,” is a mystery, especially if one reads the complete Godwin explanation, and not just a snippet quote of Godwin at WikiWorld.

YOUR SOURCE at its cited footnote 12 source, courtesy of the Wayback Machine

After some early energetic seeding on my part, “Godwin’s Law” took off in the early days of large-scale public access to the Internet. Users would see a poorly reasoned, hyperbolic invocation of Nazis or the Holocaust and call the arguer to account, claiming the shallow argument had proved (or, sometimes, had “violated”) Godwin’s Law. Soon after, Godwin’s Law propagated into the mainstream media as well. Democrats and Republicans alike invoke it from time to time — so do other political parties in the United States and around the world. Sometimes it’s invoked by a Democratic blogger; sometimes it’s cited by a Republican. The law notably surfaced recently in Canadian politics, too.
So has Godwin’s Law actually reduced spurious Hitler or Nazi or Holocaust comparisons? Obviously not — just sample your own media sources, and you’ll find that Hitler comparisons are alive and well. (My personal favorite this year: the Mets fan who likened Yankees fans to former Nazi Party members.) But I do think the meme gives Internet users a clear opportunity to think critically about shallow references to the Nazis or the Holocaust. And it exposes glib Nazi comparisons or Holocaust references to the harsh light of interrogation.
[...]
To be clear: I don’t personally believe all rational discourse has ended when Nazis or the Holocaust are invoked. But I’m pleased that people still use Godwin’s Law to force one another to argue more thoughtfully. The best way to prevent future holocausts, I believe, is not to forbear from Holocaust comparisons; instead, it’s to make sure that those comparisons are meaningful and substantive.
[...]
The one thing we shouldn’t be skeptical of is our right — our obligation, even — as ordinary individuals to use the Internet and the other tools of the digital age to challenge our would-be leaders and check the facts.
And by all means be skeptical of Godwin’s Law, too. But you don’t need me to tell you that.

That hardly supports your claim that Godwin is a nut case.

To be sure, the wardaddy mention of his school instructor having been a member of a Hitler youth group was not a comparison to anyone, and was a substantive comment.

To be equally clear, the complete post of TwelveOfTwenty #592 contains nothing but his Hitler nonsense, and does not relate to anything substantive.

To: woodpusher; BroJoeK
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939." Berlin, 29 April, 1945, 4 a.m. Adolf Hitler
See how that works?
592 posted on 11/5/2021, 6:10:03 AM by TwelveOfTwenty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

The irrelevant quote of Hitler at #592 does nothing but invoke Godwin’s law. The lack of substantive content in that post was clear to see for all but those blinded by their own prejudice. There followed a quote wrongly attributed to me, and an unattributed quote for which no attribution could be provided when requested because it was a famous, albeit, bogus quote.

woodpusher: "You are merely blinded by your blatant prejudices and unable to restrain yurself from interjecting them into all your deliberately out-ot-context quotes."

Now you're just babbling nonsense, unconnected to any reality -- typical of woodpusher.

woodpusher: "Obviously, you proved unable to discuss the quote of wardaddy, preferring your typical skewed, prejudiced, and out-of-context bullcrap.
Your screed adds nothing but the additional out-of-context absurdity:"

And now you repost the same nonsense, as if it might make more sense the second time -- it doesn't.

woodpusher: "How a statement of Godwin (go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician) is twisted into “So... according to Godwin himself, it's A-OK to call Donald Trump a Nazi, just not those Godwin favors,” is a mystery, especially if one reads the complete Godwin explanation, and not just a snippet quote of Godwin at WikiWorld."

So now you're defending Godwin's saying it's A-OK to call Trump a Nazi, but you still condemn our fellow poster, TwelveOfTwenty for using a Hitler quote in response to your posting Jefferson Davis quotes? Typical.

woodpusher: "That hardly supports your claim that Godwin is a nut case."

And yet... and yet... Donald Trump is the only name mentioned specifically as A-OK to call a Nazi.
Everyone else is "other politicians", and if "other politicians" are also A-OK to call Nazis, then there is no such thing as "Godwin's Law", it's merely a weapon for shutting up people you disagree with -- such as TwelveOfTwenty on this thread.

woodpusher: "To be sure, the wardaddy mention of his school instructor having been a member of a Hitler youth group was not a comparison to anyone, and was a substantive comment.
To be equally clear, the complete post of TwelveOfTwenty #592 contains nothing but his Hitler nonsense, and does not relate to anything substantive."

TwelveOfTwenty answered this in post #597:

"I understand your point.
My only point was that when all was lost, Hitler's response was something to the effect of "I didn't want this".
I saw the same in the comments you posted from Jefferson Davis in 1865, when he tried to distance himself from slavery."

So TwelveOfTwenty's quote goes to the very heart & core of the Lost Cause lies about Civil War -- claims it was not about slavery.
He merely illustrated how people after the fact try to reshape their memories of what was really going on before it happened -- that is the essence of the Lost Cause.

woodpusher: "The irrelevant quote of Hitler at #592 does nothing but invoke Godwin’s law.
The lack of substantive content in that post was clear to see for all but those blinded by their own prejudice. "

The only ones here I've seen "blinded by prejudice" post under names like "woodpusher" & "wardaddy".

He said it repeatedly. There is no reason to think Lincoln did not mean exactly what he said.

I agree. He meant exactly what he said, and his actions backed what he said about how the nation can't survive being half free and half slaves.

there was no reason to pass it after the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

You are correct. The North had no intention to preserve slavery, so there was no reason to pass it. If they had ever intended to preserve slavery, then they could have passed it anyway.

The correct answer is "zero". You could have saved a lot of time by admitting that instead of trying to spin.

No the correct answers are 1858, 1860, and 1864.

Rage? You've obviously done a poor job of gauging my emotions

I was speaking tongue in cheek. I guess I needed to put an emoticon or something in there.

hint: I don't feel any when discussing this on a message board with someone I've never met.

Sure about that? ;)

Just as the entire nation bears the blame for slavery.

Nope. The abolitionists including those in the South don't bear the blame. The voters who elected reps to abolish slavery don't bear the blame. Nor do the states that voted to abolish it with the 13th Amendment.

Yes, I know the Southern states also voted to abolish slavery. That's the whole point you seem to miss. The South that voted to abolish slavery isn't the same South that seceded. My saying "the Confederacy did this" doesn't mean "the South did this". The South had abolitionists, and fighting age white men who crossed the lines to fight against slavery, and everything else. I don't tie the Confederacy and its defense of slavery to the South or to you. Do you?

or willing flesh peddlers eager to profit.....

Without the market, there would be no human traffickers of any kind. That's my stand whether it was back then, or with human trafficking today

When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil War.

And who is this author that I need to believe this? I mean, besides someone who writes what you want to hear.

Besides, it is well known that desertions started long before the EP due to the losses resulting from incompetence of the Union generals. It didn't just start with the EP.

Thanks for agreeing with my point about Lincoln.

I don't agree with any of your points about Lincoln, except that he said a lot of things we would find repugnant today. He said those things to cheering audiences who wanted to hear it, and who he had to deal with. Frederick Douglas understood that. I understand that. You? Nope.

In 1860, the Democratic Party split into the Southern Democrats and the Northern Democrats, with different nominees and incompatible platforms. The party of Jefferson Davis was the Southern Democrats. The Northern politicians spoken of in 1864 were not of the party of Jefferson Davis.

Then why did they vote against ratifying the 13th Amendment in 1864? Their reason was the same "states' rights" reason we're been hearing from the Confederacy amen corner for years.

Lincoln did not support abolition in 1858, nor for years thereafter. Even had the EP been incorporated into the Constitution, it would not have affected slavery in the Union states.

Their reasoning was they didn't want to drive the border states over to the Confederacy during the war, which we now know wouldn't have happened.

Lawful slavery continued in the Union states until the 13th Amendment became effective.

Yes, we all know this. Lincoln had to walk the line between the abolitionists and the states who still had slavery. His success in doing that is beyond dispute by anyone except the Confederacy amen corner.

And yet, Abraham Lincoln openly espoused the inferiority of the Black race, and believed in the elimination of all Black labor in competition with White labor. The words of Lincoln bear a remarkable agreement with the comments of Jefferson Davis of the same year. And yet, you have tried to represent Lincoln to have been an abolitionist.

I've been over that with FLT-Bird. Lincoln had to keep a Union of free states and border states together, and he had to speak out of both sides of his mouth. I'll repeat what Frederick Douglas said.

"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

I know he made some appalling statements, but those statements were made to groups who wanted to hear what he said. He had to work with them too, regardless of how it looks to us now.

Regarding the myth of the Lincoln origin of the quote, "You can fool some of all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time," Lerone Bennett, Jr. cogently observed, "By turning a racist who wanted to deport all Blacks into a national symbol of integration and brotherhood, the Lincoln mythmakers have managed to prove Lincoln or whoever said it wrong."

He wanted to repatriate them into their own country, by choice.

And it was the slave holders in the North he fooled. When the time came and they had the power, he and the Republicans pushed abolition, something he didn't live to see through. By then of course, even the slave holding states he was trying to pander to had come around.

Lincoln did not have to deal with Democrats splitting the nation. It was the GOP who split the nation with their anti-slavery, or anti-territorial slavery, issue, and their defiance of the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess if you supported the right to have slavery as the slave holding states did (BTW, I'm not saying you do) then you would see it that way.

I would love to see you debate that point with FLT-Bird.

Process followed to pass the 13th Amendment.

I understand it was a long process that took much more than a vote in Congress to make it law, but it has to get through Congress first. In 1864, based on an argument about states rights, the Democrats blocked passage of the 13th amendment in the House. The voters responded by firing many of them. In the following attempt in 1865, it was passed with 8 Democrats abstaining. After that it went to the states.

As it is frequently asserted that Lincoln "approved" the Resolution with his signature, I note that the President plays no role whatever in Amendments to the Constitution. Lincoln's signature was legally meaningless, and drew congressional action to make that clear. CG 7 Feb 1865, pg. 629, Senator Trumbull speaking:

That's the point I tried to make with FLT-Bird about President Buchanan signing the Corbomite Maneuver or whatever it was called. I would like to see you debate that too.

I agree. He meant exactly what he said, and his actions backed what he said about how the nation can't survive being half free and half slaves.

Yet he was willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.

You are correct. The North had no intention to preserve slavery, so there was no reason to pass it. If they had ever intended to preserve slavery, then they could have passed it anyway.

I am correct. The North was perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment in order to get their cash cows the Southern states not to leave. The MONEY is all they were interested in - not abolitionism.

Nope. The correct answer is zero. ZERO Republicans who advocated abolition were elected until late in the war.

Nope. The abolitionists including those in the South don't bear the blame. The voters who elected reps to abolish slavery don't bear the blame. Nor do the states that voted to abolish it with the 13th Amendment.

There were incredibly few abolitionists North or South prior to late in the war. The Southern states voted to abolish it with the 13th amendment too.

Of course the Southern states voted to abolish slavery by passing the 13th amendment. I haven't missed that at all...and by the way, yes that is the same South that seceded. It was their democratically elected representatives who voted for it. They were not unconstitutionally unseated and the voters in the Southern states not disenfranchised until they voted against passage of the 14th amendment which massively infringed on the rights of the states in favor of the federal government and dictated to sovereign states whom they could and could not elect. There were very few abolitionists in the South or the North until late in the war. It simply did not have much popular support. I don't agree that the CSA was defending slavery. That was not what the Southern states seceded for.

Without the market, there would be no human traffickers of any kind. That's my stand whether it was back then, or with human trafficking today

I blame both the places that allowed slavery which was most of the western hemisphere as well as those who sold the slaves.

And who is this author that I need to believe this? I mean, besides someone who writes what you want to hear.

Leftist history prof at Princeton and author. He is one of the chief PC Revisionists who pushed the "all about slavery" myth. I cited this quote as a statement against interest. LOL!

Besides, it is well known that desertions started long before the EP due to the losses resulting from incompetence of the Union generals. It didn't just start with the EP.

Its true there had been desertions before but they really spiked after the EP which was not popular with union troops. They were motivated by nationalism - not abolitionism.

I don't agree with any of your points about Lincoln, except that he said a lot of things we would find repugnant today. He said those things to cheering audiences who wanted to hear it, and who he had to deal with. Frederick Douglas understood that. I understand that. You? Nope.

I understand he was a man of his time and had opinions that were in many cases in line with the majority. You seem to cling to the fantasy that he didn't really mean what he said even though there is no reason to believe that other than a desire to whitewash several of his more ugly (by our standards) views.

Yet he was willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.

Then why didn't he? He could have anyway, if that had been his intention.

I am correct. The North was perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment in order to get their cash cows the Southern states not to leave. The MONEY is all they were interested in - not abolitionism.

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.

There were incredibly few abolitionists North or South prior to late in the war.

They had JD fooled. He cited them as the justification for secession in 1858.

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

The Southern states voted to abolish it with the 13th amendment too.

Yes, that's what I said in the text you butchered below.

Of course the Southern states voted to abolish slavery by passing the 13th amendment. I haven't missed that at all...and by the way, yes that is the same South that seceded. It was their democratically elected representatives who voted for it. They were not unconstitutionally unseated and the voters in the Southern states not disenfranchised until they voted against passage of the 14th amendment which massively infringed on the rights of the states in favor of the federal government and dictated to sovereign states whom they could and could not elect. There were very few abolitionists in the South or the North until late in the war. It simply did not have much popular support. I don't agree that the CSA was defending slavery. That was not what the Southern states seceded for.

This isn't funny, and it certainly isn't true, especially the last part, as JD's speech in 1858 above makes clear.

Leftist history prof at Princeton and author. He is one of the chief PC Revisionists who pushed the "all about slavery" myth. I cited this quote as a statement against interest. LOL!

Here was the quote.

"When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil 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.

I understand he was a man of his time and had opinions that were in many cases in line with the majority. You seem to cling to the fantasy that he didn't really mean what he said even though there is no reason to believe that other than a desire to whitewash several of his more ugly (by our standards) views.

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.

Then why didn't he? He could have anyway, if that had been his intention.

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.

Because the original 7 seceding states turned down the offer. What is this the 30th time I've answered this?

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.