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.
Because amendments can and have been repealed, and they didn't Trust President Lincoln and the Republicans, whom they called and I quote "It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party." The Georgia declaration of secession came out and said that. Funny that you choose not to believe them on that.
Yeah. They argued the North broke the deal. They were right. The Northern states DID violate the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US constitution.
Yes I know. It was the law, it wasn't as bad as the Holocaust, and they were products of their time.
I don't care how bad it wasn't or when they were born. Any slave owner would have been intelligent to know that they wouldn't want to live and die as slaves or watch their children live and die as slaves. The abolitionists grew up during the same time and they understood this, and there were enough of them to get slavery abolished regardless of what you think their number was.
Using these arguments to defend the confederacy only shows how bad they were.
Their legal argument is completely sound.
After the CW, their legal argument was completely abolished.
"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.....
That's funny. It was about money, but they abolished the profitable slave trade.
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
I know. But sadly you're wrong, and I don't mean this as a dig at you. Human trafficking is alive and well even in this country, and thanks to the free traitors we are back to using slave labor to get our products cheap.
How did their candidates do in elections? Here are what the big Northern newspapers were saying:
Since when could we trust our press for anything? After these last four years you should know better.
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.
That's like saying loosing your arm is better than losing your eyesight.
that did not apply to Blacks in the thinking of people at the time. The Republicans were not abolitionists.
Then why did Georgia say they were?
Its time for a civics lesson and some basic math.
I understand the math. They only got five states to ratify it, and they were after the CW had already started.
South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi. Who else?
Virginia, who gave the treatment of the slave holding states as their reason. Do you need me to post what that treatment was about again?
Yes they did all mention that the Northern states had violated the constitution.
Fortunately, after the CW the Constitution was ammended. Accidentally I'm sure since they didn't mean to abolish slavery, right?
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.
I'm sure their statements for secession all say that.