We've gone over that. Yes, there was certainly language about slavery in the declarations of secession. I've never denied it. You tried denying the language about the economic causes of secession that was in 3 of the 4 and which Southerners had been saying for generations.
Next you'll post quotes from Lincoln and others, expecting me to take your word for what they said.
No. I specifically did not do that. I cited my sources. I gave you numerous citations as to where you could find those quotes. I expressly did not expect you to take my word for it.
This is what the Confederacy said. You have given no valid reason to disbelieve them, except that to paraphrase, "they had reasons other than slavery so it wasn't about slavery."
Again, this is false. I cited not only their numerous statements about their economic grievances, but I also pointed out how few Southerners owned slaves. I also pointed to them turning down the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Those are all reasons to believe their real motivation for leaving was their economic grievances even though the Northern states violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution gave them legal cover to legitimately say it was the Northern states which violated the compact.
Not really. Assuming all of these quotes are even real and posted in the correct context, and you haven't offered any references even from your confederacy amen corner sites that they are, then it's no secret that many in the North also held racist views. It was what President Lincoln had to deal with, which he did. Frederick Douglas acknowledged that in his oration, but you clearly aren't interested in eyewitness accounts.
Again, I gave you several citations if you doubted any of those quotes. It was not merely that Lincoln "had to deal with" massive racism in the North. It was that he too shared those views. I could cite a ton of Northern Newspapers as further evidence of that and for further evidence of the fact that it was the economics of trade and taxation rather than some morality play over slavery that motivated both sides.
I should have realized someone who can't see "slave" in the word "slave" would have reading comprehension problems, but which word in "Post an affirmation that you agree with everything in those declarations." is beyond your capability to understand.
Oh I don't have a reading comprehension problem. I fully understand that you want me to endorse a blank check. You demand that I sign off on a bunch of statements but won't provide any specifics. I know full well this is a trap. You are trying to get me to endorse something I don't support so that you can claim some kind of "gotcha" moment. No dice. Its not going to work for you. Ask me specific questions and I'll give you specific answers. Try to be disingenuous/intellectually dishonest and I won't play along.
That proves the Confederates goal was to preserve slavery.
The fact that abolitionists IN THE NORTH could not get their candidates into even double digit percentages in any elections proves the North didn't really care about slavery. It was just a bargaining chip to them....something to be used for the struggle they actually cared about which was the struggle over trade and taxation policy.
That excuse doesn't work, because the abolitionists from that time understood slavery was wrong, and anyone even back then could understand that they wouldn't have wanted to have been slaves. Your arguments to that effect only prove that the confederacy was what I say it is.
Again, the abolitionists were a tiny minority in the North. Most people didn't really care about slavery. They didn't own any slaves.
The only difference was in numbers oppressed, and the numbers killed to put an end to it.
The holocaust was an attempt by a government to deliberately exterminate an ethnic group. Chattel slavery was driven by individuals seeking profit. There is no comparison. You obviously haven't studied history.
"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.
THE TERRITORIES.
And to look at the same quote another way... "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. "No person". Do you understand what that means?
LOL! Are you seriously trying to argue that the Republicans were abolitionists? (this ought to be good)
And the Confederacy made it crystal clear that they were seceding over the abolition of slavery.
Did they? Then why did they not agree to return when Lincoln offered the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment in his inaugural address? Also, you do understand that only 4 states issued declarations of causes and the entire Upper South did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war, right? Clearly they did not secede "over slavery".
So what. Even if only 3 out of 4 states said it was about slavery, then it was still about slavery. Your argument only proves that.
No it doesn't. Again the Upper South did not secede until Lincoln started a war to impose a government upon people who did not consent to it. They seceded over the people's right to self determination. Florida, Alabama and Louisiana did not issue declarations of causes. And if even the original 7 seceding states did not agree to return when offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, that proves that slavery was not their motivation.
From Georgia: blah blah blah
You have no answer to the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment....the very thing they supposedly seceded over!
No revision to the "blah, blah, blah" above is needed. They spell out what the secessionists of the time were thinking.
No revision is needed to the fact that even the original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. That fact speaks for itself.
Thank you.
You tried denying the language about the economic causes of secession that was in 3 of the 4 and which Southerners had been saying for generations.
I never denied they gave economic reasons. The last three paragraphs of the Georgia declaration illustrate this point. I suggest the readers read it so they can see what those economic reasons were.
Again, this is false. I cited not only their numerous statements about their economic grievances, but I also pointed out how few Southerners owned slaves. I also pointed to them turning down the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
Did they free their slaves after that? No.
Those are all reasons to believe their real motivation for leaving was their economic grievances even though the Northern states violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution gave them legal cover to legitimately say it was the Northern states which violated the compact.
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"
Again, I gave you several citations if you doubted any of those quotes. It was not merely that Lincoln "had to deal with" massive racism in the North. It was that he too shared those views.
Let's just say you're right and President Lincoln wasn't just talking out of both sides of his mouth, but "was a product of his time" as you say to defend the South.
The difference was that, unlike the Southern slave holders and their defenders whom you excuse for this, President Lincoln and the Republicans overcame this in themselves and freed the slaves.
Oh I don't have a reading comprehension problem. I fully understand that you want me to endorse a blank check. You demand that I sign off on a bunch of statements but won't provide any specifics. I know full well this is a trap. You are trying to get me to endorse something I don't support so that you can claim some kind of "gotcha" moment. No dice. Its not going to work for you. Ask me specific questions and I'll give you specific answers. Try to be disingenuous/intellectually dishonest and I won't play along.
No trickery from me is needed. As you already acknowledged that "Yes, there was certainly language about slavery in the declarations of secession. I've never denied it.", you know what you would be agreeing or disagreeing with. Just say "No" to my question, and that's it.
Again, the abolitionists were a tiny minority in the North.
Without pointing out that they won and slavery was abolished, what are your numbers to support this?
Not that I would doubt it, but it might give YOU an appreciation of what abolitionists were up against, and faced it until their goal had been accomplished.
The holocaust was an attempt by a government to deliberately exterminate an ethnic group. Chattel slavery was driven by individuals seeking profit. There is no comparison. You obviously haven't studied history.
I know what both were. I don't know if you have any female loved ones, but if you have a wife or daughters, or if you are a mother with daughters, I'm sure if human traffickers kidnapped one of your daughters and took them who knows where, you wouldn't say "Well at least they weren't slaughtered."
LOL! Are you seriously trying to argue that the Republicans were abolitionists? (this ought to be good)
The statement speaks for itself. All people.
Georgia's statement of secession also came out and said it.
Did they? Then why did they not agree to return when Lincoln offered the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment in his inaugural address?
Because amendments can be repealed, and they clearly didn't trust President Lincoln to begin with.
Georgia even came out and said this. "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."
Also, you do understand that only 4 states issued declarations of causes
Five, and all mentionecd slavery as a reason.
and the entire Upper South did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war, right? Clearly they did not secede "over slavery".
The CW started in April 1861. Secession started much earlier as a result of President Lincoln winning the election.
NC was the last in May, if that's what you meant.