Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
Many breathed a sigh of relief when President Biden was elected, not for policy but for a reunification of the country after four years of tumult and fiery division under President Trump. But eight months into the new presidency, America's deep disunity might not be letting up.
A new poll has revealed that political divisions run so deep in the US that over half of Trump voters want red states to secede from the union, and 41% of Biden voters want blue states to split off.
According to the analysis from the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, 52% of Trump voters at least somewhat agree with the statement: 'The situation is such that I would favor [Blue/Red] states seceding from the union to form their own separate country.' Twenty-five percent of Trump voters strongly agree.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That was a lot of words to desperately try to avoid admitting you were wrong. But you were. They had no breeding program.
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.
Nope. States could allow slavery under the US Constitution. The limitations on the power of the federal government in the Confederate Constitution revolved around the states' ability to remove federal officials, strict limitations on spending, and the express recognition of state sovereignty.
Right. The states that had outlawed slavery changed their views and opposed slavery instead.
Many if not most in the Union came to favor abolition when they had not before.
,i>If they didn't ratify it, then they rejected it.
No, these are not the same thing. Not yet ratifying is NOT the same as explicitly rejecting.
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.
False assumption on your part. States are often slow to ratify constitutional amendments.
Do you mean besides the fact they didn't ratify it?
Correct! Not yet ratifying something is not equivalent to rejecting something.
1864.
1864 was the first time there was a serious political move to abolish slavery and the first time it enjoyed widespread popular support.
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.
Yes but it was written by and sponsored by REPUBLICANS. It was also orchestrated by and endorsed by Lincoln who was a REPUBLICAN.
blah blah blah snipped. Not only was it not threatened, the first thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever.
glad you can finally admit it. We're making progress!
Wow. There's no getting tricks like this past you.
Only took ya what, 5? months to figure that out? You're a fast one I see.
Of course they didn't actually say this in the conversation, but both sides said it with their actions.
Only in your deluded imagination.
Besides FLT-Bird, did anyone else who read that need me to make that clarification?
Anybody who read that and who knows the actual history knew you were pulling it straight out of your azz (as usual for you) right from the start.
Tell that to the families that were split as parents watched their own children get sold into slavery, never to see them again. The slave holding states saw it as breeding slaves. That they didn't fill out enough paperwork to get your endorsement doesn't change that.
Nope.
Yes. The Confederacy's Constitution recognized the rights of states to own slaves and limited the power of the federal government to ban slavery. Saying anything to the contrary is an outright lie.
States could allow slavery under the US Constitution.
How many times do I have to acknowledge this before you understand that I know this? Slavery was allowed under the US Constitution, and was until the Republicans got the votes to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification. I said it again. Unless your reading skills are so poor that you can't understand what I just wrote, there is no need for you to repeat it again in this thread.
The only difference is that the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the leaders of the time to protect slavery, while the protections in the US Constitution were written generations before the Republican party was even formed.
The limitations on the power of the federal government in the Confederate Constitution revolved around the states' ability to remove federal officials, strict limitations on spending...
You mean like the money they spent trying to preserve slavery?
I know, you're now going to repeat the same Confederate propaganda about how the war wasn't about protecting slavery, even though they said it was.
and the express recognition of state sovereignty.
Yes, the states' soveriegn rights to own slaves.
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.
Many if not most
IOW, you don't know.
in the Union came to favor abolition when they had not before.
Your claim that states that had already abolished slavery came around to favoring abolition is nonsense.
No, these are not the same thing. Not yet ratifying is NOT the same as explicitly rejecting.
Of course it is. They either ratified it or rejected it. There's no middle. Repeats snipped.
False assumption on your part. States are often slow to ratify constitutional amendments.
That wasn't an assumption, that was a fact. Five states ratified it, PROVING the rest had the time if they intended to ratify it. They didn't.
1864 was the first time there was a serious political move to abolish slavery and the first time it enjoyed widespread popular support.
If true, then you must be amazed at how the Republicans got the country to that point in only eight years.
Yes but it was written by and sponsored by REPUBLICANS.
Whose only purpose was to prevent secession and the CW, and who understood it didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
It was also orchestrated by and endorsed by Lincoln who was a REPUBLICAN.
It was orchestrated by his Democrat predecessor. He passed it on to the states where it was REJECTED.
Not only was it not threatened...
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
the first thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was nothing.
Only took ya what, 5? months to figure that out?
Yes, after five months of watching you fall for every Confederate propaganda trick in the book.
You're a fast one I see.
Too bad you can't see the explicit statements from the slave holding states and their own Constitution saying that secession was about protecting slavery.
Only in your deluded imagination.
My only delusion is that you were intelligent enough to be able to read the Confederacy's Constitution well enough to understand that it was written to protect slavery.
Anybody who read that and who knows the actual history knew you were pulling it straight out of your azz (as usual for you) right from the start.
I pulled it out of the Confederacy's own documents and statements, but at least you got the material right. Here they are again, straight from the Confederacy.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Still no breeding program.
Yes. The Confederacy's Constitution recognized the rights of states to own slaves and limited the power of the federal government to ban slavery. Saying anything to the contrary is an outright lie.
Saying that makes it different from the US Constitution or that it was specifically designed to protect slavery is an outright lie.
The only difference is that the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the leaders of the time to protect slavery, while the protections in the US Constitution were written generations before the Republican party was even formed.
Nope! This is an outright lie. The Confederacy's Constitution did not differ materially on the issue of slavery. It differed primarily in more explicitly recognizing the powers of states and in limiting the ability of the central government to spend money.
You mean like the money they spent trying to preserve slavery?
Where do they spend more than the US Constitution allowed for preserving slavery?
I know, you're now going to repeat the same Confederate propaganda about how the war wasn't about protecting slavery, even though they said it was.,/p>
I know, I know. You're going to repeat the same Leftist propaganda that the war was about protecting slavery even though Southern political leaders said it was not.
Yes, the states' soveriegn rights to own slaves.,/p>
Oh, you mean like the US Constitution did.
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.
Read the Dred Scott decision. This was NOT different from the US Constitution - damned inconvenient for you to admit though that is.
Your claim that states that had already abolished slavery came around to favoring abolition is nonsense.
No it isn't. We saw abolitionists routinely not be able to get more than single digit percentages of the vote in election after election in the Northern States prior to 1864. If they had favored abolition beforehand, they would have voted for politicians who wanted abolition nationwide. They did not.
Of course it is. They either ratified it or rejected it. There's no middle.
No its not.
That wasn't an assumption, that was a fact. Five states ratified it, PROVING the rest had the time if they intended to ratify it. They didn't.
It does not prove that they wouldn't have ratified it. Only that they had not yet.
If true, then you must be amazed at how the Republicans got the country to that point in only eight years.
They didn't in 8 years. 3 years of bloody war had done that.
Whose only purpose was to prevent secession and the CW, and who understood it didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
Republicans were perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever and to do so by express constitutional amendment. Obviously this wasn't that important of an issue to them since it was the very first bargaining chip they were willing to give up. Obviously it wasn't that important a thing to even the Deep South either since they refused it and chose to remain independent.
It was orchestrated by his Democrat predecessor. He passed it on to the states where it was REJECTED.
Another outright lie. It was orchestrated by Lincoln. In very limited time he managed to exert enough influence to get it passed by several states so that it would be taken seriously when he endorsed it in his first inaugural address. It was REJECTED by the original 7 seceding states. It then became irrelevant.
repeats snipped.
The First thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever.
FIFY
Yes, after five months of watching me parrot every Leftist PC Revisionist propaganda talking point in the book.
FIFY
Too bad you can't see the explicit statements from the slave holding states and their own Constitution saying that secession was about protecting slavery.
Too bad you can't see the explicit statements from President Davis and several other prominent Southern leaders saying that secession was not about protecting slavery.
My only delusion is that you were intelligent enough to be able to read the US's Constitution well enough to understand that it was written to protect slavery.
FIFY
I pulled it out of the Confederacy's own documents and statements, but at least you got the material right. Here they are again, straight from the Confederacy. Repeats snipped.
You were lying as usual. President Davis said the exact opposite.
Still no breeding program.
Nope, they just sold the children of their slaves as slaves to other slave owners, but they didn't see it as breeding slaves.
Saying that makes it different from the US Constitution
Repeating my previous post, unless your reading skills are so poor that you can't understand what I just wrote, there is no need for you to repeat it again in this thread.
or that it was specifically designed to protect slavery is an outright lie.
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.
Nope! This is an outright lie. The Confederacy's Constitution did not differ materially on the issue of slavery.
I didn't say it did. What I said was and I'll quote, the only difference is that the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the leaders of the time to protect slavery, while the protections in the US Constitution were written generations before the Republican party was even formed.
Hopefully, you got it this time.
Where do they spend more than the US Constitution allowed for preserving slavery?
On the battlefield.
I know, I know. You're going to repeat the same Leftist propaganda that the war was about protecting slavery even though Southern political leaders said it was not.
You're right in a way, in that what I've posted came straight from the Democrats.
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
Oh, you mean like the US Constitution did.
Unfortunately, up until the 13th Amendment was passed, yes. How many times do I need to say that to you?
Read the Dred Scott decision. This was NOT different from the US Constitution - damned inconvenient for you to admit though that is.
Wow, as many times as I've granted the US Constitution protected slavery, and you're still at it.
No it isn't. We saw abolitionists routinely not be able to get more than single digit percentages of the vote in election after election in the Northern States prior to 1864. If they had favored abolition beforehand, they would have voted for politicians who wanted abolition nationwide. They did not.
Abolishing slavery at the state level was a lot easier than abolishing it at the national level, because the Democrats weren't going to give up their slaves without a fight. As you yourself said later, it took the CW to get to that point. When they got to that point, they did it.
It does not prove that they wouldn't have ratified it. Only that they had not yet.
They had the time and they didn't ratify it, even given the urgency created by secession and a possible civil war.
They didn't in 8 years. 3 years of bloody war had done that.
Yup. The Democrats weren't going to give up slavery without a fight.
Republicans were perfectly willing to offer nothing.
Too bad you can't see the explicit statements from President Davis and several other prominent Southern leaders saying that secession was not about protecting slavery.
Too bad you can't see them for the failed PR they were.
You were lying as usual. President Davis said the exact opposite.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
You said they had a breeding program. They did not. That was factually incorrect.
Repeating my previous post, unless your reading skills are so poor that you can't understand what I just wrote, there is no need for you to repeat it again in this thread.Yet you want to repeat the lie that it was "designed to protect slavery". No it wasn't. It was designed based on the US Constitution. The principle differences were not over slavery.
repeats snipped
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
I didn't say it did. What I said was and I'll quote, the only difference is that the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the leaders of the time to protect slavery, while the protections in the US Constitution were written generations before the Republican party was even formed.
And I'll repeat, this is an outright lie. The Confederate Constitution was based on the US Constitution. The main differences were over expressly recognizing more of the sovereignty of the states and limiting the ability of the Confederate government to spend money. The rest was simply carried over from the US Constitution largely unchanged.
Hopefully, you got it this time.
Hopefully, you get it.
On the battlefield.
But they weren't fighting to abolish slavery. They said so themselves via a joint resolution of the US Congress and by Lincoln's express declarations many times.
You're right in a way, in that what I've posted came straight from the Democrats. Repeats snipped
and what I've posted came straight from President Davis and other key Southern leaders.
Unfortunately, up until the 13th Amendment was passed, yes. How many times do I need to say that to you?
So the US Constitution did not differ.....yet somehow Southerners are to blame for largely copying the US Constitution and only differing in the area of states' rights and limiting the power of the Confederate government to spend money. This "proves" it was "all about" slavery. Natch!
Wow, as many times as I've granted the US Constitution protected slavery, and you're still at it.
Because you keep lying and claiming that the Confederate Constitution was designed from the ground up to protect slavery. It obviously wasn't.
Abolishing slavery at the state level was a lot easier than abolishing it at the national level, because the Democrats weren't going to give up their slaves without a fight. As you yourself said later, it took the CW to get to that point. When they got to that point, they did it.
How do you know Southerners were "not going to give up slavery without a fight"? Northerners opposed compensated emancipation schemes of various kinds that were put forth for several years. In fact, it was New England politicians especially - those inveterate slave traders of New England - who opposed compensated emancipation most bitterly. They never offered anything remotely approaching fair market value even though they damn sure insisted on top dollar when they sold the slaves in the first place.
They had the time and they didn't ratify it, even given the urgency created by secession and a possible civil war.
We've been around this mulberry bush many times already. Just because they didn't pass it in the few months between Congress passing it and Lincoln offering it in his first inaugural address, does not mean they wouldn't have passed it - especially if the original seceding states indicated this would satisfy their concerns. You are just making an extremely convenient assumption for which you have no evidence.
Yup. The Democrats weren't going to give up slavery without a fight.
Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid.....and remember what we said before about you making extremely convenient assumptions which you have no evidence for? As Ronald Reagan famously said to Jimmy Crater "there you go again:.....
Republicans were perfectly willing to offer slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
FIFY
Too bad you can't see them for the failed PR they were.
Too bad you can't see them for the reality that they were.....but then again, doing so would destroy your entire argument. The refusal to see reality is typical of Leftists when reality intrudes on their ideology.
Repeats Snipped
"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/
My only use of the term "breeding program" was "When you take children from their parents and sell them as live stock, that in itself is a breeding program." Are you saying that didn't happen?
Yet you want to repeat the lie that it was "designed 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.
No it wasn't. It was designed based on the US Constitution. The principle differences were not over slavery.
How would you know, when you can't even understand the numerous times I've granted the US Constitution protected slavery?
But they weren't fighting to abolish slavery. They said so themselves via a joint resolution of the US Congress and by Lincoln's express declarations many times.
Frederick Douglas answered that when he said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
and what I've posted came straight from President Davis and other key Southern leaders.
Failed PR.
So the US Constitution did not differ.....yet somehow Southerners are to blame for largely copying the US Constitution and only differing in the area of states' rights and limiting the power of the Confederate government to spend money. This "proves" it was "all about" slavery. Natch!
They said themselves secession was about protecting their states' rights to slavery.
Because you keep lying and claiming that the Confederate Constitution was designed from the ground up to protect slavery. It obviously wasn't.
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.
How do you know Southerners were "not going to give up slavery without a fight"?
Because they didn't. Rest of rant snipped.
We've been around this mulberry bush many times already. Just because they didn't pass it in the few months between Congress passing it and Lincoln offering it in his first inaugural address, does not mean they wouldn't have passed it...
There you go with you "would haves" and "could haves" again. "Would haves" and "could haves" are not evidencve. What did happen is.
Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid...
An offer they never backed and couldn't have without amending their constitution. It's just another "would have" that doesn't prove anything.
Too bad you can't see them for the reality that they were...
As you have pointed out, the Confederacy "offered" abolition in return for military aid, so they understood how their institution looked to other nations. Those statements you keep spamming FR with were failed PR, nothing more.
"Your definition". LOL! Standard Leftist tactic. Losing an argument? Just change the definitions to claim you didn't lose!.
Repeats snipped.
It was not different in that respect than the US Constitution.
How would you know, when you can't even understand the numerous times I've granted the US Constitution protected slavery?
I'll spell it out for ya. As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery, I'll keep pointing out it was just like the US Constitution in that regard.
Frederick Douglas didn't answer anything.
The Republicans made clear via a Congressional Resolution and Lincoln's numerous statements that they were not fighting to end slavery.
Failed PR.
Accurate direct quotes.
They said themselves secession was about protecting their states' rights to slavery.
Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of those 3 explicitly listed reasons other than the Northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. President Davis and several prominent Southern leaders explicitly said it was not "about" slavery.
repeats snipped.
It was based on the US Constitution.
Because they didn't. Rest of rant snipped.
Because something did happen one way does not mean it "had to" happen that way or "could only have" happened that way. We will never know....and of course they weren't fighting over slavery.
There you go with you "would haves" and "could haves" again. "Would haves" and "could haves" are not evidencve. What did happen is.
Convenient assumptions of the kind you like to make are not evidence either.
An offer they never backed and couldn't have without amending their constitution. It's just another "would have" that doesn't prove anything.
Ah but they DID send an ambassador with plenipotentiary powers. What did happen right?
As you have pointed out, the Confederacy "offered" abolition in return for military aid, so they understood how their institution looked to other nations. Those statements you keep spamming FR with were failed PR, nothing more.
You claim they were PR. You of course have no way of knowing that. What we do know is that Davis said from the start that they were not fighting over slavery. Hey, that's what actually happened so therefore its the only thing that was possible right? Your rules.
You were the one who first used the term "breeding program". I replied with "When you take children from their parents and sell them as live stock, that in itself is a breeding program." Only a sicko could LOL at that.
It was not different in that respect than the US Constitution.
I already answered how it was different. The Democrats drafted those protections into the Confederacy's Constitution, while the Republicans inherited a Constitution that had those protections before the Republican party was formed. The comparisons aren't between the Constitutions, but between the parties. Got it now?
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed 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.
I'll keep pointing out it was just like the US Constitution in that regard.
I know. You'll completely ignore that the Republicans inherited their Constitution while the Democrats drafted theirs from the ground up to preserve slavery, because you are a leftist.
Frederick Douglas didn't answer anything.
The readers can decide for themselves. I'll post the quote again so they don't have to search for it.
"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
The Republicans made clear via a Congressional Resolution and Lincoln's numerous statements that they were not fighting to end slavery.
They only did it.
Accurate direct quotes.
Here are some direct quotes.
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
Only 4 states issued declarations of causes.
The 5th listed the treatment of slave holding states as a cause.
Of those 3 explicitly listed reasons other than the Northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.
Like abolitionists being elected.
President Davis and several prominent Southern leaders explicitly said it was not "about" slavery.
And Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
And LBJ lied about his reasons for escalating the Vietnam War.
All Democrats.
Because something did happen one way does not mean it "had to" happen that way or "could only have" happened that way. We will never know....
We can use what did happen as evidence.
and of course they weren't fighting over slavery.
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?"
Convenient assumptions of the kind you like to make are not evidence either.
But what did happen is evidence.
Ah but they DID send an ambassador with plenipotentiary powers. What did happen right?
Did they abolish slavery?
You claim they were PR. You of course have no way of knowing that.
Of course I do. In 1858, JD himself said that secession was justified if abolitionists were elected. Three years later in their declarations of secession, they said secession was about slavery. As late as 1865 Confederates were arguing that allowing blacks to enlist would undermine the institution of slavery.
What we do know is that Davis said from the start that they were not fighting over slavery. Hey, that's what actually happened so therefore its the only thing that was possible right? Your rules.
That isn't what happened, that is just what he said.
Yes, I was clearly laughing at that and not your attempt to weasel by not admitting your claim that they had a breeding program was total BS. Right. Good call there.
I already answered how it was different. The Democrats drafted those protections into the Confederacy's Constitution, while the Republicans inherited a Constitution that had those protections before the Republican party was formed. The comparisons aren't between the Constitutions, but between the parties. Got it now?
They simply took most of the US Constitution and adopted it....much like Madison borrowed entire passages from the Articles of Confederation. They inherited that as much as the Republicans inherited the US Constitution. The things they changed were the things that were important to them - states' rights and limits on the Confederate Government's ability to spend money.
Repeats snipped.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery.
I know. You'll completely ignore that the Republicans inherited their Constitution while the Democrats drafted theirs from the ground up to preserve slavery, because you are a leftist.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery.
The readers can decide for themselves. I'll post the quote again Repeat Snipped.
The Republicans made clear via a Congressional Resolution and Lincoln's numerous statements that they were not fighting to end slavery.
They only did it.
They made it very clear they were not going to war over slavery. Both sides did.
Here are some direct quotes. Repeats snipped
Here are some more
"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/
The 5th listed the treatment of slave holding states as a cause.
So?
Like abolitionists being elected.
Like extensive passages about their economic exploitation by the Northern states.
And Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. And LBJ lied about his reasons for escalating the Vietnam War. All Democrats.
There is no reason to doubt they believed that it was not "about" slavery. They said so many times in public and in private. Also you continue to cling to the ridiculous notion that the parties never change. They obviously do and have quite considerably over time.
We can use what did happen as evidence.
Yeah I did that below. Somehow, I'm guessing you won't like it. LOL!
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, repeat snipped.
and Lee and President Davis and Patrick Cleburne and several other major Confederate generals disagreed and openly advocated for slaves and their families be emancipated in exchange for military service.
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).
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).
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA
Did they abolish slavery?
Did they send an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to treaties that would abolish slavery?
Of course I do. In 1858, JD himself said that secession was justified if abolitionists were elected. Three years later in their declarations of secession, they said secession was about slavery. As late as 1865 Confederates were arguing that allowing blacks to enlist would undermine the institution of slavery.
Davis had long advocated that Slaves and their families be emancipated in exchange for military service. He also had long advocated for permission to empower an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to abolish slavery. He said many many times that secession and the war were not "about" slavery.
“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
That isn't what happened, that is just what he said.
He said it. He also empowered his ambassador with plenipotentiary power and he also got the Confederate Congress to agree to allow slaves and their families to be emancipated in exchange for military service.
You're the one who first used the term "breeding program". I only used it once, in the quote I posted in the previous post, and that was in reply to your post which also made reference to the term.
But enough with what the definition of "is" is, which like slvery is something you Democrats pushed. If you don't agree with the term "breeding program", then you tell me what it is when slave owners steal their slaves' children and sell them as slaves to other slave owners never to be seen by their parents again, and we'll go from there.
They simply took most of the US Constitution and adopted it...
The Democrats could have abolished slavery right then and there, since they were drafting a NEW constitution. They didn't have to copy the bad parts of the US Constitution if they didn't intend to. There was nothing stopping them from dropping the protections for slavery, except that they intentionally wrote their constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
That differs from the Republicans, who inherited a constitution that already protected slavery that was written before their party was even formed.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed 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.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed 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 Republicans made clear via a Congressional Resolution and Lincoln's numerous statements that they were not fighting to end slavery.
"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
They made it very clear they were not going to war over slavery. Both sides did.
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
Lies from Hitler in 1945 saying that he didn't want war in 1939, I mean from JD saying secession wasn't about slavery snipped.
Did they send an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to treaties that would abolish slavery?
Yes, they held their slaves hostage in return for military aid. You would have no problem seeing that if it happened in the Mideast, but you're willing to give a pass to the Democrats running the Confederacy.
Correction, you as a leftist are trying to make it look like conservatives are willing to give a pass to the Confederacy.
Repeat snipped.
There is no reason to doubt they believed that it was not "about" slavery. They said so many times in public and in private. Also you continue to cling to the ridiculous notion that the parties never change. They obviously do and have quite considerably over time.
The Democrats certainly haven't changed. They're still splitting the country over what they think they're entitled to. The only difference is who they're pandering to.
Yeah I did that below. Somehow, I'm guessing you won't like it. LOL!
What I don't like is that you keep spamming FR with the same quotes, but have offered no evidence on why we need to believe any of them.
More Confederate propaganda snipped.
Quotes about how the North wanted to protect American manufacturing from cheap slave labor is somehow oppression, and how JD was willing to offer the slaves freedom in return for offering themselves as fodder in his war to preserve slavery snipped.
He said it. He also empowered his ambassador with plenipotentiary power...
That resulted in nothing.
and he also got the Confederate Congress to agree to allow slaves and their families to be emancipated in exchange for military service.
After the war was already lost. Even then, there was resistance to the idea.
I said it was not like they had a breeding program. You then claimed they did have a breeding program. You were wrong. They did not.
But enough with what the definition of "is" is, which like slvery is something you Democrats pushed. If you don't agree with the term "breeding program", then you tell me what it is when slave owners steal their slaves' children and sell them as slaves to other slave owners never to be seen by their parents again, and we'll go from there.
That's called chattel slavery. It was ever thus. One would think you Leftists would know this given how many millions your fellow Leftists have enslaved.
The Democrats could have abolished slavery right then and there, since they were drafting a NEW constitution. They didn't have to copy the bad parts of the US Constitution if they didn't intend to. There was nothing stopping them from dropping the protections for slavery, except that they intentionally wrote their constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
There you go lying again. They modeled their constitution on the US Constitution. Oh by the way, Republicans could have abolished slavery in the US immediately. They didn't. Don't even try to lie and claim that it was Democrat party opposition in the North which prevented it either. Republicans were not abolitionists and had no intention of abolishing slavery - indeed they were quite willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
That differs from the Republicans, who inherited a constitution that already protected slavery that was written before their party was even formed.
And who did NOTHING to change it to abolish slavery in 1861. In fact, the change they proposed would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Only years later did they change their minds.
repeats snipped
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery I will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
repeats snipped again.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery I will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
Repeats snipped
The Republicans made clear from numerous statements, from a congressional resolution and from the Corwin Amendment that they were not fighting to end slavery.
Repeats snipped
They made it very clear they were not going to war over slavery. Both sides did.
Pathetic Godwin's law attempt snipped,/p>
Yes, they held their slaves hostage in return for military aid. You would have no problem seeing that if it happened in the Mideast, but you're willing to give a pass to the Democrats running the Confederacy.
What were Northerners holding their slaves hostage in return for?
Correction, you as a leftist are trying to make it look like conservatives are willing to give a pass to the Confederacy.
Correction, you as a Leftists are trying to make it look like Conservatives are willing to give a pass to the unconstitutional tyrant Lincoln.
The Democrats certainly haven't changed. They're still splitting the country over what they think they're entitled to. The only difference is who they're pandering to.
Of course they have. They used to favor decentralized power and the rights of the states. They used to favor a non interventionist foreign policy. They used to favor limited government. They used to favor a balanced budget. They used to be supported mostly by Southerners. Now they are the opposite of all of those things are are mostly supported by Yankees and Left Coasters. Hell, JFK would be a Republican today. He certainly couldn't be in the modern Democrat party.
What I don't like is that you keep spamming FR with the same quotes, but have offered no evidence on why we need to believe any of them.,/p>
I would say exactly the same of you.
More PC Revisionist propaganda snipped. Quotes about how the North wanted to protect American manufacturing from cheap slave labor is somehow oppression, and how JD was willing to offer the slaves freedom in return for offering themselves as fodder in his war to preserve slavery snipped.,/'p>
Funny, every time Yankees talked about something being for the good of America what they meant was for the good of themselves and their pockets at the expense of Southerners and their economic interests. Whether it was the navigation acts or corporate subsidies or high tariffs or government subsidies for infrastructure projects, it always overwhelmingly benefitted Northerners and came overwhelmingly at the expense of Southerners.
That resulted in nothing.,/p>
They offered it which shows that obviously it was not "about" slavery. They were perfectly willing to sacrifice slavery in order to achieve independence. In other words, it destroys your propaganda.
After the war was already lost. Even then, there was resistance to the idea.
He'd been urging it for a long time and the Confederate Congress agreed to it.
My exact quote was "When you take children from their parents and sell them as live stock, that in itself is a breeding program." The fact that they didn't formalize it to meet your legal requirements doesn't change that.
That's called chattel slavery. It was ever thus.
Now we're getting somewhere, so let's look at what animal breeding programs include and see if the term fits the Confederacy's model of slavery.
First, the slave owners saw their slaves as animals (except for when they were raping them) so from their point of view the slaves were animals. Check
Second, were the slaves able to have children with who ever they wanted? Yes, as long as they were on the same plantation. This article defines "captive breeding" as "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo.", so check.
Last, did the slave owners see the offspring as property they could sell on the market? The answer as we all know is yes, soooooooo...
Check!
Sounds like they saw it as a breeding program to me.
One would think you Leftists would know this given how many millions your fellow Leftists have enslaved.
The leftists' goal is to associate the Confederacy with the right. I'm sure they're behind you on this.
There you go lying again. They modeled their constitution on the US Constitution.
There you go evading the point, which is they didn't have to model it on the US Constitution when it came to protecting slavery since they were creating an all new constitution.
Oh by the way, Republicans could have abolished slavery in the US immediately. They didn't.
They didn't have enough votes as late as 1864.
Don't even try to lie and claim that it was Democrat party opposition in the North which prevented it either.
Now you're defending the Democrats? How leftist of you. In 1864, the Democrats did prevent abolition from being passed and sent to the states for ratification. Their "reasoning" was that slavery was a states' rights issue.
And who did NOTHING to change it to abolish slavery in 1861. In fact, the change they proposed would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Only years later did they change their minds.
Let's just ignore the FACTS that the majority of Republicans in the House and Senate voted AGAINST the Corbomite Maneuver and it was never ratified by the states, even with secession and the threat of a civil war.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed 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.
I will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
No one disputes that. The point you keep ignoring is that the US Constitution was inherited by the Republicans while the Confederacy's Constitution was written by the Confederate leaders of the time. The fact that they modelled the protections for slavery after the US Constitution is moot, because they could have left those protections out if it wasn't about preserving slavery.
Pathetic Godwin's law attempt snipped
You can't answer a simple question, so you hide behind "Godwin's law". Nobody believes Hitler when he said in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939. Why should anyone believe secession wasn't about slavery when JD, the declarations of secession, and the Confederatcy's Constitution all said it was?
What were Northerners holding their slaves hostage in return for?
Electing enough Republicans to pass abolition.
Correction, you as a Leftists are trying to make it look like Conservatives are willing to give a pass to the unconstitutional tyrant Lincoln.
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
Of course they have. They (Democrats) used to favor decentralized power and the rights of the states.
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.
They used to favor a non interventionist foreign policy.
Except when they were begging other nations for military aid.
They used to favor limited government.
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.
They used to favor a balanced budget.
They still would if they didn't have to buy votes with freebies.
They used to be supported mostly by Southerners. Now they are the opposite of all of those things are are mostly supported by Yankees and Left Coasters.
Only in the large cities where their supporters are concentrated. You're writing off a lot of people if you lump them all together.
Hell, JFK would be a Republican today. He certainly couldn't be in the modern Democrat party.
What you missed is that between the CW and JFK, they were also the party of Jim Crow, Bull Conner, and against Civil Rights.
They offered it which shows that obviously it was not "about" slavery. They were perfectly willing to sacrifice slavery in order to achieve independence. In other words, it destroys your propaganda.
Why didn't they? If they had, it would have gone a long way to proving to the nations they were begging for military aid from that they were serious about abolishing slavery.
He'd been urging it for a long time and the Confederate Congress agreed to it.
When did it pass?
They didn't have a breeding program no matter how you try to spin it.
Now we're getting somewhere, so let's look at what animal breeding programs include and see if the term fits the Confederacy's model of slavery.
the "Confederacy's model of slavery" was no different from the Union's model of slavery.
First, the slave owners saw their slaves as animals (except for when they were raping them) so from their point of view the slaves were animals. Check
Second, were the slaves able to have children with who ever they wanted? Yes, as long as they were on the same plantation. This article defines "captive breeding" as "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo.", so check.
Last, did the slave owners see the offspring as property they could sell on the market? The answer as we all know is yes, soooooooo...
Check!
Sounds like they saw it as a breeding program to me.
LOL! They had chattel slavery. What they did not have was a program to crank out offspring at the maximum possible rate ie a breeding program. Your attempts to weasel are as hilarious as they are futile.
The leftists' goal is to associate the Confederacy with the right. I'm sure they're behind you on this.
The Leftists' goal is to discredit the Confederacy and the South which has always been the most conservative region in North America. Your fellow Leftists are behind you on that.
There you go evading the point, which is they didn't have to model it on the US Constitution when it came to protecting slavery since they were creating an all new constitution.
There you go trying to blame them and exclusively them for the existence of an institution which long predated the US Constitution while at the same time excusing the Union for having a constitution that protected slavery every bit as much as the Confederate Constitution.
They didn't have enough votes as late as 1864.
Because they themselves were not abolitionists until 1864 as they said many times.
Now you're defending the Democrats? How leftist of you.
I'm not "defending" the Democrats. I'm saying the Republicans were not for it. Oh by the way, the Democrats of that time were the very opposite of Leftists. Try educating yourself some time.
Let's just ignore the FACTS that the majority of Republicans in the House and Senate voted AGAINST the Corbomite Maneuver and it was never ratified by the states, even with secession and the threat of a civil war.
No, lets ignore the FACTS that Republicans SPONSORED the Corwin Amendment in BOTH the House and Senate and that the de facto party leader, Abe Lincoln ORCHESTRATED the whole thing. It was never ratified by the states BECAUSE THE SOUTHERN STATES REJECTED IT.
Repeats snipped
I will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
No one disputes that. The point you keep ignoring is that the US Constitution was inherited by the Republicans while the Confederacy's Constitution was written by the Confederate leaders of the time. The fact that they modelled the protections for slavery after the US Constitution is moot, because they could have left those protections out if it wasn't about preserving slavery.
Why do you expect the Southern states to immediately abolish slavery while trying to get their country up and running, get institutions established etc while at the same time excusing the North for not abolishing slavery despite having everything already in place? Gosh, how strange.
You can't answer a simple question, so you hide behind "Godwin's law". Nobody believes Hitler when he said in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939. Why should anyone believe secession wasn't about slavery when JD, the declarations of secession, and the Confederatcy's Constitution all said it was?
Because President Davis said it wasn't over and over again. Because the Confederacy's Constitution no more said it was "about" slavery than the US Constitution said the US founding was "about" slavery. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of these 3 of them listed economic causes and other causes even though these were not unconstitutional while the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slavery clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional. The 5 states of the Upper South which seceded did so only after Lincoln chose to start a war - obviously they were not seceding over slavery but over Lincoln's unconstitutional war of aggression.
Electing enough Republicans to pass abolition.
But neither the Republicans themselves and certainly not Northern voters favored abolition until very late in the war.
repeats snipped
Lincoln was a centralizer, believed in massive government subsidies and was a tyrant.
Repeats snipped
The Confederate Constitution differed from the US Constitution primarily over recognizing more formally the sovereignty of the states and over the ability of the central government to spend money. It did not differ from the US Constitution over slavery.
Except when they were begging other nations for military aid.
IT WAS A WAR genius. LOL! Any country will seek allies in a war. That has nothing to do with favoring a non interventionist foreign policy. You're really not very good at this are you?
repeats snipped
They used to favor limited government.
They still would if they didn't have to buy votes with freebies.
The Democrat Party was slowly taken over by "Progressives" (ie socialists) starting with Woodrow Wilson.
Only in the large cities where their supporters are concentrated. You're writing off a lot of people if you lump them all together.
I'm accurately pointing out where their support comes from nowadays - overwhelmingly the Acela Corridor and the Left Coast.
What you missed is that between the CW and JFK, they were also the party of Jim Crow, Bull Conner, and against Civil Rights.
I haven't missed any of that. Racism was the norm worldwide until the last couple generations.
Why didn't they? If they had, it would have gone a long way to proving to the nations they were begging for military aid from that they were serious about abolishing slavery.
because they were in the middle of a war of national survival and had more important things to worry about than pushing through a massive societal change unless it would help them win the war.
When did it pass?
When he gained their assent to send an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power in 1864.
I'll admit you made a better case for calling it that than I did.
the "Confederacy's model of slavery" was no different from the Union's model of slavery.
The majority of Union states had outlawed slavery long before then, and it was outlawed nationwide as soon as the Republicans had enough votes to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification.
LOL! They had chattel slavery. What they did not have was a program to crank out offspring at the maximum possible rate ie a breeding program. Your attempts to weasel are as hilarious as they are futile.
You can call it free room and board for all I care, they still saw it as "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo", and sold many of the children that were born to them. That is the definition of a breeding program, which the Confederacy's Constitution was designed to protect.
Of course you're going to once again reply "but the US Constitution also blah blah blah", to which I'll reply "yes it did until the Repunblicans got enough votes to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification". Do you have anything else?
The Leftists' goal is to discredit the Confederacy and the South which has always been the most conservative region in North America. Your fellow Leftists are behind you on that.
The Confederacy doesn't need any help from the leftists. We have their own documents to show us what it was about.
As for the South, the leftists are trying to tie you to the Confederacy for the same reason they're trying to tie all Conservatives everywhere to the Confederacy. I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you've given them.
There you go trying to blame them and exclusively them for the existence of an institution which long predated the US Constitution while at the same time excusing the Union for having a constitution that protected slavery every bit as much as the Confederate Constitution.
I never made any such claim, but you can't answer my real point so you have to resort to strawmen.
I'll say it again. Maybe you'll understand if I spell it out. The Democrats wrote a new constitution from the ground up. They could have written it to abolish slavery since it was a new constitution just as they had offered to abolished slavery to get military aid, but they put protections for slavery in instead.
I'm not "defending" the Democrats. I'm saying the Republicans were not for it. Oh by the way, the Democrats of that time were the very opposite of Leftists. Try educating yourself some time.
Hardly. They have always been the party of getting what you're entitled to. The only difference is who they pander to.
No, lets ignore the FACTS that the Corbomite Maneuver went nowhere and did nothing.
I will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
Go ahead. If FR is willing to allow you to waste their bandwidth pointing outright falsehoods on what was in the Confederacy's Constitution on one hand, and repeating what I have already acknowledged on the other, it's their bandwidth so go for it.
Why do you expect the Southern states to immediately abolish slavery while trying to get their country up and running, get institutions established etc...
Because not having the time to abolish it yesterday is not the same thing as explicitly protecting it.
while at the same time excusing the North for not abolishing slavery despite having everything already in place? Gosh, how strange.
I haven't excused the North. I have granted again and again and again and again that until the Republicans had enough votes in Congress to pass abolition the Constitution protected slavery. BTW, before secession and the CW there would not have been enough states willing to ratify abolition at the national level anyway, something you have pointed out.
That doesn't change the fact that all but a few of the Union states had abolished slavery in their states. In fact, as you enjoy pointing out, providing a safe haven for runaway slaves was one the the grievances listed in their declaration of secession.
Because President Davis said it wasn't over and over again.
Why should we believe him, when he and other in the Confederacy also said on numerous times that it was?
Because the Confederacy's Constitution no more said it was "about" slavery than the US Constitution said the US founding was "about" slavery.
Well of course the US Constitution protected slavery. The fact that the Republicans passed abolition meant there had to be slavery to abolish.
And the fact that many Democrats refused to pass abolition because they thought it was a states' rights issue shows there was still slavery to protect.
Do you waste other forums' bandwidth constantly repeating the obvious which your opponents have agreed with?
Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of these 3 of them listed economic causes and other causes even though these were not unconstitutional while the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slavery clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional.
And you accuse me of trying to make the Confederacy look bad. They don't need my help. They have you.
The 5 states of the Upper South which seceded did so only after Lincoln chose to start a war - obviously they were not seceding over slavery but over Lincoln's unconstitutional war of aggression.
How many of them still had slavery?
But neither the Republicans themselves and certainly not Northern voters favored abolition until very late in the war.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Lincoln was a centralizer,
IOW, he wanted to ban slavery at the national level.
believed in massive government subsidies
To protect workers and businesses from the unfair advantages of those using slave labor.
and was a tyrant.
A tyrant whose nation the escaped slaves ran to.
IT WAS A WAR genius. LOL! Any country will seek allies in a war. That has nothing to do with favoring a non interventionist foreign policy. You're really not very good at this are you?
If they were so desperate, they could have freed the slaves then and there and shown the nations they were trying to get aid from that they were for real. Of course they couldn't because, as they said themselves, they were fighting to protect their right to slave labor, and they would have had to amend their constitution.
They used to favor limited government.
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.
The Democrat Party was slowly taken over by "Progressives" (ie socialists) starting with Woodrow Wilson.
Was that before or after they formed the KKK?
I haven't missed any of that. Racism was the norm worldwide until the last couple generations.
But the Democrats passed laws enforcing it after their attempts to preserve slavery failed.
because they were in the middle of a war of national survival and had more important things to worry about than pushing through a massive societal change unless it would help them win the war.
OK, but then you say...
When he gained their assent to send an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power in 1864.
You need to get your story straight. If they could have abolished slavery then and there, then they could have abolished it at any time including their founding. If they couldn't, then it was an empty offer. Which was it?
I admit you were wrong from the start and have been trying to weasel ever since.
The majority of Union states had outlawed slavery long before then, and it was outlawed nationwide as soon as the Republicans had enough votes to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification.
Slavery was still permitted in the Union and was not abolished until after the war. In fact, abolition was distinctly unpopular before the war and in the early stages of it and none of the national parties endorsed abolition prior to very late in the war.
You can call it free room and board for all I care, they still saw it as "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo", and sold many of the children that were born to them. That is the definition of a breeding program, which the Confederacy's Constitution was designed to protect.
It was not a "breeding program". The birth rate of slaves was not higher than that of the rest of the population and the Confederate Constitution did not differ much at all from the US Constitution on the issue of slavery.
Of course you're going to once again reply "but the US Constitution also blah blah blah", to which I'll reply "yes it did until the Repunblicans got enough votes to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification". Do you have anything else?
You're of course going to try to ignore that the US Constitution was no different and yet somehow try to absolve the Union while damning the Confederacy even though they were not different on the slavery issue. Neither Lincoln nor the Republicans favored abolition until very late in the war. Both Lincoln and the rest of the Republicans were overwhelmingly opposed to abolition as was the vast majority of the population of the Northern states until then. Do you have anything else?
The Confederacy doesn't need any help from the leftists. We have their own documents to show us what it was about.<;/P>
Yes we do - which is why Leftists have been trying to revise history to fit their Leftist political objectives starting in the 60s, really coming out of Academia starting in the 80s and becoming quite fashionable in Academia starting in the 90s.
As for the South, the leftists are trying to tie you to the Confederacy for the same reason they're trying to tie all Conservatives everywhere to the Confederacy. I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you've given them.
Leftists are trying to claim the CSA and the South were something they were not back then in order to try to smear the South today - knowing full well that the South is the heart of the conservative movement. It is you who is providing aid and comfort to the enemy here.
I never made any such claim, but you can't answer my real point so you have to resort to strawmen.
That is your real point and what you've been trying to do obsessively for months in this thread right from the start.
I'll say it again. Maybe you'll understand if I spell it out. The Democrats wrote a new constitution from the ground up. They could have written it to abolish slavery since it was a new constitution just as they had offered to abolished slavery to get military aid, but they put protections for slavery in instead.
I'll say it again and maybe you'll understand it if I spell it out. Why should anybody expect Southerners to have imposed even more sudden and wrenching change upon their society while they were already fully occupied trying to get their newly independent country up and running and facing the existential threat of a war of aggression from the tyrant Lincoln?
Hardly. They have always been the party of getting what you're entitled to. The only difference is who they pander to.
Everything Jeffersonian Democrats were runs directly contrary to Leftism. They favored decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets.
No, lets ignore the FACTS that the Corbomite Maneuver went nowhere and did nothing.
Let's ignore the FACT that it was the rejection of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment by the original 7 seceding states which killed the Corwin Amendment AFTER the REPUBLICAN Lincoln orchestrated it, after REPUBLICANS introduced it to both houses of Congress, after it got the necessary 2/3rs majority in each house AFTER the Southern delegation withdrew and after it was ratified by several states already and after Lincoln endorsed it in his first inaugural address.
Go ahead. If FR is willing to allow you to waste their bandwidth pointing outright falsehoods on what was in the Confederacy's Constitution on one hand, and repeating what I have already acknowledged on the other, it's their bandwidth so go for it.
I will keep repeating the fact that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
Because not having the time to abolish it yesterday is not the same thing as explicitly protecting it.
You damn the South for failing to meet your totally unrealistic expectation even while dealing with other major issues and simultaneously excuse the Northern states for not doing the same even though not faced with nearly as much of a challenge. Your ridiculous bias is clear for all to see.
I haven't excused the North. I have granted again and again and again and again that until the Republicans had enough votes in Congress to pass abolition the Constitution protected slavery. BTW, before secession and the CW there would not have been enough states willing to ratify abolition at the national level anyway, something you have pointed out.
They not only didn't abolish slavery even after the Southern states left, they didn't even try. There was no support for it from the public and no push for it from politicians until very late in the war. Its not the case of "gosh the Republicans wanted to all along but had to wait until they could finally overcome the opposition to it from Democrats. No. They didn't want to and openly said that time and time again until 1864.
That doesn't change the fact that all but a few of the Union states had abolished slavery in their states. In fact, as you enjoy pointing out, providing a safe haven for runaway slaves was one the the grievances listed in their declaration of secession.
Nobody denies that they had gradually abolished slavery in their own states....while making sure to give slave owners plenty of time to sell their slave property out of state thus ensuring they would sustain no financial loss. So what? They didn't favor abolishing slavery nationwide an New England politicians in particular bitterly opposed proposed compensated emancipation schemes to get rid of slavery nationwide.....even though it was New England which had been the epicenter of the slave trade industry for the entire Western Hemisphere for several generations.
Why should we believe him, when he and other in the Confederacy also said on numerous times that it was?
Because he said it wasn't in public and in private many times before, during and after the war. The only thing you can cite is a speech he gave years before secession had even happened. Also because his actions backed up his statements. For example he had long advocated offering emancipation to slaves and their families in exchange for military service before getting the Confederate Congress to agree. He had long advocated sending an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery before getting the Confederate Congress to agree. Those are not the actions of a man trying to preserve slavery.
Well of course the US Constitution protected slavery. The fact that the Republicans passed abolition meant there had to be slavery to abolish. And the fact that many Democrats refused to pass abolition because they thought it was a states' rights issue shows there was still slavery to protect. Do you waste other forums' bandwidth constantly repeating the obvious which your opponents have agreed with?
As long as you keep wasting bandwidth trying to blame the South for the very same thing you waive your hand and dismiss when the Northern states do it, I will keep pointing out there was no difference between the two on this issue.
And you accuse me of trying to make the Confederacy look bad. They don't need my help. They have you.,/p>
There's nothing that looks bad in that. They made the factual case that the Northern states had violated the compact - which they did. This is perfectly in keeping with the "train of abuses" portion of the Declaration of Secession......errr, Independence issued in 1776.
How many of them still had slavery?
Relevance? If it were "all about" slavery then why didn't they secede earlier? If it were "all about" slavery then why didn't all the states that still allowed slavery secede?
repeats snipped
But neither the Republicans themselves and certainly not Northern voters favored abolition until very late in the war.
IOW, he wanted to ban slavery at the national level.
Not he didn't - not until very late in the war. What he wanted was Henry Clay's "American Plan" which would erect massive tariff barriers paid for by the South in order to industrialize the North. He wanted massive corporate welfare and for the the federal government to usurp ever more powers it was never granted by the states in the Constitution.
To protect workers and businesses from the unfair advantages of those using slave labor.,/p>
LOL! No. He wanted to have the government pick winners and losers in the market. He wanted Crony Capitalism where corporate fatcats via their lobbyists would get taxpayer subsidies and gain market share at the expense of European companies.
A tyrant whose nation the escaped slaves ran to.,/p>
A tyrant who imprisoned tens of thousands without charge or trial, a tyrant who censored all telegraph traffic and who shut down over 100 opposition newspapers, a tyrant who ordered the only mass execution in American history, a tyrant who started an unconstitutional war of aggression for money and empire, a tyrant who oversaw death camps one of which features the largest mass grave in the entire western hemisphere, a tyrant who ethnically cleansed several Indian tribes from Minnesota, a tyrant who stuffed ballot boxes, jailed congressmen for disagreeing with him, ordered the arrest of the Maryland Legislature, banished a sitting US Senator, etc etc.
If they were so desperate, they could have freed the slaves then and there and shown the nations they were trying to get aid from that they were for real. Of course they couldn't because, as they said themselves, they were fighting to protect their right to slave labor, and they would have had to amend their constitution.
We're back to you having ridiculous unrealistic expectations of them turning everything in their society upside down all at once and damning them for failing to do so while studiously ignoring the fact that the North did not do so either even though they were under far less pressure.
repeats snipped
As I said, the Democrats used to favor limited government, balanced budgets, a non interventionist foreign policy, no corporate welfare, etc.
Was that before or after they formed the KKK?
The KKK was initially a response to the terrorism of the Union League during the Occupation.
But the Democrats passed laws enforcing it after their attempts to preserve slavery failed.
Yes, they modeled it based on the "Black Codes" already on the books in Northern states.
You need to get your story straight. If they could have abolished slavery then and there, then they could have abolished it at any time including their founding. If they couldn't, then it was an empty offer. Which was it?
They "could" have undertaken that too in addition to trying to set up a new country AND fight a war of national survival but when one is confronted by the latter two, that tends to take precedence over all else. That they were willing to abolish slavery in order to gain independence demonstrates once again that it was independence they were after - not protection of slavery. Their rejection of the Corwin Amendment also makes that point very clear.
I admit you were wrong from the start and have been trying to weasel ever since.
Sigh! No, just more of the same.
Slavery was still permitted in the Union and was not abolished until after the war.
Yes, when the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification. How many times do I have to say this before you stop posting it as if I was making the opposite point?
In fact, abolition was distinctly unpopular before the war and in the early stages of it and none of the national parties endorsed abolition prior to very late in the war.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
It was not a "breeding program". The birth rate of slaves was not higher than that of the rest of the population...
So what? Women can only have so many babies, and the women who made up the "slave labor" were also needed to do all of their other work.
They were still in a closed environment and their babies were still sold as property. That in itself is the definition of a breeding program, and the fact that they didn't fill out enough paperwork to meet your legal requirements doesn't change that.
and the Confederate Constitution did not differ much at all from the US Constitution on the issue of slavery.
And how many times are you going to keep repeating something we both agree on?
You're of course going to try to ignore that the US Constitution was no different..
It was different in one way, in that its protections for slavery were written generations before the Republican party was even formed and were inherited by the Republicans. OTOH, the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the current leaders of the Confederacy to protect slavery.
OBTW, thanks for admitting the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have. Now that we've cleared that up, I'm sure you won't waste any more bandwidth on it.
and yet somehow try to absolve the Union while damning the Confederacy even though they were not different on the slavery issue.
I never absolved the Union. As I have said several times, Lincoln had to work with all of them including those factions that still supported slavery. Frederick Douglas said it. I've said it. Once again you can't answer any of my points so you resort to strawmen.
Neither Lincoln nor the Republicans favored abolition until very late in the war. Both Lincoln and the rest of the Republicans were overwhelmingly opposed to abolition as was the vast majority of the population of the Northern states until then.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Do you have anything else?
I have the truth. What else do I need?
Yes we do - which is why Leftists have been trying to revise history to fit their Leftist political objectives starting in the 60s, really coming out of Academia starting in the 80s and becoming quite fashionable in Academia starting in the 90s...Leftists are trying to claim the CSA and the South were something they were not back then in order to try to smear the South today
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
knowing full well that the South is the heart of the conservative movement.
The left is attacking all Conservatives, not just Southern Conservatives. Trying to stick us with their, the Democrats', history of slavery is their way of doing it. You've done nothing but help them.
It is you who is providing aid and comfort to the enemy here.
If you think the Republicans who passed abolition are the enemies, then yes. As far as I'm concerned, the enemies are the Democrats who want to stick us with their history.
I'll say it again and maybe you'll understand it if I spell it out. Why should anybody expect Southerners to have imposed even more sudden and wrenching change upon their society while they were already fully occupied trying to get their newly independent country up and running and facing the existential threat of a war of aggression from the tyrant Lincoln?
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022
Everything Jeffersonian Democrats were runs directly contrary to Leftism. They favored decentralized power,
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.
limited government
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 balanced budgets.
You mean like balancing the budget to pay for fighting a war to do what? Take it away Confederate Generals...
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?"
Let's ignore the FACT that it was the rejection of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment by the original 7 seceding states which killed the Corwin Amendment AFTER the REPUBLICAN Lincoln orchestrated it, after REPUBLICANS introduced it to both houses of Congress, after it got the necessary 2/3rs majority in each house AFTER the Southern delegation withdrew and after it was ratified by several states already and after Lincoln endorsed it in his first inaugural address.
You just proved my point for me. Five states ratified it. That proves the rest had the time to ratify it if they had ever intended to, and didn't. Besides, as you have already admitted, the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections that weren't already there.
You damn the South
I don't damn the South in any way shape or form. I only post what the Democrats themselves said, which is that preserving slavery was at least one of their reasons to secession, and that many of their other grievances were about their perceived right to own slaves. I don't associate the modern South with the Confederacy any more than I associate modern Germany and Japan with their past regimes. The only thing that ties you to the Confederacy is that you choose to be. That's assuming you are what you say you are, and not just a leftist plant trying to pin the Confederacy on Conservatives by pretending to be one and accepting it.
for failing to meet your totally unrealistic expectation even while dealing with other major issues and simultaneously excuse the Northern states for not doing the same even though not faced with nearly as much of a challenge. Your ridiculous bias is clear for all to see.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022
They not only didn't abolish slavery even after the Southern states left, they didn't even try. There was no support for it from the public and no push for it from politicians until very late in the war. Its not the case of "gosh the Republicans wanted to all along but had to wait until they could finally overcome the opposition to it from Democrats. No. They didn't want to and openly said that time and time again until 1864.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Nobody denies that they had gradually abolished slavery in their own states....while making sure to give slave owners plenty of time to sell their slave property out of state thus ensuring they would sustain no financial loss. So what? They didn't favor abolishing slavery nationwide... Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
an(d) New England politicians in particular bitterly opposed proposed compensated emancipation schemes to get rid of slavery nationwide.....even though it was New England which had been the epicenter of the illegal slave trade industry for the entire Western Hemisphere for several generations.
FIFY.
Because he said it wasn't in public and in private many times before, during and after the war. The only thing you can cite is a speech he gave years before secession had even happened.
In that speech he said secession was the correct action to take if abolitionists took over. Besides that and the fact that this is exactly what they did, how much more do I need?
Also because his actions backed up his statements. For example he had long advocated offering emancipation to slaves and their families in exchange for military service before getting the Confederate Congress to agree. He had long advocated sending an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery before getting the Confederate Congress to agree. Those are not the actions of a man trying to preserve slavery.
"Why should anybody expect Southerners to have imposed even more sudden and wrenching change upon their society while they were already fully occupied trying to get their newly independent country up and running and facing the existential threat of a war of aggression from the tyrant Lincoln?" FLT-Bird, FR, 2022
There's nothing that looks bad in that. They made the factual case that the Northern states had violated the compact (to return fugitive slaves) - which they did.
How dare they? Who did they think they were, abolitionists?
Relevance? If it were "all about" slavery then why didn't they secede earlier? If it were "all about" slavery then why didn't all the states that still allowed slavery secede?
Now that's funny. You point out that the Confederacy couldn't have abolished slavery overnight, but the fact that slave states didn't secede and join the Confederacy overnight is proof that it wasn't about slavery.
But neither the Republicans themselves and certainly not Northern voters favored abolition until very late in the war...Not(e) he didn't (want to abolish slavery nationally>- not until very late in the war.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
LOL! No. He wanted to have the government pick winners and losers in the market. He wanted Crony Capitalism where corporate fatcats via their lobbyists would get taxpayer subsidies and gain market share at the expense of European companies.
Yes. Having cheap slave labor gave some businesses an advantage in labor costs, just like what's happening with our free trade deals with the Chicoms now. Remember how the free traitors at FR accused us of being "protectionists"?
A tyrant who
ran the country where millions of slaves escaped to, and hundreds of thousands joined the military of.
We're back to you having ridiculous unrealistic expectations of them turning everything in their society upside down all at once and damning them for failing to do so while studiously ignoring the fact that the North did not do so either even though they were under far less pressure.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022. As you said, they could have abolished slavery, but didn't.
The KKK was initially a response to the terrorism of the Union League during the Occupation.
If we accept that you aren't a white supremist, then comments like prove you are a leftist who is posing as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look bad. Conservatives don't defend the KKK any more than we defend Nazis. Got it?
The Democrat created KKK was a terrorist group targeting blacks and Republicans almost from the start of its existance.
Yes, they modeled it based on the "Black Codes" already on the books in Northern states.
Apples and oranges. The Northern "Black Codes" were not passed by Republicans, and they weren't largely enforced anyway, which allowed the black population in the North to grow at a slightly higher rate than the white population. They were abolished long before the Democrats passed theirs, so you're wrong about those laws being "already on the books".
Here's more.
I know you're going to say "but the North blah blah blah". Yes, I'm not defending the injustices committed by the North no matter how hard you try to frame it that way. It is not my intention to say the North didn't have injustices to answer for, but they weren't passed by Republicans.
OTOH, the Southern "Black Codes" were implemented by the Democrats after the CW to keep blacks tied to the plantation after the CW and abolition. They were one reason reconstruction was handled at the Federal level, because it was clear they were going to use every trick in the book at the state level to keep blacks "in chains".
They "could" have undertaken that too in addition to trying to set up a new country AND fight a war of national survival but when one is confronted by the latter two, that tends to take precedence over all else. That they were willing to abolish slavery in order to gain independence demonstrates once again that it was independence they were after - not protection of slavery. Their rejection of the Corwin Amendment also makes that point very clear.
So they couldn't have abolished slavery, even gradually, when they formed their nation if they had intended to, but they could have abolished slavery on the spot to get military aid.
Yes, I have a life outside of this board. Responding to you is not my highest priority.
Sigh! No, just more of the same.
As if you've ever offered anything different.
Yes, when the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification. How many times do I have to say this before you stop posting it as if I was making the opposite point?
The Republicans weren't interested in abolishing slavery until very late in the war. Its not as if they were trying to abolish it earlier.
repeats snipped.
As usual, you have no answer.
So what? Women can only have so many babies, and the women who made up the "slave labor" were also needed to do all of their other work.,/P>
There was not a "breeding program" as you claimed. You were wrong.
They were still in a closed environment and their babies were still sold as property. That in itself is the definition of a breeding program, and the fact that they didn't fill out enough paperwork to meet your legal requirements doesn't change that.
There was no "breeding program".
And how many times are you going to keep repeating something we both agree on?,/P>
As many times as you repeat the lie that it was constructed to support slavery.
It was different in one way, in that its protections for slavery were written generations before the Republican party was even formed and were inherited by the Republicans. OTOH, the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the current leaders of the Confederacy to protect slavery.
Slavery was inherited by the Confederate states just as surely as it was inherited by the 13 colonies.
OBTW, thanks for admitting the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have. Now that we've cleared that up, I'm sure you won't waste any more bandwidth on it.
Just as I'm sure now that you've acknowledged that the Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment, its rejection by the original 7 seceding states conclusively proves secession was not "all about" slavery.
I never absolved the Union. As I have said several times, Lincoln had to work with all of them including those factions that still supported slavery. Frederick Douglas said it. I've said it. Once again you can't answer any of my points so you resort to strawmen.
Lincoln and the Republicans still supported slavery until late in the war.
Repeats snipped. I have the truth. What else do I need?
Good! Then you know both Lincoln and the Republicans still supported slavery until very late in the war.
repeats snipped
YAWN. You really don't have anything else.
The left is attacking all Conservatives, not just Southern Conservatives. Trying to stick us with their, the Democrats', history of slavery is their way of doing it. You've done nothing but help them.
Us? No. They've been trying to blame the South exclusively for slavery even though there is plenty of blame for everyone in that. They've especially targeted the South. You are furthering their false propaganda.
If you think the Republicans who passed abolition are the enemies, then yes. As far as I'm concerned, the enemies are the Democrats who want to stick us with their history.
The enemies are those who falsely try to discredit state's rights and decentralized power as well as the South by claiming it was "all about" slavery when it plainly was not.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022
Yes, they were willing to impose that rapid change on their society if it meant gaining their independence. It was always about independence for them - not slavery. The original 7 seceding states made the same choice of independence over slavery when they rejected the Corwin Amendment.
Repeats snipped
As I said, Jeffersonian Democrats wanted decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets. You have no answer to that.
You mean like balancing the budget to pay for fighting a war to do what? Take it away Confederate Generals... Repeats snipped
You know as well as I that I can post even more quotes from Southerners saying the exact opposite...that includes President Jefferson Davis, Sec of State Judah Benjamin, Highest ranking soldier Robert E Lee, etc etc. But of course slavery has nothing to do with balanced budgets. You have to be really unhinged by the leftist dogma to think otherwise.
You just proved my point for me. Five states ratified it. That proves the rest had the time to ratify it if they had ever intended to, and didn't. Besides, as you have already admitted, the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections that weren't already there.
A state not ratifying an amendment quickly does not mean they would not ratify it ever. You simply falsely ASSUME that because it suits your pitiful attempts at argument. Besides, as you admit the Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. The original 7 seceding states rejected it.
I don't damn the South in any way shape or form. I only post what the Democrats themselves said, which is that preserving slavery was at least one of their reasons to secession, and that many of their other grievances were about their perceived right to own slaves. I don't associate the modern South with the Confederacy any more than I associate modern Germany and Japan with their past regimes. The only thing that ties you to the Confederacy is that you choose to be. That's assuming you are what you say you are, and not just a leftist plant trying to pin the Confederacy on Conservatives by pretending to be one and accepting it.
Yet a great many Southerners said it was NOT about slavery and of course the original 7 seceding states turned down the Corwin Amendment and the Upper South only seceded after Lincoln chose to wage an unconstitutional war of aggression. In order to back up the false "all about slavery" Leftist Revisionism, you go miles out of your way to trash several principles of Conservatism the South has always stood for like limited government, decentralized power and balanced budgets. If anybody is a Leftist plant here it is you.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022,/P>
Yes they were willing to do so if doing so meant Independence. Thank you for proving that you agree Independence and not the preservation of slavery was what the Southern states were fighting for.
repeats snipped
Its funny how often you fall back on the same quotes which don't even address the point made - like a toddler clinging to his binky you can always be counted on to regurgitate the same 3 quotes.
Repeats snipped
LOL! And again.
In that speech he said secession was the correct action to take if abolitionists took over. Besides that and the fact that this is exactly what they did, how much more do I need?
They seceded years later. That does not prove it was "about" slavery. That was merely the trigger to get out which they had wanted for a long time. Jefferson Davis himself said so several times in the US Senate, as Confederate President to the Confederate Congress, in meeting with Union representatives during the war and in his memoirs after the war. The Southern states wanted out because they were being economically exploited by the Northern states for their benefit. This was exactly what led the 13 colonies to secede from the British Empire.
Yes and? Sending an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to abolish slavery in exchange for Independence supports my argument, not yours.
How dare they? Who did they think they were, abolitionists?
It was a violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution - irrefutable proof that they and not the Southern states had broken the compact between the states.
Now that's funny. You point out that the Confederacy couldn't have abolished slavery overnight, but the fact that slave states didn't secede and join the Confederacy overnight is proof that it wasn't about slavery.
I didn't say they couldn't abolish slavery immediately. I said its understandable they did not choose to take on that major task when faced with getting a new country up and running and oh yeah, fighting a war of national survival. If it was "all about" slavery then why didn't all the states that still allowed slavery secede?
Repeats snipped
LOL! Again. Same 3 quotes that don't answer the question.
Yes. Having cheap slave labor gave some businesses an advantage in labor costs, just like what's happening with our free trade deals with the Chicoms now. Remember how the free traitors at FR accused us of being "protectionists"?
We agree here.
A tyrant who ran the country where millions of slaves escaped to, and hundreds of thousands joined the military of.
Actually the Underground Railroad ran to Canada. Northerners didn't want Blacks living in their states. Once the war was on and Lincoln and the Republicans realized they could use Blacks as cannon fodder, they were happy to do so.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022. As you said, they could have abolished slavery, but didn't.
Yes, they "Could" have. Is it reasonable to expect anybody in their situation to have done so right away? I don't believe so. Why do you suppose the Northerners did not free their slaves right away? They were under far less pressure.
If we accept that you aren't a white supremist, then comments like prove you are a leftist who is posing as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look bad. Conservatives don't defend the KKK any more than we defend Nazis. Got it?
I didn't "Defend" them as you claim. Their methods were appalling. That said, they didn't come from nowhere. They were a response to the terrorism of the Union League and the massive theft of Southerners' lands and homes at the hands of corrupt Occupation governments.
An essential element of early "Reconstruction" was the disenfranchisement of all of the adult white males in the South, coupled with the voter registration of every last adult male ex-slave. The ex-slaves assisted in the continued plundering of the South by voting en masse to raise taxes that provided precious little in the form of government services. Untold millions were simply stolen by Republican Party "officials." (Property taxes in South Carolina, for example, were 30 times higher in 1870 than they were in 1860, and a punitive federal tax was imposed on cotton at a time when what the South needed was tax amnesty).
The Ku Klux Klan was created to terrorize the ex-slaves out of participating in this political plundering racket operated by the Republican Party. The Republicans kept promising to share the property of white southerners with the ex-slaves, which of course they never did and never intended to do. Had the Republicans not used their victory and their monopoly of political power to line the pockets of the thousands of political hacks and hangers on who were the backbone of the party (the "carpetbaggers") the Ku Klux Klan would never have existed. This in fact was the conclusion of the minority report of an 1870 congressional commission that investigated the Klan. "Had there been no wanton oppression in the South," the congressmen wrote, "there would have been no Ku Kluxism" (Congressman Fernando Wood, "Alleged Ku Klux Outrages" published by the Congressional Globe Printing Office, 1871, p. 5). The report continued that when southern whites saw that "what little they had saved from the ravages of war was being confiscated by taxation . . . many of them took the law into their own hands and did deeds of violence . . . . history shows that bad government will make bad citizens."
None of that is a "defense" of the Klan. It explains what caused them to arise....that would be oppressive occupation governments that wantonly stole from people after disenfranchising them.
Apples and oranges. The Northern "Black Codes" were not passed by Republicans, and they weren't largely enforced anyway, which allowed the black population in the North to grow at a slightly higher rate than the white population. They were abolished long before the Democrats passed theirs, so you're wrong about those laws being "already on the books".
LOL! You are simply wrong about so much of this. Yes Republicans often did not pass these although some like Lincoln certainly supported the passage of some of them. They absolutely WERE enforced and they were NOT abolished before the end of the Occupation. Why do you think Blacks did not move in the millions up to the North and out of the economically devastated South right away after the war? The answer is they were not allowed to. They were stuck living in the South for the most part.
Here's more. Black Codes Here's more http://slavenorth.com/
OTOH, the Southern "Black Codes" were implemented by the Democrats after the CW to keep blacks tied to the plantation after the CW and abolition. They were one reason reconstruction was handled at the Federal level, because it was clear they were going to use every trick in the book at the state level to keep blacks "in chains".
The Jim Crow laws were modelled on the Black Codes that were still on the books and still enforced in the North. Reconstruction was imposed on the Southern states so that Northern Republicans could have untrammeled political power and so they could line their own pockets stealing from Southerners after disenfranchising them so that they would be powerless to stop the massive theft of their property.
some examples
In addition, there was the burden of discriminatory war taxes and the confiscation laws of Congress. Federal Treasury agents threaded their way through the occupied areas seizing 3 million out of the 5 million bales of cotton which had not been destroyed. They corruptly enriched themselves. "I am sure," said the Secretary of the Treasury, "that I sent some honest agents South; but it sometimes seems very doubtful whether any of them remained honest for very long." A special tax of from 2.5 to 3 cents a pound on cotton yielded the federal treasury $68,000,000. Because of its effects on the economy of a prostrate region, this levy was called by the United States Commissioner of Agriculture "disastrous and disheartening in the extreme." As soon as the federal troops got a foothold in the South, property was seized and sold for nonpayment under the Direct Tax Act. (A History of the South, pp. 247-251, original emphasis)
Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. In Stevens’ own words, the purpose of giving this “dependent population” (Blacks) the vote in the South was to “insure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the union. (ie Republicans)”
It was a “democracy” that caused Georgia’s debt to go from “0” in 1865 to 50 million dollars in 1872, whose budgetary practices in Louisiana caused the cost of the 1871 legislative session to be 9.5 times the average cost of a pre-Reconstruction session, and whose budgetary practices in the South Carolina legislature caused the total cost of 6 years of Reconstruction for that not-so-august body to total $2,339,000, (when the average cost of a pre-Reconstruction session of the legislature had been $20,000/year!).
This wonderful “democracy” resulted in the tax rate in Mississippi increasing 14 fold during its 5 year tenure in that state and caused 20% of all privately owned land in that state to be put up for sale on the tax auction block.
In Texas, this wonderful "experiment" resulted in a 400% tax increase, while at the same time, another Southern state, Tennessee, saw its state debt inflated by 16 million dollars.
It was an “interracial democracy” which saw 25% of all the property in Little Rock Arkansas in the hands of former Union General Schenck, who had purchased said property at bargain basement prices after those properties had been confiscated for non-payment of taxes.
It was a “democracy” which saw, in South Carolina, the expenditure by the legislature, “of $200,000 - all of which was spent in furnishing the state capitol with costly plate glass mirrors, lounges, arm chairs, a free bar and other luxurious appointments for the use of the legislators.”
It was a “democracy” in South Carolina composed of black men like Beverly Nash, who admitted to taking a $2500 bribe, and who defended his actions with the words, “I merely took the money because I thought I might as well have it and invest it here as for them to carry it outside the state”. That same type of government, in that very same state, also produced the likes of State Representative John Patterson, a white Pennsylvania transplant, who, when questioned about corruption flippantly replied, “Why there are still 5 good years of stealing left in South Carolina”.
So if you ever wondered why Republicans could not win a race for so much as county dog catcher in the South for 100 years afterwards, that's why.
So they couldn't have abolished slavery, even gradually, when they formed their nation if they had intended to, but they could have abolished slavery on the spot to get military aid.
Its not that they "could" not. Its that they had much higher priorities. Independence was of course the highest priority. In order to gain it, they were prepared to get rid of slavery. What it was "all about" was Independence, not slavery.
Judging from you rejection of the Confederacy's own statements and policies, neither is reality.
As if you've ever offered anything different.
Do you mean this?
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
What else do I need?
The Republicans weren't interested in abolishing slavery until very late in the war. Its not as if they were trying to abolish it earlier.
Besides the links above, the US Constitution prevented them from abolishing slavery on the national level until they had the votes to pass abolition. The main roadblock was the Democrat party.
As usual, you have no answer from FLT-Bird.
FIFY.
There was not a "breeding program" as you claimed. You were wrong.
Tell that to the children who were taken from their families and sold as slaves, never to see their families again. Apart from a breeding program, what else does that?
As many times as you repeat the lie that it was constructed to support 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.
Yet a great many Southerners said it was NOT about slavery...
I couldn't care less what they said. Their actions proved otherwise. Of course you'll retreat to your "but they offered abolition in return for military aid", which they never did.
But there were Southerners who were against slavery. Over 100,000 able bodied white men left the South to join the Union Army. Add to them the abolitionists who you refer to as terrorists. I never pinned slavery on the entire South. It is you who are doing exactly that by pinning them to the Confederacy, which to most is almost synonymous with slavery. I'm sure the Democrats appreciate your efforts in freeing them from their slave holding past.
Repeat snipped.
and of course the original 7 seceding states turned down the Corwin Amendment...
Which as you have already admitted would not have given slavery any protections it didn't already have anyway.
and the Upper South only seceded after Lincoln chose to wage an unconstitutional war of aggression. In order to back up the false "all about slavery" Leftist Revisionism, you go miles out of your way to trash several principles of Conservatism the South has always stood for like limited government, decentralized power and balanced budgets. If anybody is a Leftist plant here it is you.
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
Yes they were willing to do so if doing so meant Independence. Thank you for proving that you agree Independence and not the preservation of slavery was what the Southern states were fighting for.
I never said it was about independence. I'll let the Confederacy tell you what it was about.
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
Its funny how often you fall back on the same quotes which don't even address the point made - like a toddler clinging to his binky you can always be counted on to regurgitate the same 3 quotes.
Those links contain a lot more than "3 quotes".
They seceded years later. That does not prove it was "about" slavery.
Years after he said they should, and for the reason he gave.
Repeat snipped.
It was a violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution - irrefutable proof that they and not the Southern states had broken the compact between the states.
And you're defending the Confederacy? Oh, I forgot. You aren't defending the Confederacy. You're accepting its legacy on behalf of Republicans.
I didn't say they couldn't abolish slavery immediately. I said its understandable they did not choose to take on that major task when faced with getting a new country up and running and oh yeah, fighting a war of national survival. If it was "all about" slavery then why didn't all the states that still allowed slavery secede?
Now that was a good question, but it doesn't refute the fact that the states that did secede did so to preserve slavery, especially when they said so themselves.
Good! Then you know both Lincoln and the Republicans still supported slavery until very late in the war.
No, only that they understood they couldn't abolish it under the current framework, which they changed as soon as they had the votes, only 11 years after the Republican party was formed. Pretty impressive.
Us? No. They've been trying to blame the South exclusively for slavery even though there is plenty of blame for everyone in that. They've especially targeted the South. You are furthering their false propaganda.
Is the following leftist propaganda?
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
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?"
It speaks for itself, so the only question is, do we accept this legacy as our legacy. Your answer on behalf of Conservatives is yes.
The enemies are those who falsely try to discredit state's rights and decentralized power as well as the South by claiming it was "all about" slavery when it plainly was not.
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
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?"
Yes, they were willing to impose that rapid change on their society if it meant gaining their independence.
No they weren't. They did just the opposite when they wrote their Constitution, and never reversed it although they offered to.
They knew how the nations they were asking for help from saw slavery, so it's not as if they were products of their time and couldn't see the evil in what they were doing. Just the opposite, they clung to a previous time that the rest of the western world was already turning away from.
I know, but the North still blah blah blah. That was a few states who fought on the same side as over 100,000 ecaped slaves from the South.
As I said, Jeffersonian Democrats wanted decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets. You have no answer to that.
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.
You know as well as I that I can post even more quotes from Southerners saying the exact opposite...
I couldn't care less what they said or how many quotes you can post, so I won't ask you to waste your time and FR bandwidth posting them. Their own official documents and their own Constitution, along with the fact that they wouldn't abolish slavery even as they desparately offered to in return for military aid, tells me what their real goals were.
A state not ratifying an amendment quickly does not mean they would not ratify it ever. You simply falsely ASSUME that because it suits your pitiful attempts at argument.
No assumptions needed. They didn't ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, even under the threat of secession and war, and even though they had the time to do so. They did, repeat DID, ratify Abolition.
Besides, as you admit the Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
I never admitted that. Just the opposite, I said it didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have under the US Constitution. If you're charging the US Constitution with protecting slavery, I say guilty as charged.
But if the Corbomite Maneuver had been ratified WHICH IT WASN'T, the same representatives who had voted to pass abolition would have to vote for repealing the Corbomite Maneuver, and the same states who voted to ratify abolition would have had to vote to repeal the Corbomite Maneuver. If the Corbomite Maneuver had passed, it would have only made it harder to pass abolition, but it didn't pass so it did nothing anyway.
We agree here.
I'm glad to see that. Then you understand that anything I said about the Confederacy applies to our nation today, too.
Actually the Underground Railroad ran to Canada. Northerners didn't want Blacks living in their states.
While I don't disagree that racism was still a problem in the North, not all ran all the way to Canada, and that does nothing to refute my point that over 100,000 escaped slaves joined the Union Army.
Once the war was on and Lincoln and the Republicans realized they could use Blacks as cannon fodder, they were happy to do so.
That's just another way of blaming the North for the fact that Confederate soldiers were more willing to kill black soldiers than white soldiers. Never mind that escaped slaves joined the Union military, as opposed to the Confederacy forcing their slaves to work as servants for their army.
I didn't "Defend" them as you claim.
Here's your statement again.
The KKK was initially a response to the terrorism of the Union League during the Occupation.
The readers and FR can decide for themselves.
LOL! You are simply wrong about so much of this. Yes Republicans often did not pass these although some like Lincoln certainly supported the passage of some of them.
Lincoln, as has been pointed out by many and acknowledged by myself, had to deal with many attitudes to keep the North together. He frequently had to talk out of both sides of his mouth, but the side that spoke abolition was the side that was made into law.
Lincoln may have talked about supporting these laws to audiences who wanted to hear it, but none of them were passed. In fact, your whole case has been built on laws that were never passed.
They absolutely WERE enforced and they were NOT abolished before the end of the Occupation. Why do you think Blacks did not move in the millions up to the North and out of the economically devastated South right away after the war? The answer is they were not allowed to. They were stuck living in the South for the most part.
Due to the "black codes" which were the Democrat's failed attempt at keeping their slave labor after slavery was abolished by the Republicans.
The Jim Crow laws were modelled on the Black Codes that were still on the books and still enforced in the North. Reconstruction was imposed on the Southern states so that Northern Republicans could have untrammeled political power and so they could line their own pockets stealing from Southerners after disenfranchising them so that they would be powerless to stop the massive theft of their property.
Like the slaves, whom as you admit they saw as property?
some examples
Look, just because you found a book that says what you want to hear, the rest of us aren't obligated to accept the author's conclusions as proof of anything. I could post links defending Stalin and Hitler, but just because someone can cherry pick the facts to defend them, that doesn't obligate the rest of us to accept their conclusions.
So before I consider your examples, I want more details about the book "A History of the South". Who wrote it and when. I want to review its credibility and confirm you aren't posting anything out of context before addressing any of its claims. For example:
Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. In Stevens’ own words, the purpose of giving this “dependent population” (Blacks) the vote in the South was to “insure secure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the union. (ie Republicans)”
Here's the entire speech, for context.
That was about all I was able to verify. Show me where any of those other claims are supported by sources other than some book that says what you want to hear, and we'll talk.
As for the dollar amounts, yes, the war devastated the South so of course budgets ballooned.
Besides, am I supposed to feel sorry for a country that wrote this into their Constitution?
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.
I know you're going to come back with "But the US Constitution also blah blah blah" and it was, but that was inherited by the Republican leadership who changed it when they got the votes they needed. OTOH, the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up with these protections from their contemporary leadership.
Actually it is you who has rejected the statements and policies of the Confederacy. You dismiss it by trying to bring up fatuous analogies to Hitler/Nazis when the plain words flatly contradict your PC Revisionist claims.
Do you mean this? Repeats snipped What else do I need?
Quotes and policies that actually refute the points made. That's what you generally lack.
Besides the links above, the US Constitution prevented them from abolishing slavery on the national level until they had the votes to pass abolition. The main roadblock was the Democrat party.
They didn't even try. They said openly and repeatedly that they were not interested.
As usual, you have an answer from FLT-Bird that is inconvenient for your leftist dogma.
FIFY.
Tell that to the children who were taken from their families and sold as slaves, never to see their families again. Apart from a breeding program, what else does that?
That's called slavery. That's not a breeding program.
repeats snipped.,/P>
Yep. The Confederate Constitution was hardly different from the US Constitution on the matter of slavery. It was not more "constructed from the start" to support slavery than the US Constitution was. Remember what I said about you repeating quotes that do not support your claims or address the arguments because you have nothing else? That was a prime example.
I couldn't care less what they said. Their actions proved otherwise. Of course you'll retreat to your "but they offered abolition in return for military aid", which they never did.
Remember your very first statement claiming that I was the one ignoring the statements and policies of the Confederacy? This is what shrinks call "projection". It is you who has done that all along. You just did it here yet again.
But there were Southerners who were against slavery. Over 100,000 able bodied white men left the South to join the Union Army. Add to them the abolitionists who you refer to as terrorists. I never pinned slavery on the entire South. It is you who are doing exactly that by pinning them to the Confederacy, which to most is almost synonymous with slavery. I'm sure the Democrats appreciate your efforts in freeing them from their slave holding past.
You assume every Southerner who opted to fight for the union did so because of the issue of slavery. You of course have zero evidence to support that assumption and judging from popular sentiments at the time, it is a ridiculous assumption. As for abolitionists, SOME were terrorists or terrorist supporters. For example John Brown and his financial backers were certainly terrorists and murderers. I did not say all abolitionists were terrorists or terrorist supporters though. Next, I did not pin slavery on the Confederacy or try to. It is you and your fellow Leftist PC Revisionists who have always tried to do that. Falsely.
Which as you have already admitted would not have given slavery any protections it didn't already have anyway.
It would have expressly made slavery irrevocable. Had protection of slavery been their big concern, this would have addressed that concern. Yet they turned it down. Obviously their big concern was not protecting slavery.
repeats snipped.
Once again, you have nothing to refute the historical FACT that the Upper South seceded only AFTER Lincoln chose to start an unconstitutional war of aggression for money and power. You just repeat the same old quotes that do not address the argument.
I never said it was about independence. I'll let the Confederacy tell you what it was about.
I'm glad you did.
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).
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
[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 Causes: “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……”
Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett: "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/
Those links contain a lot more than "3 quotes".
I posted a lot more than 3 quotes....and mine were actually directly about the subject - namely why the Southern states seceded and what they were fighting for. Hint, it wasn't slavery.
Years after he said they should, and for the reason he gave.
He explicitly said they had not seceded over the issue of slavery. The original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South seceded only after Lincoln chose war. As Confederate President he gained the consent of Congress to appoint an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to abolish slavery. All of these quotes and facts directly refute the claim that secession or the war were "about" slavery on the South's part. We know it wasn't about that on the North's part. They were perfectly willing to protect slavery forever.
And you're defending the Confederacy? Oh, I forgot. You aren't defending the Confederacy. You're accepting its legacy on behalf of Republicans.
I'm righting the record....refuting the false claim that either secession or the war were "about" slavery. They were not.
Now that was a good question, but it doesn't refute the fact that the states that did secede did so to preserve slavery, especially when they said so themselves.
Except they didn't - and they said so themselves.
No, only that they understood they couldn't abolish it under the current framework, which they changed as soon as they had the votes, only 11 years after the Republican party was formed. Pretty impressive.,/p>
No. They didn't even try earlier. They openly and repeatedly said they weren't interested. They offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
Is the following leftist propaganda? Repeats snipped
No. They are things that do not prove your false claim that either secession or the war were "about" slavery.
on allowing Blacks to serve in the Confederate Army....repeats snipped
Yet we know that thousands and thousands of Blacks DID serve in the Confederate Army including in combat roles and that they did so right from the start. Furthermore we know that Robert E Lee, President Jefferson Davis and several others in the Confederate high command supported Blacks being able to serve in the Confederate Army.
The chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission, Dr. Lewis Steiner, reported that he saw about 3,000 well-armed black Confederate soldiers in Stonewall Jackson’s army in Frederick, Maryland, and that those soldiers were "manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Said Steiner,
“Wednesday, September 10--At four o'clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o'clock P.M., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. (Report of Lewis H. Steiner, New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1862, pp. 10-11)
In obedience to these orders, at about 11 o'clock I advanced with these two regiments forward through the wood, under a severe fire of shell, grape, and canister. I encountered their skirmishers when near the farther edge of the wood. Allow me to state that the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes. (Report of Col. Peter H. Allabach, 131st Pennsylvania Infantry, commanding Second Brigade, in Official Records, Volume XXV, in Two Parts, 1889, Chap. 37, Part I – Reports, p. 555, emphasis added)
A telegram from New Orleans dated November 23, 1S61, notes the review by Gov. Moore of over 28,000 troops, and that one regiment comprised "1,400 colored men." The New Orleans Picayune, referring to a review held February 9, 1862, says: "We must also pay a deserved compliment to the companies of free colored men, all very well drilled and comfortably equipped." (Christian A. Fleetwood, The Negro as a Soldier, Washington, D.C.: Howard University Print, 1895, pp. 5-6, emphasis added)
There are 3 eyewitness examples. We both know I can cite many many more.
It speaks for itself, so the only question is, do we accept this legacy as our legacy. Your answer on behalf of Conservatives is yes.
res ipsa loquitor indeed. The legacy of slavery IS part of America's legacy. On behalf of all Americans the answer is yes. We have to admit to the bad as well as the good when it is manifestly part of our history. We need to acknowledge it and discuss it honestly instead of clinging to laughable wartime propaganda and trying to twist history to score political points today as Leftist PC Revisionists have been doing since the 1980s.
Repeats snipped
Here is but a sample showing it was not....
If you're going to cite Alexander Stephens for his cornerstone speech, then what do you say about this?
"If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity." -Alexander Stephens
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA
"I love the Union and the Constitution,'' he said, ``but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." Jefferson Davis
All of that is in addition to the economic causes such as the tariff and grossly unequal federal expenditures we've gone over numerous times before. The South bitterly opposed the federal government's usurpation of powers the states never delegated to it. They opposed centralized power. That was a major cause of secession along with their unending economic exploitation by large Northern financial interests.
No they weren't. They did just the opposite when they wrote their Constitution, and never reversed it although they offered to.
Yes they were. The offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid. They were willing to offer emancipation for Black men as well as their families in exchange for military service. Slavery was something they were quite prepared to give up in order to gain independence.
They knew how the nations they were asking for help from saw slavery, so it's not as if they were products of their time and couldn't see the evil in what they were doing. Just the opposite, they clung to a previous time that the rest of the western world was already turning away from.,/P>
SOME of the Western World had turned away from chattel slavery. Some had not. Neither the US nor the CSA were the last countries in the West to have slavery. That they offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid and that they original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment conclusively show that keeping slavery was not what they were fighting for.
I know, but the North still blah blah blah. That was a few states who fought on the same side as over 100,000 ecaped slaves from the South.,/p>
The Union kept slavery. It should have abolished it from the start according to YOUR own logic. But of course, the Republicans were not interested in doing so and the public did not support abolition until very late in the war.
Repeats snipped
As I said, Jeffersonian Democrats wanted limited government, decentralized power and balanced budgets. You have nothing to refute that with.
I couldn't care less what they said or how many quotes you can post, so I won't ask you to waste your time and FR bandwidth posting them. Their own official documents and their own Constitution, along with the fact that they wouldn't abolish slavery even as they desparately offered to in return for military aid, tells me what their real goals were.
You don't care about the quotes because they destroy your argument. Their own constitution was hardly different from the US Constitution on the issue of slavery. The fact that they offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid and the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment tell us all what their real goals were - and it wasn't preservation of slavery.
No assumptions needed. They didn't ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, even under the threat of secession and war, and even though they had the time to do so. They did, repeat DID, ratify Abolition.
False. You simply ASSUME they would never ratify the Corwin Amendment aka the North's Slavery Forever amendment even though you have zero evidence for it. Why? because its a very convenient assumption on your part. No other reason.
I never admitted that. Just the opposite, I said it didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have under the US Constitution. If you're charging the US Constitution with protecting slavery, I say guilty as charged.
But you've argued they couldn't get rid of slavery under the US Constitution. That is your excuse for them not abolishing slavery earlier. The Corwin Amendment made it explicit that slavery would be protected. Yet the original 7 seceding states turned it down. Damned inconvenient fact for you.
But if the Corbomite Maneuver had been ratified WHICH IT WASN'T, the same representatives who had voted to pass abolition would have to vote for repealing the Corbomite Maneuver, and the same states who voted to ratify abolition would have had to vote to repeal the Corbomite Maneuver. If the Corbomite Maneuver had passed, it would have only made it harder to pass abolition, but it didn't pass so it did nothing anyway.
Let's do the basic math shall we? What does it take to get a constitutional amendment? The ratios needed are 2/3rds, 2/3rds and 3/4ths. Fact: 15 states still allowed slavery. Ergo if these 15 states refused to ratify a constitutional amendment, it would take 45 states ratifying it to pass it. But wait! 15+45 = 60. That's more states by a whopping TEN than are even in the country today.
Ergo the Corwin Amendment could not have been repealed. It would have meant slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Everybody could do basic math back then too. Everybody understood the Corwin Amendment meant slavery forever back then too. The original 7 seceding states turned it down.
While I don't disagree that racism was still a problem in the North, not all ran all the way to Canada, and that does nothing to refute my point that over 100,000 escaped slaves joined the Union Army.,/p>
Sure. As casualties mounted, Lincoln was desperate to find more cannon fodder. He was happy to have Blacks to serve in this role. Many joined voluntarily. Some were forced into service involuntarily.
That's just another way of blaming the North for the fact that Confederate soldiers were more willing to kill black soldiers than white soldiers. Never mind that escaped slaves joined the Union military, as opposed to the Confederacy forcing their slaves to work as servants for their army.
Woah! Several false claims here. Confederate soldiers were perfectly happy to kill White Yankees invading their land and did so on a mass scale. There were plenty of Blacks - some of them slavers - who fought in the Confederate Army too. You say they "forced" their slaves to work as servants. Some did. Then again, that was also true of the Union army.
While some Yanks treated contrabands with a degree of equity and benevolence, the more typical response was indifference, contempt, and cruelty. Soon after Union forces captured Port Royal, South Carolina, in November 1861, a private described an incident there that made him 'ashamed of America': 'About 8-10 soldiers from the New York 47th chased some Negro women but they escaped, so they took a Negro girl about 7-9 years old, and raped her.' From Virginia a Connecticut soldier wrote that some men of his regiment had taken 'two nigger wenches [women] . . . turned them upon their heads, and put tobacco, chips, sticks, lighted cigars and sand into their behinds.' Even when Billy Yank welcomed the contrabands, he often did so from utilitarian rather than humanitarian motives. 'Officers and men are having an easy time,' wrote a Maine soldier from occupied Louisiana in 1862. 'We have Negroes to do all fatigue work, cooking and washing clothes.'" (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 497)
The readers and FR can decide for themselves.
Correct! They were. That doesn't make their tactics laudable. But it also does not ignore the fact that they didn't suddenly appear for no reason or that the other side was blameless. That was not the case. There was terrorism, violence and massive theft inflicted on the White Southern population coming from the Union side. (Congressman Fernando Wood, "Alleged Ku Klux Outrages" published by the Congressional Globe Printing Office, 1871, p. 5). The report continued that when southern whites saw that "what little they had saved from the ravages of war was being confiscated by taxation . . . many of them took the law into their own hands and did deeds of violence . . . . history shows that bad government will make bad citizens."
Lincoln, as has been pointed out by many and acknowledged by myself, had to deal with many attitudes to keep the North together. He frequently had to talk out of both sides of his mouth, but the side that spoke abolition was the side that was made into law.
There is nothing to support any claim that Lincoln was talking out of both sides of his mouth....nothing that would suggest he did not mean it when he said he was perfectly willing to strengthen fugitive slave laws and protect slavery in the states that still allowed it.
Lincoln may have talked about supporting these laws to audiences who wanted to hear it, but none of them were passed. In fact, your whole case has been built on laws that were never passed.
Why were those laws and constitutional amendments not passed? BECAUSE THE SOUTHERN STATES REJECTED HIS OFFERS AND LEFT! Once they were gone, it was a moot point. Lincoln didn't bother trying to push those laws to be enacted any more.
Due to the "black codes" which were the Democrat's failed attempt at keeping their slave labor after slavery was abolished by the Republicans.
Due to the Black Codes that were on the books and enforced in the Northern states. White Southerners didn't force Blacks to stay. White Northerners refused to allow them to come.
Look, just because you found a book that says what you want to hear, the rest of us aren't obligated to accept the author's conclusions as proof of anything. I could post links defending Stalin and Hitler, but just because someone can cherry pick the facts to defend them, that doesn't obligate the rest of us to accept their conclusions.
So before I consider your examples, I want more details about the book "A History of the South". Who wrote it and when. I want to review its credibility and confirm you aren't posting anything out of context before addressing any of its claims. For example:
It wasn't just one book. Read the numerous quotes and sources at www.slavenorth.com. That compiles several sources nicely. The Black Codes were still on the books in the Northern states. White Northerners were extremely racist and did not want Blacks living among them. They would not permit them to come and tried to drive out the few who lived there. The "great migration" did not start until they relaxed their overtly racist ethnic cleansing Black Codes in the 1890s.
Here's the entire speech, for context. That was about all I was able to verify. Show me where any of those other claims are supported by sources other than some book that says what you want to hear, and we'll talk.
LOL! I've posted numerous quotes and sources about the disenfranchisement of most White Southerners, the massive corruption of the Occupation Governments and how newly freed and relatively unsophisticated former slaves were used as pawns for corrupt Northern White carpetbaggers to help them steal on a massive scale in the South. When the Occupation collapsed after 12 years as it was always going to, it left Blacks stuck in the South with a White population that was now extremely pissed off at them - which poisoned race relations for a long long time.
For the record, I'm not saying any of the racist laws or the horrible treatment they received afterward was justified. I'm saying it did not come from nowhere....and its not just the case that White Southerners are inherently so much more hateful or wicked than anybody else. When studying history and historical events, you can't ignore context. White Northerners played a huge role in creating the South's problems after the war. You can't just ignore that.
As for the dollar amounts, yes, the war devastated the South so of course budgets ballooned.
That's not why budgets ballooned. Look at what they were spending money on. Look at all the property they stole levying extremely high taxes on a devastated region that could not afford those taxes.....and then look at how they stole most of the tax money and threw people off of their family land for nonpayment of the crushingly high taxes.
Besides, am I supposed to feel sorry for a country that wrote this into their Constitution? repeats snipped.
A few things. As we've discussed the US Constitution did not differ on the issue of slavery. So the same argument could be used to oppress anybody in the US by that logic. Secondly, you think it OK to oppress and steal from individuals because you don't like the policies of the governments that are over them? Do you like all the policies of the current US Government? So would it be OK to oppress and steal from you by that logic?
I know you're going to come back with "But the US Constitution also blah blah blah" and it was, but that was inherited by the Republican leadership who changed it when they got the votes they needed. OTOH, the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up with these protections from their contemporary leadership.
The Confederacy inherited the legacy of the 13 colonies and the War of Independence (aka Secession) and the US Constitution just as surely as those states that remained in the Union. Its laughable to try to blame them for not imposing wrenching change on day 1 while simultaneously excusing the Northern states for doing the same. Oh, and of course the Republicans were not interested in abolishing slavery until very late in the war and they openly said so many many times.
Why FR is allowing you to waste their bandwidth defending the Democrats on this is beyond me, but here you are.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slaveryin reference to that property...
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.
Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.
From Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; (How awful!)
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
From Texas
They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture... (And this is a bad thing?)
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
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.
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?"
Repeat of claims that the slave holding states didn't secede over slavery snipped.
They (the Republicans) didn't even try (to abolish slavery). They said openly and repeatedly that they were not interested.
From Georgia.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...
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. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
From South Carolina
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
Repeats snipped.
That's called slavery. That's not a breeding program.
Selling them and forcing them to work is slavery. Having them reproduce in a closed environment and selling their children as one would sell farm animals is a breeding program.
Yep. The Confederate Constitution was hardly different from the US Constitution on the matter of slavery. It was not more "constructed from the start" to support slavery than the US Constitution was. Remember what I said about you repeating quotes that do not support your claims or address the arguments because you have nothing else? That was a prime example.
The Confederacy's Constitution was written and approved by the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy, so yes it was written from the ground up to protect slavery.
Remember your very first statement claiming that I was the one ignoring the statements and policies of the Confederacy? This is what shrinks call "projection". It is you who has done that all along. You just did it here yet again.
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
You assume every Southerner who opted to fight for the union did so because of the issue of slavery. You of course have zero evidence to support that assumption and judging from popular sentiments at the time, it is a ridiculous assumption.
You haven't offered any viable alternatives.
As for abolitionists, SOME were terrorists or terrorist supporters. For example John Brown and his financial backers were certainly terrorists and murderers.
According to the residents of Dresden, so were the allied bombers.
Next, I did not pin slavery on the Confederacy or try to.
We'll see an example of you doing just that shortly.
It is you and your fellow Leftist PC Revisionists who have always tried to do that. Falsely.
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
Repeat of spam of Hitler claiming in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939, I mean, the Confederates claiming secession wasn't about slavery snipped.
I couldn't care less about what the Confederates said about how it wasn't about slavery or what their accusations against the North were. I have their own statements and actions to show me what secession was really about.
If you want to read about what they really meant with their accusations against the North, allow me.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States - From Georgia
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
That tells me everything I need to know about what the slave holding states' motivations were, and that they would go to "the last extremity" including lying to save slavery. They said so themselves. What else do I need to read?
If you're intelligent enough to read the statement above from their own documents, then I have done you the favor of saving you from having to post any more Confederate propaganda. You're welcome.
I posted a lot more than 3 quotes....and mine were actually directly about the subject - namely why the Southern states seceded and what they were fighting for. Hint, it wasn't slavery.
From Georgia, "That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity."
Repeat snipped.
The original 7 seceding states turned down nothing.
Yet we know that thousands and thousands of Blacks DID serve in the Confederate Army...
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
The legacy of slavery IS part of America's legacy. On behalf of all Americans the answer is yes. We have to admit to the bad as well as the good when it is manifestly part of our history.
Yes this nation has a legacy of slavery, but it also has a legacy of abolishing the slavery it inherited from its previous generations. Whose side do you identify with?
Wait, I forgot, leftist plant. You're siding with the slave owners on our behalf. No thanks.
We need to acknowledge it and discuss it honestly instead of clinging to laughable wartime propaganda and trying to twist history to score political points today as Leftist PC Revisionists have been doing since the 1980s.
Sure, let's do that.
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
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.
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?"
If you're going to cite Alexander Stephens for his cornerstone speech, then what do you say about this?
What do I need to say?
Yes they were. The offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid. They were willing to offer emancipation for Black men as well as their families in exchange for military service. Slavery was something they were quite prepared to give up in order to gain independence.
Once again you build your case on policies that were never ratified.
SOME of the Western World had turned away from chattel slavery. Some had not. Neither the US nor the CSA were the last countries in the West to have slavery.
So what? They clearly knew how slavery looked to the countries they were trying to get military aid from, or they wouldn't have pretended to offer it in return for military aid.
The Union kept slavery. It should have abolished it from the start according to YOUR own logic. But of course, the Republicans were not interested in doing so and the public did not support abolition until very late in the war.
So now you're circling back to that. As Frederick Douglas said, "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
At least the Republicans followed through when they did have the votes, something the Confederacy never did on its own.
As I said, Jeffersonian Democrats wanted limited government, decentralized power and balanced budgets. You have nothing to refute that with.
On the contrary, I agreed with you. They wanted a limited to government and decentralized power to prevent it from abolishing slavery.
As for the balanced budget, did they include budgeting for a war to, do what? Take it away, Confederate leadership.
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
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.
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?"
From Georgia, "That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity."
You don't care about the quotes because they destroy your argument.
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
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.
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?"
From Georgia, "That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity."
False. You simply ASSUME they would never ratify the Corwin Amendment aka the North's Slavery Forever amendment even though you have zero evidence for it. Why?
Because they had the time to ratify it and didn't, even with the threat of secession and civil war. Those are the FACTS, so no assumptions are needed.
But you've argued they couldn't get rid of slavery under the US Constitution. That is your excuse for them not abolishing slavery earlier.
I don't excuse anything. I've stated several times that not everyone in the North was on board with abolition, and Lincoln and the Republicans had to work with that. Until the Republicans won enough seats from the Democrats they couldn't. I've said it. Frederick Douglas said it. Yet you keep regurgitating this as is I was saying the exact opposite. Which is understandable, since you can't refute what I'm actually saying.
The Corwin Amendment made it explicit that slavery would be protected. Yet the original 7 seceding states turned it down. Damned inconvenient fact for you.
The Corbomite Maneuver didn't make anything, because it was never ratified.
Let's do the basic math shall we? What does it take to get a constitutional amendment? The ratios needed are 2/3rds, 2/3rds and 3/4ths. Fact: 15 states still allowed slavery. Ergo if these 15 states refused to ratify a constitutional amendment, it would take 45 states ratifying it to pass it. But wait! 15+45 = 60. That's more states by a whopping TEN than are even in the country today. Ergo the Corwin Amendment could not have been repealed. It would have meant slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Everybody could do basic math back then too. Everybody understood the Corwin Amendment meant slavery forever back then too. The original 7 seceding states turned it down.
Once again, you build your case around a policy that was NEVER ratified, but let's run with it. You just admitted the South would not have freed the slaves without the CW. If you're correct, that only proves that secession and the CW were about preserving slavery.
Posts like this are why I suspect you are a leftist plant. On one hand you say the South was the cradle of modern conservatism, but then you say the South would not have voted to abolish slavery. Anyone who accepts you as a true Conservative would take that to mean the cradle of Conservatism would not have abolished slavery if not forced by defeat to do so.
Sure. As casualties mounted, Lincoln was desperate to find more cannon fodder. He was happy to have Blacks to serve in this role. Many joined voluntarily.
Fighting for Freedom, Black Union Soldiers of the Civil War
Some were forced into service involuntarily.
They served heroically, not as slaves forced to serve as what happened in the Democrat run Confederacy.
There is nothing to support any claim that Lincoln was talking out of both sides of his mouth....nothing that would suggest he did not mean it when he said he was perfectly willing to strengthen fugitive slave laws and protect slavery in the states that still allowed it.
Except for the inconvenient facts that the policies you attribute to him were never made law while abolition was. As usual, you build your case around policies that were never ratified while ignoring policies that were.
Due to the Black Codes that were on the books and enforced in the Northern states. White Southerners didn't force Blacks to stay. White Northerners refused to allow them to come.
Is that why the black population grew at a slightly higher rate than the white population?
It wasn't just one book. Read the numerous quotes and sources at www.slavenorth.com.
I'm not reading any more of your one sided garbage. If you have a point to make from it then post it.
Besides, I haven't made the point that all of the North was on the right side of this issue anyway. I know they had racists and supporters of slavery, and I haven't excused any of them. On the contrary, I have admitted Lincoln and the Republicans had to deal with them.
As you said "Yes Republicans often did not pass these". I know the North wasn't clean when it came to either slavery or racism, but that does nothing to refute the Confederacy's own point that secession was about slavery.
Repeat snipped.
That's not why budgets ballooned. Look at what they were spending money on. Look at all the property they stole levying extremely high taxes on a devastated region that could not afford those taxes.....and then look at how they stole most of the tax money and threw people off of their family land for nonpayment of the crushingly high taxes....A few things. As we've discussed the US Constitution did not differ on the issue of slavery. So the same argument could be used to oppress anybody in the US by that logic. Secondly, you think it OK to oppress and steal from individuals because you don't like the policies of the governments that are over them? Do you like all the policies of the current US Government? So would it be OK to oppress and steal from you by that logic?
So all of the money was stolen and none went to rebuilding. OK got it.
The Confederacy inherited the legacy of the 13 colonies and the War of Independence (aka Secession) and the US Constitution just as surely as those states that remained in the Union.
Bull. The Confederacy's Constitution was written by the contemporary leaders to preserve slavery.
Its laughable to try to blame them for not imposing wrenching change on day 1 while simultaneously excusing the Northern states for doing the same.
I don't excuse the North, but it took the Republicans only 11 years after their founding to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification.
Oh, and of course the Republicans were not interested in abolishing slavery until very late in the war and they openly said so many many times.
From Georgia, "That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity."
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.