Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
And? He was a president of a democracy, not a king. His power was limited.
You answered that yourself, the Constitution.
OK. Then the same answer applies for Davis.
The difference was that the Union inherited the Constitution with its protections for slavery, while the Confederacy drafted their Constitution from the ground up, deliberately adding protections for slavery.
About the Confederate Constitution....
". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .
". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
The Republicans in the North attempted to pass the 13th Amendment in 1864, but were stopped by the Democrats over "states' rights".
Yeah and Davis offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid from Britain and France in 1864.
But they could see it, or they wouldn't have offered to abolish it in return for military aid.
They could see it would help them diplomatically with Britain and France. They could also see that slavery was gradually dying out in the Western world.
The Corbomite Maneuver and the Corwin Amendment were similar, in that they had no impact on anything.
The Corwin Amendment had no impact because the original 7 seceding states were not seceding over slavery. Thus express protections offered for it did not address their real concerns.
Well that's not entirely true. The Corbomite Maneuver made money for those who made it up, while the Corwin Amendment went no where and did nothing.
The only reference I found was to an original star trek episode. I have no idea what else the Corbomite Maneuver was....if anything.....
Your idea of concrete evidence is policies that were never ratified or implemented, while mine are policies that were implemented. My concrete evidence includes the conditions protecting slavery in the newly minted Confederate Constitution, and the abolition of slavery after the CW and the attempt made before the end of the CW that was blocked by Democrats.
You refuse to acknowledge WHY the Corwin Amendment was not ratified. Here's a hint: It was not due to Northern political opposition. It was entirely because the original 7 seceding states turned the offer down. What they actually wanted was independence from imperial Washington - Independence to set their own economic policies and to be taxed solely for their own rather than for others' benefit.
They never chose anything over slavery. Defeat was the only thing that made them give up slavery.
Sure they did. They could have had slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and they turned it down. They chose Independence rather than express irrevocable protections of slavery.
True, but the newly created Constitution ratified by the newly created Confederacy in 1861 preserved slavery, when they could have abolished it. In fact, the Constitution explicitly forbid member states and territories from passing laws that would make slavery illegal. This was in contrast to the North where the states could abolish slavery at the state level. So much for states rights in the Confederacy.
The Confederate Constitution allowed for states that had abolished slavery to join. In 1861 the US made no move to abolish slavery....yet you want to castigate solely the Confederacy for not willing to at that time either.
Another policy that was never implemented that you think proves something.
They offered it. Of course that proves something. That proves they were willing to abolish slavery to help gain their independence. That is entirely consistent with their earlier choice to reject express irrevocable protection of slavery in favor of Independence. What they wanted was......duh....Independence. Slavery they were willing to get rid of.
I know. I want others to see it.
Cool. Let 'em see it. Same for same.
repeats snipped.
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).
Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.
"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/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"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
Both the federal governments and the states abolished slavery, so I don't see how you came up with this.
What do Leftists ALWAYS want? Centralized power. First they centralize all the power. Then they remove all the checks and balances on that power. Leftists are Totalitarians.
Well someone has to take the blame for what the modern Conservative movement has become.
The modern conservative movement is MAGA. It is not the Republican Party Establishment.
Yes it was, but you can't see that Lincoln and the Republicans had to change that to get abolition ratified, which they did.
Of course I can see that.
The Confederacy's Constitution as well as the declarations of secession clearly state it was about slavery.
The Confederate Constitution says no such thing. We've been over the declarations. There were only 4. 3 of 4 addressed the economic causes even though these were not unconstitutional. The Declarations of Causes followed the same pattern as the Declaration of Independence - specifically the "Train of Abuses" section. They merely provided the legal grounds to say the other side broke the deal - which they had. They were not what was actually motivating the Southern states to secede.
Confederacy propaganda that can be refuted by the Confederacy's own Constitution snipped.
See above about the Confederate Constitution. Try reading it. Maybe then you'll stop spewing lies about it.
I was asking about Southerners today, as I figured you were referring to them when you said "Ask Southerners.....", since I can't ask the Southerners from 1861. I'll restate my question. How many Southerners from today would support the Confederacy Constitution as it was written in 1861?
A tiny tiny fraction. How many Americans today would support all the provisions in the US Constitution of 1861? The "Ask Southerners" was a reference to yet another group of people who suffered oppression at the hands of the US Federal government like slaves and like Japanese Americans and like Native Americans. The Federal government is NOT - contrary to Leftist propaganda - always the good guys. Sometimes its the federal government which is oppressive.
The Confederacy's Constitution made abolition unconstitutional.
False.
1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.
While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.
So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.
The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.
Ignoring the fact that this democracy was just formed, the Confederate Constitution was written the way he said it should be in his speech here:
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
And before you say "This doesn't have anything to do with slavery, it was about their birthright, so I'm going to spam you will all of JD's comments saying secession wasn't about slavery", the only birthright he mentioned the right to own slaves, as the Confederate Constitution was deliberately written to protect.
About the Confederate Constitution....". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . ."
Nice try, but as you have already pointed out the Confederacy was already breeding their own slaves like animals anyway. This was their own disgusting form of protectionism.
"it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia."
It was clear from the Confederacy's Constitution they were.
Sec. 9. (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Yeah and Davis offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid from Britain and France in 1864.
Statements like this are what make me suspect you're a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad. You can't possibly think holding human beings hostage in return for military aid makes the Confederacy look like the good guys.
But let's change the players. Let's say Middle East terrorists took Christians as slaves, and threatened to hold them as slaves if they didn't get military aid. Would you still be defending them?
OBTH, abolishing slavery would have been unconstitutional according to the Constitution the Confederacy had just ratified anyway.
They could see it would help them diplomatically with Britain and France.
They didn't see it clearly enough to go through with it, as a demonstration of their good will. Oh, I forgot, they were products of their time, so they couldn't see the evils of slavery even though they could see that other nations saw the evil in it.
They could also see that slavery was gradually dying out in the Western world.
IOW, they knew they were on the wrong side of history, yet they held on to their slaves until forced to release them.
The Corwin Amendment had no impact because the original 7 seceding states were not seceding over slavery. Thus express protections offered for it did not address their real concerns.
They made it clear they thought slavery was theatened, and they knew the Corwin Amendment didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
And once again, you rely on policies that failed to come close to ratification to make your point while ignoring the one policy that became law.
Repeats snipped.
The only reference I found was to an original star trek episode. I have no idea what else the Corbomite Maneuver was....if anything.....
Like you're arguments about the importance of the Corwin Amendment, it's fiction.
Democrat propaganda snipped.
What do Leftists ALWAYS want? Centralized power. First they centralize all the power. Then they remove all the checks and balances on that power. Leftists are Totalitarians.
You mean like the Democrats forming the Confederacy to preserve their right to slave labor?
The modern conservative movement is MAGA. It is not the Republican Party Establishment.
I agree, but a lot of Northern states are part of that.
The Confederate Constitution says no such thing. We've been over the declarations. There were only 4. 3 of 4 addressed the economic causes even though these were not unconstitutional. The Declarations of Causes followed the same pattern as the Declaration of Independence - specifically the "Train of Abuses" section. They merely provided the legal grounds to say the other side broke the deal - which they had. They were not what was actually motivating the Southern states to secede.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
To sum it up, Davis said secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, the declarations of secession clearly stated abolition as a reason for seceding, and the Confederate Constitution clearly protects the "right" to own "negro slaves" (its wording).
So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.
Agree the context was the "Congress of the Confederate States".
And before you say "This doesn't have anything to do with slavery, it was about their birthright, so I'm going to spam you will all of JD's comments saying secession wasn't about slavery", the only birthright he mentioned the right to own slaves, as the Confederate Constitution was deliberately written to protect.
That is simply flat out false. I have already posted this but clearly you need a refresher
"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .
". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
Nice try, but as you have already pointed out the Confederacy was already breeding their own slaves like animals anyway. This was their own disgusting form of protectionism.
What? Where did this piece of fiction come from? It is certainly not anything I ever said.
It was clear from the Confederacy's Constitution they were. Sec. 9. (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
It was clear from the Confederacy's Constitution that they were not. There was nothing in the Confederate Constitution that would prevent a state from abolishing slavery or a state that had abolished slavery from joining. The provision you cited was for the national government only......ie it could not be forced on any confederate state. Again, I have already provided the quotes and the citations for this.
Statements like this are what make me suspect you're a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad. You can't possibly think holding human beings hostage in return for military aid makes the Confederacy look like the good guys.
They weren't "being held hostage" any more than the US was holding slaves hostage. Davis offered to abolish slavery in 1864. It was only the slowness of the Confederate Congress that prevented him from doing so even earlier.
But let's change the players. Let's say Middle East terrorists took Christians as slaves, and threatened to hold them as slaves if they didn't get military aid. Would you still be defending them?
Again, the people living in 1861 did not take the slaves. Slavery was a system they inherited and had to try to figure out how to get rid of.
OBTH, abolishing slavery would have been unconstitutional according to the Constitution the Confederacy had just ratified anyway.
No, no it would not have.
They didn't see it clearly enough to go through with it, as a demonstration of their good will. Oh, I forgot, they were products of their time, so they couldn't see the evils of slavery even though they could see that other nations saw the evil in it.
Nor did the US. Is the CSA solely to blame for that? Countries generally aren't willing to impose drastic change potentially upsetting their economy during wars of national survival.
IOW, they knew they were on the wrong side of history, yet they held on to their slaves until forced to release them.
They could see the West was moving in that direction and offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid. Every criticism you would like to make exclusively of the CSA could have been made about the US at the time....or the Founding Fathers.....
They made it clear they thought slavery was theatened, and they knew the Corwin Amendment didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
If they thought it was so threatened, why not accept an ironclad constitutional guarantee of slavery forever?
And once again, you rely on policies that failed to come close to ratification to make your point while ignoring the one policy that became law.
Once again you refuse to acknowledge why the Corwin amendment was not ratified and pretend it was owing to some fictional Northern opposition to it that simply did not exist.
Like you're denials about the importance of the Corwin Amendment, it's fiction.
FIFY
You mean like the Democrats forming the Confederacy to preserve their right to slave labor?
No. Firstly that did not happen. Nobody was worried about the continued existence of slavery in 1861. Also you have the sides reversed. It was the Northerners and the Republicans at the time who wanted centralized power. The Southerners and Democrats at the time did not.
I agree, but a lot of Northern states are part of that.
The Midwest for the most part is.....notice how the Northeast is diametrically opposed again.
the same old quote which you've posted at least 100 times and which does not address what happened years later snipped along with the declarations of causes 3 of 4 of which go on at length about the economic causes of secession.
Agree the context was the "Congress of the Confederate States".
Good. So you finally see that no state in the CSA was prohibited from abolishing slavery nor was any state which already had prohibited from joining. The only constitutional prohibition was against the central government from dictating to the (confederate) states.
I have the Confederate's Constitution telling me what it was about. I don't need to read a fluff piece from an author whose only qualification that you care about is that he says what you want to hear.
Fluff piece snipped.
What? Where did this piece of fiction come from? It is certainly not anything I ever said.
From post 644, "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."
This wasn't fiction. You were largely correct on this point.
They weren't "being held hostage" any more than the US was holding slaves hostage. Davis offered to abolish slavery in 1864. It was only the slowness of the Confederate Congress that prevented him from doing so even earlier.
He offered to do it to get military aid, not because it was the right thing to do. That's "being held hostage".
It was clear from the Confederacy's Constitution that they were not. There was nothing in the Confederate Constitution that would prevent a state from abolishing slavery or a state that had abolished slavery from joining.
I already agreed with you in my last post that the prohibition in the Confederacy's Constitution applied at the federal level, which you acknowledged at the end. Yet this is the first of multiple times you've made this reply.
Abolition would have been unconstitutional at the federal level, meaning the Confederacy's Constitution forbid the federal government from forcing the states to give up "the right of property in negro slaves", its words. JD offered something that was unconstitutional.
I hope I don't have to clarify that again.
Nor did the US. Is the CSA solely to blame for that? Countries generally aren't willing to impose drastic change potentially upsetting their economy during wars of national survival.
There is a difference. When abolition was passed, the slaves were freed, unconditionally. BTW, the Republicans made their first attempt in 1864 while that war "of national survival" was waging, but were blocked by the Democrats.
They could see the West was moving in that direction and offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid. Every criticism you would like to make exclusively of the CSA could have been made about the US at the time....
Except the US ultimately got abolition done, in 1865, and would have a year earlier if Democrats weren't trying to protect "states rights". Fortunately enough Republicans were elected to pass abolition the following year.
or the Founding Fathers.....
Unfortunately true.
If they thought it was so threatened, why not accept an ironclad constitutional guarantee of slavery forever?
I guess nobody thought to ask them when they said it, so I'll conclude they meant it.
Once again you refuse to acknowledge why the Corwin amendment was not ratified and pretend it was owing to some fictional Northern opposition to it that simply did not exist.
All but a few Union states had abolished slavery, and slaves who escaped tried to make their way to those states. Additionally, over 100,000 escaped slaves joined the union forces. That tells me more than some amendment that failed to pass.
FIFY
How original.
No. Firstly that (of national survival) did not happen. Nobody was worried about the continued existence of slavery in 1861.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Also you have the sides reversed. It was the Northerners and the Republicans at the time who wanted centralized power. The Southerners and Democrats at the time did not.
If you buy the argument that it was about states' right then I can guess why you would see it that way, but the Democrats made it clear that voting against abolition was about states' right.
The Midwest for the most part is.....notice how the Northeast is diametrically opposed again.
There are a lot of red areas in the Northeast, but the metropolitan areas are deep blue. If secession happened, a lot of areas in the Northeast would be on the red side. Your attempts to paint all of them with a broad blue paint brush will not help if that's what you want to see happen.
the same old quote which you've posted at least 100 times and which does not address what happened years later snipped along with the declarations of causes 3 of 4 of which go on at length about the economic causes of secession.
Why should I believe the slave holding states when they said they had other reasons, when they could see how the western world saw their states' rights to own slaves?
So you finally see...
Finally? We only just started discussing the Constitution itself two or three posts ago.
that no state in the CSA was prohibited from abolishing slavery nor was any state which already had prohibited from joining. The only constitutional prohibition was against the central government from dictating to the (confederate) states.
That's right, and it made JD's offer to abolish slavery unconstitutional. Like the Corwin Amendment, it was an offer with nothing behind it.
You may have the text of the Confederate Constitution. Too bad you can't understand it.
From post 644, "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."
This wasn't fiction. You were largely correct on this point.
That does not mean Southerners were "breeding" them on a massive scale as you claim. That population growth rate was on par with the natural population growth rate of the White population at the time. It was not massively higher. There was no captive breeding program for slaves.
He offered to do it to get military aid, not because it was the right thing to do. That's "being held hostage".
And Lincoln only issued the EP in 1863 as a military measure, not because it was the right thing to do. Ergo, Lincoln and the Republicans and the North were holding slaves hostage too I by your rhetoric.
Abolition would have been unconstitutional at the federal level, meaning the Confederacy's Constitution forbid the federal government from forcing the states to give up "the right of property in negro slaves", its words. JD offered something that was unconstitutional.
It may have been unconstitutional depending on how it was done. The national Confederate government would have had to get each Confederate state to go along in order to enact it. They could have applied moral pressure (ie "we obtained allies on the promise we would do this, as Southern Gentlemen we have an obligation to keep our word, yada yada yada") and maybe some limited financial pressure but they could not have forced it upon the states. That much is true.
There is a difference. When abolition was passed, the slaves were freed, unconditionally. BTW, the Republicans made their first attempt in 1864 while that war "of national survival" was waging, but were blocked by the Democrats.
Abolition wasn't passed until after the war. I DO find it funny though that when I mention the Corwin Amendment failed only because the original 7 seceding states turned it down you say it doesn't matter because it wasn't enacted. Then you go on to claim that the push by some to abolish slavery in 1864 does matter.....even though it wasn't enacted. You can't have it both ways. Context either matters or it does not. Pick one.
Except the US ultimately got abolition done, in 1865, and would have a year earlier if Democrats weren't trying to protect "states rights". Fortunately enough Republicans were elected to pass abolition the following year.
The US won the war and so got the chance to get it done. There is no telling when the CSA would have. Maybe they would have enacted it at about that time had they gotten the foreign military aid they sought and promised to abolish slavery as one of the conditions for that aid. We will simply never know. And again, see the point above how context suddenly matters when its convenient for you to claim it does but somehow doesn't matter when its inconvenient for you to admit.
Unfortunately true
I made this point to PC Revisionists back in the early 1990s about 30 years ago. You cannot condemn the South of 1861 without also condemning the Founding Fathers. The South did not change much between 1776 and 1861. The North changed a lot. The South did not suddenly any mysteriously morph into the equivalent of the Nazis as many Leftists like to claim. Who do modern Leftists think the Southerners of 1861 were? They were the sons and grandsons of those who fought for Independence from 1775-1783. Jefferson Davis' father was in the Continental Army. Robert E. Lee's father was one of Washington's finest cavalry commanders. The Southern troops they raised and led were the next generation, the grandchildren.
I was of course told that I was a nut and a conspiracy theorist for ever thinking the Founding Fathers would be condemned by Leftists or the Stars and Stripes would be condemned like the Confederate battle flag, etc etc. Well.....here we are. I was right. Leftists were full of it as always.
I guess nobody thought to ask them when they said it, so I'll conclude they meant it.
Obviously they did not secede over slavery. Else they would have accepted the Corwin Amendment. They did not.
Once again you refuse to acknowledge that the Corwin Amendment was not only not ratified because the original 7 seceding states rejected it and pretend it was owing to some fictional Northern opposition to it that simply did not exist.
FIFY
All but a few Union states had abolished slavery, and slaves who escaped tried to make their way to those states. Additionally, over 100,000 escaped slaves joined the union forces. That tells me more than some amendment that failed to pass.
So the US had slavery and tens of thousands of Blacks also fought in the Confederate Army. That more were willing to join the side that was vastly better supplied and fed at a time of extreme hardship comes as little surprise.
PC Revisionist propaganda snipped
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). Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.
"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/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"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
If you buy the argument that it was about states' right then I can guess why you would see it that way, but the Democrats made it clear that voting against abolition was about states' right.
Everything the Republicans of the time did even after the war was about centralizing power in the hands of the federal government by hook or by crook, and trampling on the states. The whole 14th amendment which never lawfully passed is a testament to that.
There are a lot of red areas in the Northeast, but the metropolitan areas are deep blue. If secession happened, a lot of areas in the Northeast would be on the red side. Your attempts to paint all of them with a broad blue paint brush will not help if that's what you want to see happen.
the Northeast is dominated by Leftist elites who seek to centralize all power, dominate that central government and line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. That has not changed in over 150 years.
Why should I believe the slave holding states when they said they had other reasons, when they could see how the western world saw their states' rights to own slaves?
Follow the money. They had every economic interest - slaveowners and the overwhelming majority who were not slave owners alike - in wanting to be able to set their own economic policies and in not seeing themselves taxed for others' benefit. This was basically the same cause that motivated the Founding Fathers to secede from the British Empire a few generations earlier.
That's right, and it made JD's offer to abolish slavery unconstitutional. Like the Corwin Amendment, it was an offer with nothing behind it.
That's why President Davis could not simply empower his ambassador as a plenipotentiary himself. He needed the consent of the Confederate Congress. He needed to be able to tell the individual Confederate states that their elected representatives had agreed to this in order to get them to go along with it.
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
This wasn't fiction. You were largely correct on this point.
That was your point, in reply to my point about how the percentage of slaves imported by the slave holding states was lower to that imported in South American countries didn't excuse the slave holding states, but since we agree on this point no need to go over who posted it.
That does not mean Southerners were "breeding" them on a massive scale as you claim. That population growth rate was on par with the natural population growth rate of the White population at the time. It was not massively higher. There was no captive breeding program for slaves.
Absolute nonsense. We all know the slave holders saw the children born to their slaves as their property to be used or sold for profit. That's probably why the Confederacy's Constitution barred importing slaves from foreign countries, as a disgusting form of protectionism.
Repeat snipped.
And Lincoln only issued the EP in 1863 as a military measure, not because it was the right thing to do. Ergo, Lincoln and the Republicans and the North were holding slaves hostage too I by your rhetoric.
There is a big difference, in that Lincoln and the Republicans had to work within the system they inherited, and that was created before the party was even formed, until the Republicans had enough votes to pass abolition. Lincoln and the Republicans attempted to pass abolition in 1864 but were blocked by the party of JD.
OTOH the Confederacy wrote their Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
It may have been unconstitutional depending on how it was done. The national Confederate government would have had to get each Confederate state to go along in order to enact it. They could have applied moral pressure (ie "we obtained allies on the promise we would do this, as Southern Gentlemen we have an obligation to keep our word, yada yada yada") and maybe some limited financial pressure but they could not have forced it upon the states. That much is true.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for the Confederacy over this? This was a corner the Democrat run Confederacy painted itself into. The Union was in the same situation until the Republicans won enough votes to abolish slavery.
Abolition wasn't passed until after the war. I DO find it funny though that when I mention the Corwin Amendment failed only because the original 7 seceding states turned it down you say it doesn't matter because it wasn't enacted. Then you go on to claim that the push by some to abolish slavery in 1864 does matter.....even though it wasn't enacted. You can't have it both ways. Context either matters or it does not. Pick one.
The push is 1864 does matter because it would have passed if only the Republicans had voted on it, but the party of JD wanted to preserve states' rights, their words. The Corwin Amendment would not have passed if only Republicans had voted on it, and those who voted for it were more concerned about preserving the Union than in giving slavery protections it already had.
The US won the war and so got the chance to get it done. There is no telling when the CSA would have. Maybe they would have enacted it at about that time had they gotten the foreign military aid they sought and promised to abolish slavery as one of the conditions for that aid. We will simply never know. And again, see the point above how context suddenly matters when its convenient for you to claim it does but somehow doesn't matter when its inconvenient for you to admit.
What you think might have happened doesn't prove anything.
I made this point to PC Revisionists back in the early 1990s about 30 years ago. You cannot condemn the South of 1861 without also condemning the Founding Fathers.
Our country is no worse than any other and has contributed a lot to the human race, but I won't pretend we don't have anything to apologize for.
Obviously they did not secede over slavery. Else they would have accepted the Corwin Amendment. They did not.
They said before, during, and after that it was about slavery, and the Corwin Amendment gave slavery no protections it didn't already have.
FIFY (Once again you refuse to acknowledge that the Corwin Amendment was not only not ratified because the original 7 seceding states rejected it and pretend it was owing to some fictional Northern opposition to it that simply did not exist.)
If opposition to it did not exist, then it must have been ratified. I'm checking now and, well look at that, it was never ratified. How strange that a bill that had no opposition was never ratified.
So the US had slavery and tens of thousands of Blacks also fought in the Confederate Army. We're back to that? OK.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
That more were willing to join the side that was vastly better supplied and fed at a time of extreme hardship comes as little surprise.
If that was true, they would have stayed with the Confederacy since the Confederacy was getting the better of it early on thanks to the incompetence of the Union military leadership.
No, they chose to fight against the nation that enslaved them.
Democrat propaganda snipped again.
Everything the Republicans of the time did even after the war was about centralizing power in the hands of the federal government by hook or by crook, and trampling on the states. The whole 14th amendment which never lawfully passed is a testament to that.
Details? I'm not sure how the 14th Amendment makes your point.
the Northeast is dominated by Leftist elites who seek to centralize all power, dominate that central government and line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. That has not changed in over 150 years.
So you you're willing to write off millions of people who would agree with you on other issues because their politics are dominated by the metropolitan areas? Does that include FR, which resides in California?
Now I know you're a Democrat plant. If you weren't you wouldn't be writing Northern Conservatives off like that.
Follow the money. They had every economic interest - slaveowners and the overwhelming majority who were not slave owners alike - in wanting to be able to set their own economic policies and in not seeing themselves taxed for others' benefit. This was basically the same cause that motivated the Founding Fathers to secede from the British Empire a few generations earlier.
Their own economic policies included preserving slave labor and protecting them from foreign competition when it came to selling humans for slavery. Their own Constitution said so.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.0
This wasn't fiction. You were largely correct on this point.
As previously discussed at length, these were restrictions on the central Confederate government. There was no provision that prevented a state that had banned slavery from joining - a motion to do so was voted down in the constitutional convention. Also, any state that still allowed slavery could choose to ban it - there was nothing on the Confederate constitution which prevented it. As for the right of transit, that's what the Dred Scot decision had established in the US already.
Absolute nonsense. We all know the slave holders saw the children born to their slaves as their property to be used or sold for profit. That's probably why the Confederacy's Constitution barred importing slaves from foreign countries, as a disgusting form of protectionism.
Again, your ignorance is showing. Look at the natural population growth rate in the 18th and 19th centuries. People were mostly farmers. There was no contraception and children were of economic benefit on the farm anyway. So massive armies of kids were the norm.
There is a big difference, in that Lincoln and the Republicans had to work within the system they inherited, and that was created before the party was even formed, until the Republicans had enough votes to pass abolition. Lincoln and the Republicans attempted to pass abolition in 1864 but were blocked by the party of JD.
OTOH the Confederacy wrote their Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
The CSA was not a tabula rasa as you would like to claim. They too had to work with what already existed. And they hardly wrote their constitution from the ground up to protect slavery. The CSA constitution was not really different from the US constitution on the issue of slavery. Where it differed was in placing more explicit limitations on the power of the central government and more clearly recognizing the sovereignty of the states.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for the Confederacy over this? This was a corner the Democrat run Confederacy painted itself into. The Union was in the same situation until the Republicans won enough votes to abolish slavery.
You laud Republicans/Lincoln for the EP and for later passing the 13th amendment after the war yet refuse to give any credit to the willingness of the Confederate government to abolish slavery in 1864. Gosh, I wonder why.
The push is 1864 does matter because it would have passed if only the Republicans had voted on it, but the party of JD wanted to preserve states' rights, their words. The Corwin Amendment would not have passed if only Republicans had voted on it, and those who voted for it were more concerned about preserving the Union than in giving slavery protections it already had.
The Corwin Amendment was sponsored by Republicans in both houses of Congress and was orchestrated by none other than Lincoln. It would have very likely been ratified in enough states to become a constitutional amendment if only the original 7 seceding states had indicated they were willing to accept it. They rejected it instead. That is the reason why it failed.
What you think might have happened doesn't prove anything.
Kinda like what you think would have happened "if only"
Our country is no worse than any other and has contributed a lot to the human race, but I won't pretend we don't have anything to apologize for.
Well of course we do. The attempt to cast off slavery or even racism as a Southern problem was a ridiculous lie right from the start. These problems were always national.
They said before, during, and after that it was about slavery, and the Corwin Amendment gave slavery no protections it didn't already have.,/p>
They said before during and after that it was not "about" slavery. The Corwin Amendment would have explicitly protected slavery effectively forever.
If opposition to it did not exist, then it must have been ratified. I'm checking now and, well look at that, it was never ratified. How strange that a bill that had no opposition was never ratified.
It was pointless after the original 7 seceding states rejected it. That's when efforts to get it ratified by more states ceased.
If that was true, they would have stayed with the Confederacy since the Confederacy was getting the better of it early on thanks to the incompetence of the Union military leadership.
When do you think a lot more came over? Hint: it was only after things started deteriorating on for the CSA with hunger being a significant problem in the latter stages of the war.
They chose to fight against the nation that enslaved them.
Well since both did, that works for the Blacks on both sides.
Details? I'm not sure how the 14th Amendment makes your point.
Here's a sample
As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, rump Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V’s requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article’s provision that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: “the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet.”
President Andrew Johnson saw the Reconstruction Act as “absolute despotism,” a “bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people.” In his veto message, he stated that “such a power ha[d] not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years.” Johnson asked, “Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this?” and answered, “Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes.”
The rump Republican Congress overrode Johnson’s veto and enacted statutes that shrank both the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction and the Court itself – just in case the judicial branch got any funny ideas of its own about constitutionalism. Jackboot on its neck, the South ratified, but not before New Jersey and Ohio, aghast at Republican tyranny, rescinded their previous ratifications of the amendment. Even with the fictional consent of the Southern states, the republicans needed New Jersey and Ohio to put the amendment over the top. No matter; by joint resolution, Congress declared the amendment valid. Thus it – you’ll excuse the phrasing– “passed into law.”
So they forced states that did not consent to pass it via military occupation. They even chose to ignore that two Northern states rescinded their ratifications of it. There was also the fraudulent counting of Oregon's ratification too which they did not go into here. The bottom line is that the 14th amendment never lawfully passed. https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/gene-healy/the-squalid-14th-amendment/
An even better telling....a much better one really...going into the sham "ratification" of the 14th amendment can be found at this link http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-the-14th-amend-was-not-ratified/
So you you're willing to write off millions of people who would agree with you on other issues because their politics are dominated by the metropolitan areas? Does that include FR, which resides in California?
I said those regions are dominated by such types. So they are. That doesn't mean I disagree with every single last person from that entire area. I said basically that the bad guys are in control there.
Now I know you're a Democrat plant. If you weren't you wouldn't be writing Northern Conservatives off like that.
Now I know you're an idiot trying to make a lame strawman argument.
Their own economic policies included preserving slave labor and protecting them from foreign competition when it came to selling humans for slavery. Their own Constitution said so.
Their constitution did no differ in that regard from the US Constitution.
You got the right answer!
And as I have already said, you were correct that these protections for slavery were at the federal level.
That doesn't change the fact that the Confederate Constitution was deliberately written from the ground up to protect slavery by the current leaders of the Confederacy.
Again, your ignorance is showing. Look at the natural population growth rate in the 18th and 19th centuries. People were mostly farmers. There was no contraception and children were of economic benefit on the farm anyway. So massive armies of kids were the norm.
That does nothing to refute my statement, which was that we all know the slave holders saw the children born to their slaves as their property to be used or sold for profit. Pointing out that it was in keeping with normal population growth does nothing to refute that.
The CSA was not a tabula rasa as you would like to claim. They too had to work with what already existed.
The Confederacy's Constitution was ratified in March, 1861, so no, they weren't working with what already existed.
And they hardly wrote their constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
The CSA constitution was not really different from the US constitution on the issue of slavery.
And you just admitted that the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer the slave holding states anything they didn't already have in the US Constitution. I agree. It was nothing.
Repeat snipped.
Where it differed was in placing more explicit limitations on the power of the central government and more clearly recognizing the sovereignty of the states.
Particularly, the sovereign right of the states to have slaves, and limiting the Federal government powers to abolish it.
You laud Republicans/Lincoln for the EP and for later passing the 13th amendment after the war yet refuse to give any credit to the willingness of the Confederate government to abolish slavery in 1864. Gosh, I wonder why.
Because that's nonsense. The Confederacy could have abolished slavery at any time, if that had been their intention.
The Corwin Amendment was blah, blah, blah...
As you have just admitted the Corwin Amendment didn't give the slave holding states anything they didn't already have, I don't see any need to waste FR bandwidth discussing it.
Repeat snipped.
Kinda like what you think would have happened "if only"
If you mean the majority of Republicans voting against the Corbomite Maneuver or for abolition in 1864, those are facts, not "if only".
Well of course we do. The attempt to cast off slavery or even racism as a Southern problem was a ridiculous lie right from the start. These problems were always national.
Racism, yes, slavery no. Many states didn't join until after slavery had been abolished.
They said before during and after that it was not "about" slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
To sum it up, Davis said secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, the declarations of secession clearly stated abolition as a reason for seceding, and the Confederate Constitution clearly protects the "right" to own "negro slaves" (its wording).
When do you think a lot more came over? Hint: it was only after things started deteriorating on for the CSA with hunger being a significant problem in the latter stages of the war.
You mean after the slave holding states started losing the means to stop them from leaving.
Well since both did, that works for the Blacks on both sides.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
Here's a sample (14th Amendment)
It starts out "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Does the fact that many millions of former slaves were born here have anything to do with why "it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states".
I said those regions are dominated by such types. So they are. That doesn't mean I disagree with every single last person from that entire area. I said basically that the bad guys are in control there.
In response to my point that many in the North may be on your side if secession occurs, you replied "the Northeast is dominated by Leftist elites who seek to centralize all power, dominate that central government and line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. That has not changed in over 150 years."
Do you accept that many regions in the North aren't with the elites, or don't you?
Now I know you're an idiot trying to make a lame strawman argument.
Then give me a yes or no to the question above and remove all doubt about where you stand.
That is false though. The Confederate Constitution was written in very much the same way the US Constitution was. Where it differed was overwhelmingly in the areas of expressly recognizing state sovereignty and in placing restrictions on the ability of the federal government to spend money.
That does nothing to refute my statement, which was that we all know the slave holders saw the children born to their slaves as their property to be used or sold for profit. Pointing out that it was in keeping with normal population growth does nothing to refute that.
Your argument was that there were factory like breeding programs for slaves. There were not. Their population growth rate was the same as everyone else at the time.
The Confederacy's Constitution was ratified in March, 1861, so no, they weren't working with what already existed.
The Confederate Constitution was based on the US Constitution. It was mostly the same. They were inheritors of the same thought/tradition handed down by the Founding Fathers most of whom were Southerners. The most significant differences were once again express recognition of state sovereignty and limitations on the ability of the federal government to spend money.
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
And this was different from the US Constitution at the time how? Dred Scot said slaveowners could bring their slaves to transit. Likewise they could not be excluded from the territory of the US.
And you just admitted that the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer the slave holding states anything they didn't already have in the US Constitution. I agree. It was nothing.
The Corwin Amendment offered express protection of slavery effectively forever. That it was freely offered by the Republicans/North and that it was turned down flat by the original 7 seceding states is extremely inconvenient for you.
Particularly, the sovereign right of the states to have slaves, and limiting the Federal government powers to abolish it. '
False. See above.
Because that's nonsense. The Confederacy could have abolished slavery at any time, if that had been their intention.
So could the US government. Yet they didn't do so. Oddly you don't hold them to that standard.
As you have just admitted the Corwin Amendment didn't give the slave holding states anything they didn't already have, I don't see any need to waste FR bandwidth discussing it.
It gave them EXPRESS protection of slavery effectively forever.
If you mean the majority of Republicans voting against the Corbomite Maneuver or for abolition in 1864, those are facts, not "if only".
I mean the Corwin Amendment was named after Ohio Republican Thomas Corwin. It was sponsored in the House by another Republican. It was orchestrated by Republican Abe Lincoln.
Racism, yes, slavery no. Many states didn't join until after slavery had been abolished.
All original 13 colonies had slavery. The North maintained it for a long time. In addition when they abolished it they did so slowly and in a way that ensured their citizens would suffer no financial loss. They were also THE hub of the slave trade industry for the entire Western Hemisphere - a status they held for about 100 years including many years after it was barred by the US Constitution.
repeats snipped
To sum it up, Davis said secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, the declarations of secession clearly stated abolition as a reason for seceding, and the Confederate Constitution clearly protects the "right" to own "negro slaves" (its wording).
To sum it up Davis was speaking years before secession ever happened. The 3 of the 4 declarations of secession listed several reasons for secession including economic causes even though this was not unconstitutional and the Northern states' violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional. The Confederate Constitution was modeled on the US Constitution and its main differences are in expressly recognizing state sovereignty and limiting the ability of the federal government to spend money - not in protecting slavery. The US Constitution did that too.
You mean after the slave holding states started losing the means to stop them from leaving.
No, I mean after hunger started to become widespread.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
Black Southerners in Gray Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies John McGlone
Forgotten Confederates An anthology about Black Southerners Charles Kelly Barron, J.H. Segars and R.B. Rosenburg
Black Southerners in Confederate Armies A collection of Historical Accounts J.H. Segars and Charles Kelly Barrow
In his book, Black Confederates and AfroYankees in Civil War Virginia, Ervin I. Jordan, a black historian, says that in June 1861 Tennessee became the first Confederate State to authorize the use of black soldiers. These soldiers were to be paid $18 a month and be provided with the same rations and clothing as white soldiers. Two regiments, he says, of blacks had appeared by September.
Here's a sample (14th Amendment) blah blah blah
Does the fact that many millions of former slaves were born here have anything to do with why "it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states".
The 14th amendment was a massive federal power grab and was designed to expressly infringe on the sovereignty of the states. Section 3 of the 14th amendment also barred Confederate Officers from holding public office. It was not the place of others to tell a state whom they could elect. Furthermore this was expressly designed to exclude just about all prominent men in the South since they had served just as almost all the prominent men in the North served in their state units. You conveniently ignore all of that.
In response to my point that many in the North may be on your side if secession occurs, you replied "the Northeast is dominated by Leftist elites who seek to centralize all power, dominate that central government and line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. That has not changed in over 150 years."
Do you accept that many regions in the North aren't with the elites, or don't you?
Of course I do. Most of the Midwest (which is technically the North) is on the Patriot anti communist side. Additionally there are plenty of Conservative refugees from the Northeast who fled those declining chitholes and no doubt some still stuck there. The problem is they are heavily outnumbered.
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Your argument was that there were factory like breeding programs for slaves. There were not. Their population growth rate was the same as everyone else at the time.
Absolutely meaningless. It could have been less, more or the same, and the point still stands that the slave owners saw it as breeding animals to be used for slave labor or sold for profit.
The Confederate Constitution was based on the US Constitution.
It was deliberately written to protect the institution of slavery. The US Constitution allowed it, although I'm not sure how, until 1865.
And this was different from the US Constitution at the time how?
Until the Republicans had the votes to abolish slavery, it wasn't.
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the states, and wouldn't have offered slavery any protections it didn't already have as you have admitted.
Repeats snipped.
So could the US government (abolish slavery). Yet they didn't do so.
They did as soon as they replaced enough of the Democrats, the party of JD who saw voting "no" as defending states' rights, with Republicans.
Oddly you don't hold them to that standard.
I've been clear on this. Everyone in the Union wasn't the good guys, and Lincoln had to deal with them as well as the impatient abolitionists.
I mean the Corwin Amendment was named after Ohio Republican Thomas Corwin. It was sponsored in the House by another Republican. It was orchestrated by Republican Abe Lincoln.
The Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have under the US Constitution, which the Confederacy knew and which you have admitted. Besides that, the vast majority of the Union states rejected it. It was nothing.
I don't care what you mean anyway, because nine years after the Republicans released their platform saying "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in "all our National Territory", they voted overwhelmingly to abolish slavery in ALL states.
Of course you'll come back with "all our National Territory" doesn't actually mean "all our National Territory", but nine years later they abolished it in "all our National Territory".
BTW, it was orchestrated by Lincoln's predecessor, a Democrat, before he took office.
In response to my point that "Many states didn't join until after slavery had been abolished.", you replied "All original 13 colonies had slavery. The North maintained it for a long time. In addition when they abolished it they did so slowly and in a way that ensured their citizens would suffer no financial loss. They were also THE hub of the slave trade industry for the entire Western Hemisphere - a status they held for about 100 years including many years after it was barred by the US Constitution.".
This does nothing to answer my point that many states joined after slavery was abolished.
But to your point, if you've read my other posts on human trafficking, you know I place the blame on the buyers anyway. I also see it that way that with men who pay human traffickers to get a warm wet spot to stick it into.
To sum it up Davis was speaking years before secession ever happened.
That's right. He said that if the abolitionist party got power and he was referring to the Republicans, then secession was the correct action for preserving their right to "slave labor", his words. Three years they acted on that.
The 3 of the 4 declarations of secession listed several reasons for secession including economic causes even though this was not unconstitutional and the Northern states' violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional.
That was their real motivation. States' rights and taxes were the decoy to keep the attention off of slavery, which they could see even then was losing support in the Western world.
The Confederate Constitution was modeled on the US Constitution and its main differences are in expressly recognizing state sovereignty and limiting the ability of the federal government to spend money - not in protecting slavery. The US Constitution did that too.
Until the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition.
Black Southerners in Gray Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies John McGlone
More spam from an author whose only qualification that you care about is that he says what you want to hear. Here's what your author is saying those blacks were voluntarily defending.
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
The 14th amendment was a massive federal power grab and was designed to expressly infringe on the sovereignty of the states. Section 3 of the 14th amendment also barred Confederate Officers from holding public office.
Do you mean this?
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
It was not the place of others to tell a state whom they could elect.
They had every right to prevent insurrectionists from taking office.
Furthermore this was expressly designed to exclude just about all prominent men in the South since they had served just as almost all the prominent men in the North served in their state units. You conveniently ignore all of that.
Now ask me if I care that a bunch of insurrectionists who seceded to preserve slavery couldn't hold office.
The problem is they are heavily outnumbered.
Are you willing to write them off because you want to pretend the Confederate leaders were lying when they said secession was about slavery?
+1 Both good points.
Yes, as I said the Confederate Constitution's primary differences with the US Constitution were in expressly recognizing state sovereignty and in limiting the ability of the federal government to spend money.
Absolutely meaningless. It could have been less, more or the same, and the point still stands that the slave owners saw it as breeding animals to be used for slave labor or sold for profit.
The question wasn't how they saw it. The question was whether there were factory breeding conditions or a breeding program for slaves. There were not.
It was deliberately written to protect the institution of slavery. The US Constitution allowed it, although I'm not sure how, until 1865.
The US constitution protected slavery too. Hello fugitive slave clause?
Until the Republicans had the votes to abolish slavery, it wasn't.
Glad we finally cleared that up. The Confederate Constitution's protections of slavery were not materially different from the US Constitution in that regard. The key differences lay elsewhere - namely in recognizing state sovereignty much more explicitly and in limiting the ability of the federal government to spend taxpayer money.
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the states, and wouldn't have offered slavery any protections it didn't already have as you have admitted.
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the Southern States. That's why the drive to get more states to ratify it suddenly halted.
They did as soon as they replaced enough of the Democrats, the party of JD who saw voting "no" as defending states' rights, with Republicans.
The US did not abolish slavery during the war which you claimed as some kind of indictment of the Confederate government. Well the same applied to the US Government. Make all the excuses you want.
The Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have under the US Constitution, which the Confederacy knew and which you have admitted. Besides that, the vast majority of the Union states rejected it. It was nothing.
The Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery expressly effectively forever. The Northern states didn't reject it. The Southern states did. That's when the drive to get more Northern states to ratify it stopped.
I don't care what you mean anyway, because nine years after the Republicans released their platform saying "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in "all our National Territory", they voted overwhelmingly to abolish slavery in ALL states.
You clearly don't get that the first was a party plank to ban slavery in the western territories. I've posted plenty of quotes to show they wanted these territories for themselves - and they wanted to weaken opposition to ever higher tariffs. Duh. They were not abolitionists.
Of course you'll come back with "all our National Territory" doesn't actually mean "all our National Territory", but nine years later they abolished it in "all our National Territory".
Territory. Not States. Try reading.
BTW, it was orchestrated by Lincoln's predecessor, a Democrat, before he took office.
BTW, no it was not. It was orchestrated by Lincoln. Read that nauseating hagiography by admitted plagiarist Doris Kearns-Godwin. "Team of rivals". She can't stop gushing about how "brilliant" it was to orchestrate the Corwin Amendment.
This does nothing to answer my point that many states joined after slavery was abolished.
No, but it backs up my point about the North's culpability for slavery right from the very start.
But to your point, if you've read my other posts on human trafficking, you know I place the blame on the buyers anyway. I also see it that way that with men who pay human traffickers to get a warm wet spot to stick it into.
New Englanders were the Traffickers. The slave trade itself was if anything more brutal than slavery itself. That was a point the Founding Fathers all agreed about.
That's right. He said that if the abolitionist party got power and he was referring to the Republicans, then secession was the correct action for preserving their right to "slave labor", his words. Three years they acted on that.
This was years before secession happened and the original 7 seceding states did not secede over slavery. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US.
That was their real motivation. States' rights and taxes were the decoy to keep the attention off of slavery, which they could see even then was losing support in the Western world.
You have it exactly backwards. The vast majority of people did not own slaves. States' rights and especially being able to set their own economic and trade policy were issues that touched every Southerner's wallet.
Until the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition.<'/P>
Once again, the Confederate Constitution did not materially differ from the US Constitution in protection of slavery. Where it differed was in expressly recognizing state sovereignty in several areas and in limiting the federal government's ability to spend money.
Black Southerners in Gray Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies John McGlone
More spam from an author whose only qualification that you care about is that he says what you want to hear. Here's what your author is saying those blacks were voluntarily defending.
repeats snipped.
LOL! Somebody sure is pissy I could cite multiple sources all backing up the large number of Blacks who fought in the Confederate Army.
Do you mean this?
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Yep
They had every right to prevent insurrectionists from taking office.
They had no right to dictate to the citizens of any state whom they can choose to elect.
Now ask me if I care that a bunch of insurrectionists who seceded to preserve slavery couldn't hold office.
Ask me if I think it the place of representatives of some states to dictate to citizens of other states whom they can elect.
Are you willing to write them off because you want to pretend the Confederate leaders were lying when they said secession was about slavery?
The large majority of Confederate leaders did not say secession was "about" slavery.
The question absolutely was how they saw it, because how they saw it is what they were doing. The fact that they couldn't induce the women to churn out children as fast as their chickens turned out eggs doesn't change that.
The US constitution protected slavery too. Hello fugitive slave clause?
I know that. To put it another way, I don't see how that fugitive clause and slavery in general weren't unconstitutional.
Glad we finally cleared that up.
There was nothing to clear up unless it took you this long to understand that not everyone in the North was among the good guys, which I have pointed out to you numerious times on this thread. About the only thing I've posted to you more often is "repeat snipped".
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the Southern States. That's why the drive to get more states to ratify it suddenly halted.
Five Union states ratified it, so the idea that the rest didn't have enough time to ratify it before the South rejected it is just plain wrong.
The US did not abolish slavery during the war which you claimed as some kind of indictment of the Confederate government. Well the same applied to the US Government. Make all the excuses you want.
I haven't made any excuses. The Democrats, the party of JD, blocked passage of the 13 Amendment in 1864. The voters responded by replacing them with Republicans, who voted to pass the 13th Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. Those are the facts, so no excuses are needed.
The Corwin Amendment offered slavery no protections it didn't already have and was rejected by most Republicans and the Northern states.
FIFY.
You clearly don't get that the first was a party plank to ban slavery in the western territories.
The Republicans showed what they meant by "all our National Territory" (not territories) when they voted to abolish slavery in all states. Likewise, the party of JD, the Democrats, showed what they meant by states' rights in 1864 when they voted against the 13th Amendment.
Repeat snipped.
I've posted plenty of quotes to show they wanted these territories for themselves - and they wanted to weaken opposition to ever higher tariffs. Duh. They were not abolitionists.
Nine years after they published their platform, they had the votes they needed to abolish slavery, and they did it in all states.
BTW, no it was not. It was orchestrated by Lincoln. Read that nauseating hagiography by admitted plagiarist Doris Kearns-Godwin. "Team of rivals". She can't stop gushing about how "brilliant" it was to orchestrate the Corwin Amendment.
No.
They had no right to dictate to the citizens of any state whom they can choose to elect.
Apparently they did, but thanks for your opinion.
Ask me if I think it the place of representatives of some states to dictate to citizens of other states whom they can elect.
Ask me if I'm impressed that you think people who split the nation and defended the right to own slaves should be elected to the federal government.
But then again, we're guilty of using slave labor today as a result of our free trade deals with the communists. The only difference is that instead of importing the slave labor, we've exported the plantations.
The large majority of Confederate leaders did not say secession was "about" slavery.
Yes, yes, and true communism has never been tried.
You said they had a breeding program. They did not.
I know that. To put it another way, I don't see how that fugitive clause and slavery in general weren't unconstitutional.
You said the primary difference between the Confederate Constitution and the US Constitution was the protection of slavery. That was false. They did not materially differ on protections of slavery.
There was nothing to clear up unless it took you this long to understand that not everyone in the North was among the good guys, which I have pointed out to you numerious times on this thread. About the only thing I've posted to you more often is "repeat snipped".
Its not only that not everyone in the North was among the abolitionists, its that almost nobody was.
Five Union states ratified it, so the idea that the rest didn't have enough time to ratify it before the South rejected it is just plain wrong.
No its not. It takes time to ratify a constitutional amendment. Look how long some states have taken before ratifying various constitutional amendments.
I haven't made any excuses. The Democrats, the party of JD, blocked passage of the 13 Amendment in 1864. The voters responded by replacing them with Republicans, who voted to pass the 13th Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. Those are the facts, so no excuses are needed.,/P>
Actually this is false. It did not pass until the Southern states came back in and ratified it after the end of the war.
The Corwin Amendment explicitly protected slavery effectively forever. FIFY
FIFY.
The Republicans showed what they meant by "all our National Territory" (not territories) when they voted to abolish slavery in all states. Likewise, the party of JD, the Democrats, showed what they meant by states' rights in 1864 when they voted against the 13th Amendment.,/P>
LOL! No they didn't. You are trying to conflate two completely different things. The Republicans were not abolitionists prior to the war and explicitly said so over and over and over again.
Nine years after they published their platform, they had the votes they needed to abolish slavery, and they did it in all states.
Nobody disputes that. Their view changed in the latter stages of the war.
No.,/p>
I can understand why you don't want to read direct evidence that refutes the dogma you've been taught.
Apparently they did, but thanks for your opinion.
They didn't. What they had were more men and more guns. They did not have a legal or constitutional right to do so. Might does not make right.
Ask me if I'm impressed that you think people who split the nation and defended the right to own slaves should be elected to the federal government.
Ask me if I believe the lies about them defending an institution that simply was not threatened in the US when they chose to leave. Also ask me if the sovereign states ever agreed to delegate the right to prevent secession to the federal government they created.
But then again, we're guilty of using slave labor today as a result of our free trade deals with the communists. The only difference is that instead of importing the slave labor, we've exported the plantations.
With Nike, Apple, etc etc serving as the modern slave masters. After all, they enable this by lobbying with all their might to prevent Congress from imposing sanctions on China for their slavery and genocide.
Yes, yes, and true communism has never been tried.
Non sequitor alert
From their point of view they did. They saw it as breeding slaves and livestock to be sold.
Or raped.
You said the primary difference between the Confederate Constitution and the US Constitution was the protection of slavery. That was false. They did not materially differ on protections of slavery.
Wow you're dense. I know the US Constitution protected slavery. I just don't understand how when the idea of slavery seems to contradict it's overall meaning. I hope you got it this time.
Its not only that not everyone in the North was among the abolitionists, its that almost nobody was.
All but a few states in the North had already abolished slavery at the state level. When they got the chance, they voted to abolish it at the national level.
No its not. It takes time to ratify a constitutional amendment. Look how long some states have taken before ratifying various constitutional amendments.
Five states had ratified the Corbomite Maneuver, so the rest had the time to do it if they had intended to.
Actually this is false. It did not pass until the Southern states came back in and ratified it after the end of the war.
I said it passed and was sent to the states for ratification in 1865, after the party of JD, the Democrats, blocked it in 1864.
The Corwin Amendment was nothing.
LOL! No they didn't. You are trying to conflate two completely different things. The Republicans were not abolitionists prior to the war and explicitly said so over and over and over again.
And I've already answered your spam. They had to deal with the threat of secession and were speaking out of both sides of their mounths. When they got the votes they needed, they passed abolition and sent it to the states for ratification.
I can understand why you don't want to read direct evidence that refutes the dogma you've been taught.
That isn't evidence, just a book writer's conclusions that happen to match yours, even with all of the negative things you said about her otherwise.
They didn't. What they had were more men and more guns. They did not have a legal or constitutional right to do so. Might does not make right.
The Confederate leaders were leaders of a foreign nation that made war on the Union. They had no constitutional right to public office.
Ask me if I believe the lies about them defending an institution that simply was not threatened in the US when they chose to leave. Also ask me if the sovereign states ever agreed to delegate the right to prevent secession to the federal government they created.
I'll do better and ask the Confederacy's leaders themselves.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Thank you, leaders of the Confederacy, for telling us that the Republicans were a threat to the institution of slavery and that's why you seceded.
With Nike, Apple, etc etc serving as the modern slave masters. After all, they enable this by lobbying with all their might to prevent Congress from imposing sanctions on China for their slavery and genocide.
Yes. You think I'm trying to stick slavery on the South, but America today is no better.
Non sequitor alert
What made my reply relevant is that everyone uses PR to push unpopular policies, and the Confederacy was no different when it came to the image they were trying to present to the rest of the world.
From their point of view they did. They saw it as breeding slaves and livestock to be sold.
False. They had no "breeding program". You were simply wrong.
Wow you're truthful. I know the US Constitution protected slavery. I just don't understand how when the idea of slavery seems to contradict it's overall meaning. I hope you got it this time.
Once again, you were simply wrong. Oh and FIFY.
All but a few states in the North had already abolished slavery at the state level. When they got the chance, they voted to abolish it at the national level.
Almost nobody in the Northern states supported abolition nationwide prior to late in the war.
Five states had ratified the Corbomite Maneuver, so the rest had the time to do it if they had intended to.
False. 5 states ratified the Corwin Amendment and efforts to get more to ratify it were ongoing - and would have received a huge boost had the Southern states agreed to it. Instead they rejected it.
I said it passed and was sent to the states for ratification in 1865, after the party of JD, the Democrats, blocked it in 1864.
It did not pass as a constitutional amendment until the Southern states agreed to it and ratified it.
The Corwin Amendment was nothing.
The Corwin Amendment would have explicitly protected slavery effectively forever.
And I've already answered your spam. They had to deal with the threat of secession and were speaking out of both sides of their mounths.,
You're just making this up. There is no evidence they did not mean what they said about opposing abolition prior to the war and even in the first few years of the war. There were no writings or accounts of what they "really" thought (ie supporting abolition) before late in the war. The Republicans were not abolitionists. Very few in teh North were.
That isn't evidence, just a book writer's conclusions that happen to match yours, even with all of the negative things you said about her otherwise.
That Lincoln orchestrated the Corwin Amendment and its passage through Congress is not an opinion. Her only opinion was that this was "brilliant" on his part.
The Confederate leaders were leaders of a foreign nation that made war on the Union. They had no constitutional right to public office.
The Republicans's/Lincoln's/the North's entire argument was that they were NOT the leaders of a foreign nation. Had they simply accepted that they were the leaders of a foreign nation there would have been no war at all. Instead they started and waged a war of aggression that cost hundreds of thousands of lives on the premise that the Southern states never really left the union.
I'll do better and ask the Confederacy's leaders themselves.
repeats snipped
Thank you, leaders of the Confederacy, for telling us that the Republicans were a threat to the institution of slavery and that's why you seceded.
Yes, let's ask 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).
[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions." Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
From Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession: “The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them...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." -General Patrick Cleburne
Robert Barnwell Rhett's address attached to South Carolina's Declaration of Causes of Secession: "The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
"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
"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/M/
Yes. You think I'm trying to stick slavery on the South, but America today is no better.
Well it is better though not nearly as much better as many want to think. It now outsources the slavery.....or at least its elites are so corrupt they will not sanction a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that has enslaved people and which is committing genocide because that dictatorship lines their pockets.
What made my reply relevant is that everyone uses PR to push unpopular policies, and the Confederacy was no different when it came to the image they were trying to present to the rest of the world.
Your reply was irrelevant.
When you take children from their parents and sell them as live stock, that in itself is a breeding program.
When you rape their daughters and sell or enslave the children that result, that isn't a breeding program, that is something much worse.
Wow you're truthful. I know the US Constitution protected slavery. I just don't understand how when the idea of slavery seems to contradict it's overall meaning. I hope you got it this time.
Yes, I am truthful. You should try it some time.
Once again, you were simply wrong.
On what? That the US Constitution as inherited by Lincoln and the Republicans protected slavery? That the Confederates wrote their Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery? On which of these am I wrong?
Almost nobody in the Northern states supported abolition nationwide prior to late in the war.
Well then you must be impressed with how the Republicans managed to get the country to ratify abolition in only nine years.
In reply to my comment "Five states had ratified the Corbomite Maneuver, so the rest had the time to do it if they had intended to.", you replied False. 5 states ratified the Corwin Amendment and efforts to get more to ratify it were ongoing - and would have received a huge boost had the Southern states agreed to it. Instead they rejected it.
Your "would haves" do nothing to prove my statement false, and your reply proves the other states had the time to ratify it, but rejected it instead.
It (abolition) did not pass as a constitutional amendment until the Southern states agreed to it and ratified it.
I agreed with you on this numerous times, but it had to pass in Congress to get it to the states, and that didn't happen until enough members of the party of JD were replaced with Republicans to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
The Corwin Amendment would have explicitly protected slavery effectively forever.
Your "would haves" don't prove a thing, because it was never ratified. Most of the Union states wanted nothing to do with it even if it meant secession and a CW, or they would have ratified it when the five states did.
Of course if the CW hadn't occurred then it would have taken a lot longer to get the votes to repeal slavery with or without the Corbomite Maneuver, because the slave owners weren't going to give up their right to slave labor without a fight anyway.
That Lincoln orchestrated the Corwin Amendment and its passage through Congress is not an opinion. Her only opinion was that this was "brilliant" on his part.
It was passed in Congress two days before he became president. In fact the party of JD was in a rush to ram it through before the Republicans took office. They failed because all but a few states rejected it.
The Republicans's/Lincoln's/the North's entire argument was that they were NOT the leaders of a foreign nation.
So what? They split the nation and started a war for the purpose of preserving slavery, as they said numerous times. No one was obligated to accept them in any leadership capacity.
Yes, let's ask them (the Confederacy if secession was about preserving slavery).
Repeat of the same poor attempts at PR that failed to impress anyone then or now snipped.
“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
Union Colonel James Jaquess replied "Would the Confederacy be willing to back those high sounding words by freeing the slaves now, no strings attached?"
Jefferson Davis replied "Hell no, we ain't giving up our right to "slave labor" (his words) without a war." He continued "Those slaves are ours to work as animals, rape, or sell as the property they are. If you want to free them, you'll have to beat us first."
The Union replied "Done."
They had no breeding program. The birthrate for Blacks was the same as for Whites in this time period. You were simply wrong. Trying to change the definition of things in order to avoid admitting you were wrong is a standard Leftist tactic.
Yes, you are truthful. I should try it some time.
FIFY
On what? That the US Constitution as inherited by Lincoln and the Republicans protected slavery? That the Confederates wrote their Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery? On which of these am I wrong?
The latter. The Confederate Constitutions' main differences with the US Constitution were not over slavery. The differences were more expressly recognizing the rights of states and in limiting the power of the federal government.
Well then you must be impressed with how the Republicans managed to get the country to ratify abolition in only nine years.
As I've said many times, views changed on that subject by late in the war.
Your "would haves" do nothing to prove my statement false, and your reply proves the other states had the time to ratify it, but rejected it instead.
False. They did not reject it. They simply had not passed it yet. In case you haven't noticed, states aren't always in a sprint to ratify constitutional amendments. Sometimes it takes a little time.
Your "would haves" don't prove a thing, because it was never ratified. Most of the Union states wanted nothing to do with it even if it meant secession and a CW, or they would have ratified it when the five states did.
You have no evidence that "most of the union states wanted nothing to do with it....."
They simply hadn't ratified it yet. Not yet ratifying something is not the same as rejecting something. The states that did explicitly reject the Corwin Amendment were the original 7 seceding states.
Of course if the CW hadn't occurred then it would have taken a lot longer to get the votes to repeal slavery with or without the Corbomite Maneuver, because the slave owners weren't going to give up their right to slave labor without a fight anyway.,/p>
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists.
It was passed in Congress two days before he became president. In fact the party of JD was in a rush to ram it through before the Republicans took office. They failed because all but a few states rejected it.
This is patently false. It was introduced in each House of Congress by REPUBLICANS. It is named after Thomas Corwin a REPUBLICAN from Ohio.
So what? They split the nation and started a war for the purpose of preserving slavery, as they said numerous times. No one was obligated to accept them in any leadership capacity.,/P>
This is a lie. They did not leave to preserve slavery. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Not only was it not threatened, the first thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it. It was called the Corwin Amendment.
Repeat of the same direct quotes I cannot refute snipped.
insert fantasy quotes by me that were never said by either party because, hell I've got nothing and I'm desperate here.
this is the most honest thing you've said in this thread.
Your reply was right out of Clinton's playbook. Of course they didn't go announcing to everyone "We're going to breed black children to be sold as slaves, and we're going to rape black females and sell their children as slaves."
It's like Lewinsky and Clinton's defense that they never conspired to lie to Congress. Of course they didn't meet and say "This is what we're going to do. We're going to lie and commit perjury." But if they coordinated to give false testimony, then that's what they did even if they didn't spell it out.
Likewise, if the slave holders sold their slaves' children to others or used them as slaves, then that's what they were doing whether they announced it as a policy or not.
The latter. The Confederate Constitutions' main differences with the US Constitution were not over slavery. The differences were more expressly recognizing the rights of states and in limiting the power of the federal government.
Recognizing the rights of states to own slaves and limiting the power of the federal government to ban slavery. The Confederate's Constitution came right out and said this.
As I've said many times, views changed on that subject by late in the war.
Right. The states that had outlawed slavery changed their views and opposed slavery instead.
False. They did not reject it. They simply had not passed it yet.
If they didn't ratify it, then they rejected it.
In case you haven't noticed, states aren't always in a sprint to ratify constitutional amendments. Sometimes it takes a little time.
This time was different, in that the country was splitting and about to go to war and there was an urgency among some to prevent it. The Corbomite Maneuver was a desperate attempt to prevent this. If they were on board with this approach, they would have ratified it when the other five states did.
You have no evidence that "most of the union states wanted nothing to do with it....."
Do you mean besides the fact they didn't ratify it?
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists.
1858, 1860, 1864.
This is patently false. It was introduced in each House of Congress by REPUBLICANS. It is named after Thomas Corwin a REPUBLICAN from Ohio.
Yes, but the majority of Republicans voted against it while all but two House Democrats voted for it. Those who supported it understood that it didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
To give credit where due, the two Democrats who voted against it were William Stewart (MD) and Thomas C. Hindman (AK).
This is a lie. They did not leave to preserve slavery. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Not only was it not threatened, the first thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was nothing.
insert fantasy quotes by me that were never said by either party because, hell I've got nothing and I'm desperate here.
Wow. There's no getting tricks like this past you.
Of course they didn't actually say this in the conversation, but both sides said it with their actions.
Besides FLT-Bird, did anyone else who read that need me to make that clarification?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.