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

The North losing would be the South conquering and occupying the NORTH

So then the colonists did not win their revolution because even though they achieved their independence and became a separate and sovereign nation they did not conquer and occupy the United Kingdom?

GB didn’t lose. The colonial army fought the Brits to a stalemate and achieved their goals. 80+ years later the CSA tried and failed to do the EXACT SAME THING.

That depends on the circumstances. I won't unsay anything I have said about the Democrats running the Confederacy, but it's clear we can't live with the leftists because they hate us and want to destroy us.

Heck, they tried to destroy a president who was trying to bring their jobs back. What does that tell you about them? I mean besides the fact they can't see beyond their own hatred.

Of course you wasted no time posting my comments out of context. Here's my exact statement.

They didn't have any time, in the sense that secession was already happening and a civil war was coming. If they were going to pass this, they would have in the same amount of time that the five states did. They didn't. Your could haves and ifs don't prove anything.

Anybody who looks at the passage of any constitutional amendment ever passed will notice that it took time and not all the states that eventually passed it did so immediately.

Post all of the alternate realities you want. The fact remains that they all had the same amount of time to ratify the law as the five states that did, if they had intended to. They didn't.

See above statement. States have in many cases taken YEARS to ratify proposed constitutional amendments. The fact that they did not ratify these amendments immediately does not mean they never would have contrary to your claims.

Why FR allows you to waste their bandwidth defending Leftist big government supporters like this is beyond me. But here you are again:

To summarize your latest posting of the same old talking points, the Democrats said slavery would be abolished at some point, the Democrats said they were willing to abolish slavery, and they had other grievences against the North besides abolition.

Why FR allows you to waste bandwidth posting false Leftist talking points is beyond me. Regardless, you of course falsely mischaracterized what I said. I said many Southerners knew slavery was on the way out. During the war, the CSA not only said but took concrete steps to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery in exchange for military aid. And I said the Southern states main grievances against the Northern states were over tariffs and government expenditures, not over slavery. The latter was merely something they could cite to correctly argue that it was the Northern states which had violated the constitution.

My answers are, I don't believe what the Democrats said no matter how many times you post them, JD never made good on his offer to abolish slavery, and snipped

My counter answer is it does not matter what you personally believe. The irrefutable facts are that the CSA took concrete steps to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery and

"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

As for the comments from Senator Robert Toombs and Robert Barnwell Rhett, both were Democrats who were also slave owners and who defended the institution of slavery. Why should I care what either of them had to say?

Why should anybody care what you have to say since you support Leftist PC Revisionism? The fact of the matter is that both clearly articulated the economic grievances the Southern states had as a primary motivation for secession.

OBTW, Robert Barnwell Rhett accused the Confederate government of centralizing measures that infringed on states' rights, and opposed arming slaves and offering them freedom. So much for most of your drivel, but that won't stop you from posting it again.

And? He was against centralized power and thought the Confederate government did that too much. OK. So what? He was against arming slaves and offering them emancipation in exchange for their military service. That was done anyway. He was the father of secession. Nobody said he exercised a lot of political power once the Southern states seceded.

They only said so in their platform in 1858 and followed through in 1864 and 1865.

False. They were distinctly not in favor of abolition and said so many times prior to very late in the war. You've already posted that lie many times and I've already debunked it many times.

Southern slaveholding states. That word defines the whole context of their comments.,/P>

No it doesn't.

The states that were willing to advertise they were fighting to preserve slavery laid out their case for why it was threatened. Their actions showed they meant it.

Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. 3 of them went on at length about their economic grievances even though these were not unconstitutional and refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned it down. Its clear they were not fighting over slavery - which was never threatened in the US.

,i>Mommy, TwelveOfTwenty called me Hitler again. Make him stop.

More like LOL! This person with the emotional intelligence of a grade schooler insists everybody who disagrees with him is just like Hitler. Typical Leftist.

Now, now little FLT-Bird, we have to accept that the Democrats deliberately and explicitly protected slavery in their Constitution when they formed the Confederacy, much like Hitler passed laws to oppress Jews and other minorities he didn't like. If you want him to stop, you'll need to stop pretending the Democrats weren't defending slavery.

Well little twelveoftwenty we have to accept that the Confederate Constitution did not differ from the US constitution on the issue of slavery. Oh and we must point out that Hitler agreed with Lincoln in supporting centralized power, rejecting states' rights and in waging wars of aggression for money and empire.

I could see your point if we were talking about the Founding Fathers, but by the 1860s most of the states had already abolished slavery at the state level. Furthermore, by offering to abolish slavery in return for military aid, JD showed he could clearly see how his institution looked to others. So much for your "product of their time" excuses.

LOL! So it was OK in 1776 but not OK in 1860 because....ummm....reasons. So therefore its OK to admire the grandfathers who seceded from the British Empire but we must condemn the grandsons who seceded from the American Empire. By the way....many of the Northern states only very slowly abolished slavery with a few slaves still being present in New York as of the 1860 US census, Connecticut not abolishing slavery until 1854, New Jersey still having "apprentices for life" who were not free to leave as of 1860, etc. President Davis offered to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery if it would help gain mostly British military aid - Britain having abolished slavery in 1838. So all these others you laud for having abolished slavery either had not really done so yet or had done so only very recently by 1860.

They never did either, and ultimately went the other way and abolished slavery once they had the votes. Once again you rely on policies that were never ratified, made to a divided nation, to make your point, while ignoring the one policy that was ratified.

Once again you ignore the fact that the Corwin Amendment was only not ratified and fugitive slave laws only not strengthened precisely because the original 7 seceding states rejected them. Then you fall back on your usual ex post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. eg "Well the fact that they did something in 1866 means they would have done it in 1860." LOL! False.

They were trying to walk the line between the abolitionists who were growing impatient, and avoiding secession and a civil war. Once that became moot, they abolished slavery outright as soon as they had the votes.

The abolitionists were a tiny minority whose candidates could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in elections. They were perfectly willing to tolerate slavery so long as they kept getting a big fat piece of the profits.

repeats snipped

On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."

"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton

[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

"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter "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

Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:

“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day.

Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”

The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them...It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." -General Patrick Cleburne

Finally South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" wrote the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

"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

On the books maybe, but as absolute dictators their (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) word was law.

No argument, but murder was not as a matter of fact, legal in those countries.

repeats snipped

Once again you have failed to demonstrate that there was a breeding program for slaves. You have only demonstrated that there were slaves - which was never in dispute.

Were they reproducing in a closed environment? Yes. Were their children sold as chattel or used as beasts of burden? Yes. Will FLT-Bird waste more bandwidth trying to get around all of this? You betcha.

Were they slaves? Yes. Was there any kind of widespread program designed to control and maximize breeding in order to produce certain characteristics in the offspring? No. Will twelveoftwenty continue to try to weasel and falsely equate captivity/slavery with a captive breeding program? You betcha!

FLT-Bird, unable to post actual numbers, reposted all of the snippets from his sources.

twelveoftwenty, unable to refute arguments posts the same 3 or so sources every time in answer to practically every thing no matter how irrelevant they are to the point being discussed.

I know thousands of blacks served in the Confederacy's military. What is in dispute is how many thousands. What isn't in dispute is that the number of blacks who served for the Confederates was less than 1/10, and less than 1/5 the number of escaped slaves, who served in the Union military. Do you have an answer for that, or will you fall back to reposting the same snippets from your favorite books?

I'll point out that you are once again trying to move the goal posts. You said there were no or hardly any Black Confederates. You were once again, wrong.

My point is that who you see as terrorists, I see as freedom fighters. Two of the three you label terrorists were slaves who rebelled against their masters.

"freedom fighters" like those who murdered an unarmed Black man as their first victim when they raided Harper's Ferry? "freedom fighters" like John Brown who took 3 innocent men sitting at home with their families away at gunpoint and then hacked them to death with a sword?

It's always a tragedy when innocent people and children are killed, but it's the people who are committing the injustices who are at fault.

And while the freedom fighters you call terrorists were fighting for their freedom, the slave holding states were killing them and condemning children to slavery. It's not hard to see who the real terrorists were.

How about Nat Turner? Was he a "freedom fighter" too? "One of the most troubling aspects of the Southampton Revolt of 1831 was the killing of children. As a contemporary observer put it, “whole families, father, mother, daughters, sons, sucking babes, and school children” were “butchered, thrown into heaps, and left to be devoured by hogs and dogs, or to putrify on the spot. Ten children under the age of five died in the rebellion. Seventeen children under the age of 10 were murdered.

These were terrorists. They were not seeking freedom. They were looking to and did commit murder of innocent people.

It was much more than a political cause. It was an attempt to eliminate an injustice (to put it mildly) that the nation had allowed for far too long.

I've never denied it was a political cause at the time. I've pointed out - correctly - that it enjoyed very little popular support prior to very late in the war.

What does how much history anyone has read have to do with knowing who McPherson is?

If you had read much about this subject, you would have known who he is. You not knowing is a tell.

He needs to go no further than to read the Confederacy's own documents and Constitution to see it was about preserving slavery.

He needs to read the numerous newspaper editorials, statements by Southern political leaders, and rejection of the Corwin amendment by the seceding states to see it was not about preserving something that was not threatened in the US anyway.

As for the "virtuous North", I'm not making the claim that everyone in the North was with the good guys, so stop with that strawman.

The North was not fighting to end slavery.

repeats snipped

On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."

"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton

[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

"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter "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

Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:

“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”

The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them...It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." -General Patrick Cleburne Finally South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" wrote the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

"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

That was what much of the country thought, sad to say. The platform said "all persons", and they backed it by abolishing slavery just seven years later.

They were not abolitionists and took great pains to make that clear in public and in private and never said anything to the contrary. The fact that they later changed their minds on the subject does not mean this is what they thought earlier.

They didn't have the votes because the party was only eight years old in 1864, and had to win over a country that was divided on this issue. You talk about how slow the states were to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, but then you expect instant results when it suits your narrative.

They didn't have the votes because they themselves would not have voted for it until very late in the war. They were not abolitionists and said so many many times prior to the war and even in the early years of the war.

But then again, as a leftist plant, that's how you're trying to make Conservatives look isn't it?

The Leftist plant here is you. You're the one who is pushing Leftist PC Revisionist dogma. You're the one pushing the "all about slavery" myth, denigrating states' rights, glorifying centralized power, etc etc.

Anybody who looks at the passage of any constitutional amendment ever passed will notice that it took time and not all the states that eventually passed it did so immediately.

And anybody who reads history knows that the circumstances were more urgent than business as usual, and the rest of the states had the same amount of time to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver as the five that did. They didn't, and none of your alternate realities can refute that.

Why FR allows you to waste bandwidth posting false Leftist talking points is beyond me.

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?"

Regardless, you of course falsely mischaracterized what I said.

I was commenting on the comments from other sources you posted. As to your comments, let us see shall we?

I said many Southerners knew slavery was on the way out.

And many who allegedly saw this did everything they could to preserve it, including deliberately writing their Constitution to protect it.

I know you'll circle back to "but they just copied the Constitution", but they could have left the explicit protections out. That would have given them the leeway later to abolish slavery, if they ever intended to. We know they didn't, because they deliberately added those protections and never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so.

The irrefutable facts are that the CSA took concrete steps to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery

False! The irrefutable facts are that they talked the talk but never made good on their offer, even as their existence depended on it. In fact it was just the opposite, as we shall read again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again).

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?"

and

More bull from a New Orleans newspaper snipped.

So what?

Repeats snipped.

And? He was against centralized power and thought the Confederate government did that too much. OK. So what? He was against arming slaves and offering them emancipation in exchange for their military service. That was done anyway. He was the father of secession. Nobody said he exercised a lot of political power once the Southern states seceded.

That didn't stop you from posting his comments as if he was a credible witness. As a Democrat and a slave owner, any real Conservative would give him the credibility he deserves - zero.

False. They were distinctly not in favor of abolition and said so many times prior to very late in the war. You've already posted that lie many times and I've already debunked it many times.

You haven't debunked anything. You've just posted a bunch of comments made to a divided nation. Anyone with any knowledge of history understands what the environment was at the time and the different factions the Republicans had to deal with. In fact, you've posted commentary on it yourself, but you just can't connect the dots.

No it doesn't.

The word slaveholding in the text "and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States." absolutely does set the context. If they didn't mean to say it was about slavery, they could have left that out or said "agricultural" or something else to establish the context. They made it clear what it was about by what they said.

Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. 3 of them went on at length about their economic grievances even though these were not unconstitutional and refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned it down. Its clear they were not fighting over slavery - which was never threatened in the US.

They were offered nothing. The states refused to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, even though they had the same amount of time as the five that did ratify it. As to the rest of your rant:

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 slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in 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.

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 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;

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...

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.

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.

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 the Confederacy's Constitution, written by the contemporary leaders of the Confederacy.

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.

FLT-Bird, completely unable to refute the point that Hitler's actions like slavery were legal, instead replied "More like LOL! This person with the emotional intelligence of a grade schooler insists everybody who disagrees with him is just like Hitler. Typical Leftist."

I didn't call you Hitler. In reply to your comment that the slave holding states had a legal justification for seceding because their Constitutionally protected rights to own slaves were violated, I pointed out that everything Hitler did was legal too. Do you have a response to that, or are you going to keep crying to your mommy instead?

Well little twelveoftwenty we have to accept that the Confederate Constitution did not differ from the US constitution on the issue of slavery.

Thank you mother, but the big difference is those explicit protections were written into the confederacy's Constitution from the people who founded the Confederacy, while the Republicans inherited those protections and ultimately abolished them.

Oh and we must point out that Hitler agreed with Lincoln in supporting centralized power rejecting states' rights

Nonsense. Lincoln stood for and delivered abolition on the national level. The Democrats in the North called slavery a states' rights issue when they tried to stop it.

and in waging wars of aggression for money and empire.

If you're referring to the Civil War, 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."

Also,

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 referring to the expansion, Lincoln never lived to carry that out, and anyone taking advantage of what freedoms we still have is a party to that. That includes the virtue signaling lefties who talk about the atrocities but take advantage of the freedoms they have to live comfortable lives.

You know the kind, who are trying to stick the Republicans with the Democrats' slave holding past. Like you.

LOL! So it was OK in 1776 but not OK in 1860 because....ummm....reasons.

As usual you can't tell the truth about what I said. You were the one who defended the Confederate leaders as being products of their time. My reply was "I could see your point if we were talking about the Founding Fathers, but by the 1860s most of the states had already abolished slavery at the state level. Furthermore, by offering to abolish slavery in return for military aid, JD showed he could clearly see how his institution looked to others. So much for your "product of their time" excuses." Take that in the context of the point I was replying to if you don't mind.

I never said it was OK in 1776, only that your "product of their time" defense would make more sense in 1776 than it would in 1860. IIRC, you made that defense yourself. JD could see this as you keep proving, but instead led his new nation into war to preserve slavery.

Let me save you some time. "But JD and the Confederacy weren't fighting to preserve 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?"

By the way....many of the Northern states only very slowly abolished slavery with a few slaves still being present in New York as of the 1860 US census, Connecticut not abolishing slavery until 1854, New Jersey still having "apprentices for life" who were not free to leave as of 1860, etc.

Moot point, since I'm not saying everyone in the North was the good guys.

President Davis offered to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery if it would help gain mostly British military aid - Britain having abolished slavery in 1838.

An offer he never made good on.

So all these others you laud for having abolished slavery either had not really done so yet or had done so only very recently by 1860.

Which is totally irrelevant because the 1850s and 1860s are the era we're discussing.

Once again you ignore the fact that the Corwin Amendment was only not ratified and fugitive slave laws only not strengthened precisely because the original 7 seceding states rejected them. Then you fall back on your usual ex post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. eg "Well the fact that they did something in 1866 means they would have done it in 1860." LOL! False.

I've answered your nonsense about the Corbomite Maneuver above. As far as not voting to abolish slavery prior to 1865, the Republicans were only formed in 1856 and didn't have the votes to pass abolition in all states until 1865. Until then, they had to deal with Union states who still had slavery as well as the impatient abolitionists.

The abolitionists were a tiny minority whose candidates could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in elections. They were perfectly willing to tolerate slavery so long as they kept getting a big fat piece of the profits.

1858, 1860, 1864.

1865, slavery abolished.

More comments from slave owning Democrats. Let's look them up, shall we? Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, a Democrat who supported the right to own slaves, and who fell out of favor with the South when he called for cooperation with the North after the CW.

General Patrick Cleburne sided with the South for no other reason than it was his homeland. For once you have a credible source, as he didn't support slavery, and was one of those who called for offering slaves their freedom in return for fighting for the Confederacy. Here's more on his proposal and how the Confederacy's leaders responded. You did your cause no favors by bringing him up.

If it's any consolation, you showed what I have already said, which is that not everyone in the South supported slavery.

Other than that, you threw a lot of quotes from JD at me, but I have his actions and his lack of action on one of your favorite arguments to prove my point.

Once again you have failed to demonstrate that there was a breeding program for slaves. You have only demonstrated that there were slaves - which was never in dispute.

It wasn't my original point, but you have demonstrated to be from your defense that it most certainly was a breeding program.

After all, they were the ones who ensured the slaves could only breed within the plantation, and either kept their children as live stock or sold them. That is the definition of a breeding program. That was definitely how the slave owners saw it.

No argument, but murder was not as a matter of fact, legal in those countries.

According to their demented lawmakers, the people who were killed weren't murdered because they were guilty of "crimes" against the state, like being Jewish. The same thought process was behind kidnapping humans as slaves, in that what they did was against the law but was OK when doing it to "slave property", according to those who either did it or paid for it.

I'll point out that you are once again trying to move the goal posts. You said there were no or hardly any Black Confederates. You were once again, wrong.

I guess that depends on your definition of "hardly any". I'll grant that there were likely more than I originally estimated, but it was still less than 10% of the total number of blacks, and less than 20% of the total number of escaped slaves, that served in the Union's forces. You have yet to prove that wrong, no matter how many times you post the same snippets.

And many blacks who served in the Confederacy's military were forced to do chores that were little different than the services slaves performed for their masters anyway.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

This brings up another problem with your narrative. If so many blacks were already willing to serve in the Confederate forces, why did the Confederate leaders even need to consider offering freedom in return for fighting for the Confederacy?

"freedom fighters" like those who murdered an unarmed Black man as their first victim when they raided Harper's Ferry? "freedom fighters" like John Brown who took 3 innocent men sitting at home with their families away at gunpoint and then hacked them to death with a sword?

You rightfully rant against what little of this is true yet excuse the people who owned slaves and patronized a system that killed many as "products of their time".

These were terrorists. They were not seeking freedom.

Bull. Many were slaves that were fighting for their freedom.

They were looking to and did commit murder of innocent people.

According to your logic, the Allies who killed German and Japanese children were also terrorists who "were looking to and did commit murder of innocent people".

I've never denied it was a political cause at the time. I've pointed out - correctly - that it enjoyed very little popular support prior to very late in the war.

Let's just ignore that the majority of states had already abolished slavery within their borders as did the nations the Democrats were trying to pander to with fake offers of abolition, or 1858, 1860, and 1864.

If you had read much about this subject, you would have known who he is. You not knowing is a tell.

Why would I care to know about a liberal writer? Unless you're talking about another McPherson. Maybe you should clarify which McPherson it is I'm supposed to read up on. Remember, we're talking about a leftist writer, not a general in the Civil War.

He needs to read the numerous newspaper ~~editorials~~ propaganda, ~~statements~~ lies by Southern slave owning political leaders, and rejection of the Corwin amendment by the ~~seceding~~ majority of the Union states to see it was ~~not~~ about preserving something that was ~~not~~ threatened in the US ~~anyway~~ according to the Confederate leaders themselves.

Fixing all of your errors was a lot of work, but FIFY.

The North was not fighting to end slavery.

They just voted in enough Republicans, and voted out enough Democrats, to get it done, only nine years after the Republican party was founded. But it was by accident, or qwerty ergo typo or whatever Latin you keep trying to impress us with.

The rest of your post full of repeats snipped. Once again, we'll examine your sources.

Senator Robert Toombs, a Democrat slave owner.

Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, see above.

Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, see above.

The Leftist plant here is you. You're the one who is pushing Leftist PC Revisionist dogma from the Democrat's own documents. You're the one pushing the "all about slavery" myth from the Democrat's own documents, denigrating states' rights to own slaves, glorifying centralized power to abolish slavery, etc etc.

FIFY.

And anybody who reads history knows that the circumstances were more urgent than business as usual, and the rest of the states had the same amount of time to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver as the five that did. They didn't, and none of your alternate realities can refute that.

And anybody who looks at every single constitutional amendment ever passed will notice that it took some states years to pass each and every one of them.