Correct! Which is why they did not go to war to defend slavery - which....I'll type this slowly....W.A.S. N.O.T. T.H.R.E.A.T.E.N.E.D. What was threatened was ever higher tariffs which would suck even more money out of Southerner's pockets in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods and lower sales of their cash crops abroad.
It was the same thing in the North where not everyone supported abolition - there, I've admitted it again - and President Lincoln had to talk from both sides of his mouth.
There is no reason to believe Lincoln didn't believe exactly what he said when he said over and over again he was not an abolitionist, had no desire to threaten slavery and did not have the power to do so anyway.
I was clear. If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
For the last time. You need to be clear about what it is specifically you want me to affirm. I have already made it very clear I think the Northern states did violate the compact. If you want some kind of nebulous blanket endorsement of everything, I'm not going to give that. I'm done playing these games with you.
That's fair enough, but with your worldview now, would you have returned the slaves to their "owners"?
Well of course not but I was born in the late 20th century at a time when every country in the Western world - even all of Asia too - had outlawed slavery. I was taught from birth that it was contrary to human rights etc etc etc. The world was a different place in the mid 19th century. People's views were very different then.
This should make you appreciate what the abolitionists in the South had to deal with, those whom you say violated the Constitution on returning slaves.
No, I said the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. They had. There's no question about it. You may agree with what they did morally with your 21st century views. That's fine. But it is not consistent with the Constitution.
Yes, they had good guys in the South who took great risks to free slaves. I admit that too. Why you'd choose to associate with the confederates over them is beyond me.
Confederate does not equal "pro slavery". These are two different things.
prohibiting its existence or extension therein
ie "the territories"
I've already answered that with Frederick Douglas's oration here, but if you feel the need to waste more bandwidth at FR, then go ahead.
I haven't wasted one tiny bit of bandwidth. I've refuted PC Revisionist falsehoods. Its important that we not allow political dogma to distort history.
From Georgia: "or 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, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
Also 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."
From Mississippi: "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 refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."
From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery".
All taken from The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
There is no reason to believe Lincoln didn't believe exactly what he said when he said over and over again he was not an abolitionist
I've read those quotes, and that isn't exactly accurate. He only said that when he was in no position to end slavery. Once he got the opportunity, he did it.
For the last time. You need to be clear about what it is specifically you want me to affirm
If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
The world was a different place in the mid 19th century. People's views were very different then.
Now you're the one painting with a broad brush. Abolitionists were around long before the CW, and they could see the evil of slavery.
As for the slave owners, if they could whip a slave and not realize they wouldn't want anyone to do that to them (although maybe some did), then what does that say about them?
No, I said the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. They had. There's no question about it. You may agree with what they did morally with your 21st century views.
I would say my views align with the 19th century abolitionists.
But it is not consistent with the Constitution.
The Holocast was legal too.
ie "the territories"
"that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.
I've refuted PC Revisionist falsehoods.
You haven't refuted anything. You just keep regurgitating the same revisionist nonsense.
Its important that we not allow political dogma to distort history.
You mean like President Lincoln didn't want to abolish slavery even though that's what he did? Or the secession wasn't about slavery even though at least four of their articles of secession spelled that out? That's revisionism.