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.
As I've already said, the Northern states violated the compact over the Fugitive Slave Clause. On that issue, the Southern states had an airtight legal argument. No matter how much they hated their economic exploitation by the Northern states, that was not unconstitutional. They could not therefore claim the Northern states violated the compact when they enacted very unfair sectional legislation that sucked money out of Southernsers' pockets and lined Northerner's pockets. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned down the offer. That tells you everything. Slavery was not what really motivated them. It was merely the legal pretext to do what they wanted to do ie secede to gain economic independence.
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.
OK. I see you need some educating on the subject.
"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . . 'I think Sumner [abolitionist Charles Sumner] and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way,' he told the Radicals. . . . 'We didn't go into this war to put down slavery . . . and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith.' Vindication of the president's view came a few weeks later, when the Massachusetts state Republican convention--perhaps the most Radical party organization in the North--defeated a resolution endorsing Fremont's proclamation." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76)
"The problem with this lofty rhetoric of dying to make men free was that in 1861 the North was fighting for the restoration of a slaveholding Union. In his July 4 message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated the inaugural pledge that he had 'no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.'" (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 265),/p>
"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois December 22, 1860
Lincoln was no exponent of equality either - hardly anybody in the North was. If anything they seemed to detest Black people more than Southerners did. That's why several Northern states passed laws making it impossible for Blacks to settle there and driving out the ones who did live there. That's also why they adopted the "Black Codes" from which later Jim Crow laws descended.
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Abraham Lincoln
"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” -Abraham Lincoln
“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States. and far from preserving slavery via secession, secession was guaranteed to end slavery all the faster. None other than Lincoln himself pointed this out.
"But secession, Lincoln argued, would actually make it harder for the South to preserve slavery. If the Southern states tried to leave the Union, they would lose all their constitutional guarantees, and northerners would no longer be obliged to return fugitive slaves to disloyal owners. In other words, the South was safer inside the Union than without, and to prove his point Lincoln confirmed his willingness to support a recently proposed thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which would specifically prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery in states where it already existed." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 32-33)
If You don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
OK, you're not serious. You refuse to give me specifics. I'm not playing these games with you.
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.
and they were a teeny tiny minority that couldn't even get their candidates into double digit percentages of the vote in elections.
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?
It says they were products of their time. The world was a very different place. Our concepts of human rights did not exist then. Blacks were not viewed as equals anywhere in the West at the time - racism was the rule the world over. Nowhere could you have gone in the world at that time where you would find the people anything other than extremely racist by our modern standards. Sexist too. "The Past is a different country" - as the famous saying goes.
I would say my views align with the 19th century abolitionists.
and I would say abolitionists were an absolutely tiny minority North and South at that time. The facts support what I'm saying.
The Holocast was legal too.
Chattel slavery was not equivalent to the holocaust. Specious Analogy.
"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.
You keep deliberately trying to gloss over the "IN THE TERRITORIES" part. That did not apply to the states - only the western territories.
You haven't refuted anything. You just keep regurgitating the same revisionist nonsense.
Oh yes I have. I've refuted your regurgitation of the usual PC revisionist nonsense.
You mean like President Lincoln didn't want to abolish slavery even though that's what he did?
YES! That is PC Revisionist nonsense. He was crystal clear that he had no desire to abolish slavery.
Or the secession wasn't about slavery even though at least four of their articles of secession spelled that out? That's revisionism.
YES! Secession obviously wasn't about slavery. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes (only about 1/3rd of the states which seceded) and 3 of those 4 cited reasons other than slavery. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned down that offer. Clearly slavery was not what was motivating them. To say otherwise is revisionism.