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.
and? They could have had slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Why go to war to obtain something the other side is quite willing to give you from the outset? That makes no sense.....if protection of slavery is really what was motivating them.
From Georgia: blah blah blah
Yeah. They argued the North broke the deal. They were right. The Northern states DID violate the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US constitution. Their legal argument is completely sound.
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.
"Overcame this in themselves". No. They started a war they thought was going to be easy and cheap. They started it for money/empire. It turned out to be a huge costly bloodbath. They had to tell their own voters something. They couldn't say "your son/brother/husband died so that the special interests which fund my campaigns can make more money". So they had to try to pretend the war had been about some noble cause other than that thing wars are almost always about....ie money.....
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.
Are you asking me if I agree with or approve of slavery? Of course not. Who, born in the late 20th century anywhere in the Western world is going to agree with it? That doesn't mean I'm going to condemn everybody who lived back then for the terrible crime of not being born in modern times.
Without pointing out that they won and slavery was abolished, what are your numbers to support this?
How did their candidates do in elections? Here are what the big Northern newspapers were saying:
"Evil and nothing but evil has ever followed in the track of this hideous monster, abolition. Let the slave alone and send him back to his master where he belongs." The Daily Chicago Times Dec 7 1860
opposed abolition of slavery….. proposed slaves should be allowed to marry and taught to read and invest their money in savings accounts...which would "ameliorate rather than to abolish the slavery of the Southern States."...and would thus permit slavery to be "a very tolerable system." New York Times Jan 22 1861
We have no more right to meddle with slavery in Georgia, than we have to meddle with monarchy in Europe. Providence Daily Post Feb 2 1861
"the immense increase in the numbers of slaves within so short a time speaks for the good treatment and happy, contented lot of the slaves. They are comfortably fed, housed and clothed, and seldom or never overworked." New York Herald (the largest newspaper in the country at the time) March 7, 1861
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."
Nobody is saying chattel slavery was anything other than horrible. Still, I'd much rather be a chattel slave with the chance to marry and raise a family like many slaves did than be sent to a horrible nazi death camp. In the scale of awfulness, the latter is much much worse.
The statement speaks for itself. All people.
that did not apply to Blacks in the thinking of people at the time. The Republicans were not abolitionists.
Because amendments can be repealed, and they clearly didn't trust President Lincoln to begin with.
Its time for a civics lesson and some basic math. It takes 2/3rds of each house of congress, the signature of the president and then 3/4s of the states to get a constitutional amendment passed. At the time 15 states still had slavery. Thus if they voted against it, it would take 45 more states voting for it to pass a constitutional amendment that would repeal the Corwin Amendment.
45+15=60. It would take a union of 60 states assuming no new states allowing slavery came in. We only have 50 states even now. '
They could do the math. Everybody knew this meant for slavery to be abolished, it would take the consent of at least several of the states that still allowed slavery. In other words, they could have forced the other states to agree to a compensated emancipation scheme that ensured slave owners suffered no financial loss for freeing their slaves. Slavery would be effectively irrevocable without the consent of the slaveholding states.
Georgia even came out and said this. blah blah blah
Yes we've established that the Northern states violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution and thus violated the compact.
Five, and all mentionecd slavery as a reason.
South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi. Who else? Yes they did all mention that the Northern states had violated the constitution.
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.
What I meant was that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri did not secede over anything other than Lincoln choosing to start a war to impose government rule over sovereign states which did not consent to be ruled by it. They seceded over the state's right of self determination.