Because amendments can and have been repealed, and they didn't Trust President Lincoln and the Republicans, whom they called and I quote "It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."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.
But as I already outlined, there were 15 states that still had slavery. There simply were nowhere near enough states to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the Corwin Amendment unless the states that still had slavery consented. Funny, you choose to ignore the basic math. Oh, and "anti-slavery" does not mean "abolitionist". The Republican Party was merely against the spread of slavery. They were not in favor of abolition. They themselves said so over and over again.
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.
There were nowhere near enough of them to do that. Slavery was only banned after the war when Northern politicians were desperate to try to claim some noble purpose behind all the blood and carnage they caused when they started a war for money and empire.
Using these arguments to defend the confederacy only shows how bad they were.
No it doesn't. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was the contract made between the states. The Northern states broke it. That was the "injury" the Southern states could cite as providing legal justification to secede.
After the CW, their legal argument was completely abolished.
After
That's funny. It was about money, but they abolished the profitable slave trade.
The slave trade had been illegal since the Grandfather Clause in the constitution expired in 1810. Of course there was massive illicit slave trading that New Englanders continued well into the mid 19th century, but it had not been legal for over 50 years by the time the Southern states seceded.
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.
Of course there is still slavery in the US and elsewhere in modern countries. The difference is its at least de jure illegal now. I would add there is quite overt slavery in China which big companies like Nike and Apple and others are lobbying Congress not to sanction China for...so those greedy bastards can continue to profit from it by having those slaves make cheap goods they can then import into the US.
Since when could we trust our press for anything? After these last four years you should know better.
If such sentiments were widely unpopular in the North, they never would have printed them. The vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists. Only a tiny minority were.
That's like saying loosing your arm is better than losing your eyesight.
The individual owners of slaves had an economic incentive to try to keep them healthy and to at least not make their conditions so bad that they would run away at any opportunity. That is different than a program of extermination like the Nazis had in which they planned to work their slaves to death - or like the Soviets/CCP had and have in which they at best do not care if their slaves die because there are plenty more they can enslave. The treatment of an individual enslaved by a government is far worse - let alone the treatment of individuals deemed enemies of the state in totalitarian dictatorships like the State Socialists or National Socialists.
Then why did Georgia say they were?
Georgia's declaration said they were anti slavery - not that they were abolitionists. These are two different things.
I understand the math. They only got five states to ratify it, and they were after the CW had already started.
They got several Northern states to ratify it and this was before Lincoln started the war. They specifically got Northern states to ratify it to show the original 7 seceding states that they were serious about it. Had those states indicated that the Corwin Amendment would satisfy their concerns, they would have gotten even more Northern states to ratify it. Then the original 7 could have come back in and also ratified it to make sure it passed. Once they explicitly rejected it and refused to come back in, there was no point for Lincoln to push more Northern states to ratify it.
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?
Virginia's objection and the objection of the rest of the states in the Upper South was Lincoln choosing to launch a war of Aggression on the original 7 seceding states in order to impose a government upon them that they no longer consented to. Their objection was that the federal government was not respecting the states' right to self determination.
Fortunately, after the CW the Constitution was ammended. Accidentally I'm sure since they didn't mean to abolish slavery, right?
The 13th amendment passed with no problem. It was pushed through as a fig leaf to try to cover for the bloodbath Lincoln started. They had to tell all those voters in the Northern states their loved ones were killed or maimed for something other than to line the pockets of special interest groups.
I'm sure their statements for secession all say that.
Look at when they seceded. Look at what their newspapers and political leaders were saying.