They didn't ratify it because the original 7 seceding states rejected it. No one voted to ratify it until after Lincoln started the war because he only sent it to the states' governors a few weeks before he started the war.
I would refer you to Georgia's declaration of secession. Just search for the word "abolition".
I would refer you to any of a whole host of statements from various Republicans stating that they were expressly not abolitionists - they were merely against the spread of slavery.
What part of "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is unclear to you?
LOL! I see you actually are going to try to engage in the fiction that being against the spread of slavery = abolitionism. "The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." William Seward.
[the Republican Party's stance] "all the unoccupied territory shall be preserved for the benefit of the white caucasian race -a thing which cannot be but by the exclusion of slavery." New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley
[on the Emancipation Proclamation]"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating them where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." William Seward Secretary of State under Lincoln
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ... Abraham Lincoln
"In the first half of the nineteenth century, state legislatures in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut took away Negroes' right to vote; and voters in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, and Wisconsin approved new constitutions that limited suffrage to whites. In Ohio, Negro males were permitted to vote only if they had "a greater visible admixture of white than colored blood." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 54)
"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)
Here are Lincoln's own words:
"There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them"
Frederick Douglas, who lived through these times as a freed slave, answered that here.
When the Republicans themselves openly and repeatedly declared that they were not abolitionists....that they had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed, there's nothing more to say on the matter. That's definitive.
So you're saying the North used abolition to sell the war to the populace, even though only a tiny minority were abolitionists. That makes sense.
AFTER the war. AFTER. That's key.
The fact that they even saw it as a ligitimate reason tells me everything I need to know about the confederacy.
Everybody saw it as legitimate. Were that not so, the constitution would not have had a Fugitive Slave Clause nor a 3/5ths compromise.
How does this refute my point, which was "That's funny. It was about money, but they abolished the profitable slave trade."?
They only abolished the slave trade on paper. They continued slave trading on a very large scale for 50 years after the legality of it expired. ie they were greedy as hell and their primary motivation was always MONEY.
And human traffickers have reason to keep their kidnapped women looking good so they can keep making money off of them. Are you serious?
YES! They have incentive not to kill them. The Nazis and Commies had no such incentive with their victims. Indeed killing them was their goal.
I suppose next you're going to tell me no slaves were killed or maimed by their masters.
Don't suppose. Of course some were. It was however, rare. People do not generally destroy their own property. Their incentive is to take care of their property.
They were abolitionists, which made them anti-slavery. Georgia's statement used both terms.
Except they were not abolitionists as they themselves said numerous times.
All conjecture. The North never came close to ratifying it.
Lincoln started the war first and the original 7 seceding states rejected it before many Northern states had a chance to pass it.
You don't think taking slaves is an act of war on those taken, legal or not?
Not sure I understand the question. The slaves were taken by Yankee slave traders from African slave traders. We're not talking about sovereign countries here.
From Georgia: blah blah blah
Yes, they noted the Northern states had violated the Constitution. The Northern states had indeed violated the constitution. There's no question of it.
It was nothing more than a failed attempt to save the Union. It never had a chance. The South knew this.
I would refer you to any of a whole host of statements from various Republicans stating that they were expressly not abolitionists - they were merely against the spread of slavery.
Judging from the declarations of secession, they had the confederacy fooled. Oh that's right, the confederacy was lying when they wrote it was about slavery.
LOL! I see you actually are going to try to engage in the fiction that being against the spread of slavery = abolitionism.
The exact term Georgia used was "anti-slavery party". Anyone who can't see they referred to abolition must also struggle with what the meaning of "is" is.
"The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." William Seward.
He was acknowledging racism. I don't deny there were racists in the North. I've conceded that Lincoln had to deal with this, and Frederick Douglas spelled that out.
But the Republicans won and freed the slaves, and that's the bottom line.
When the Republicans themselves openly and repeatedly declared that they were not abolitionists....
You've quoted three or four, and in President Lincoln's case he was talking out of both sides of his mouth to keep the Union together. Frederick Douglas understood this. Here's the quote again, in case you want to read what a freed slave and abolitionist had to say.
"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln
Before you say "a ha, there were racists in the North", I never denied it.
that they had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed, there's nothing more to say on the matter. That's definitive.
The Republicans abolished slavery. That's definitive. I won't say there's nothing more to say because I know you'll regurgitate more leftists propaganda.
That's right, leftist propaganda. The dems are trying to stick us with their slave holding past, and I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you're trying to give them by accepting it on our behalf.
There's a reason they're trying to bury the confederate past, and it isn't because they're proud of it.
Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph
AFTER the war. AFTER. That's key.
The abolitionists were at it long before the war even started. It didn't happen until AFTER the war because the confederates weren't going to give up their slaves otherwise.
Everybody saw it as legitimate.
Not the abolitionists.
They only abolished the slave trade on paper. They continued slave trading on a very large scale for 50 years after the legality of it expired. ie they were greedy as hell and their primary motivation was always MONEY.
As you and I have agreed, businesses are doing that now with those stupid free trade deals. What does that have to do with why the war was fought or that slavery was abolished afterwards?
YES! They have incentive not to kill them. The Nazis and Commies had no such incentive with their victims. Indeed killing them was their goal.
That the slaveholders' crimes didn't measure up to what the nazis and commies did doesn't make their crimes any less abominable.
Not sure I understand the question. The slaves were taken by Yankee slave traders from African slave traders. We're not talking about sovereign countries here.
I understand the logistics of the slave trade, but that doesn't change the nature of the crimes committed against those taken.
Yes, they noted the Northern states had violated the Constitution. The Northern states had indeed violated the constitution. There's no question of it.
So let me see if I understand you. Slavery is an abomination, but it was OK for the confederates to have slaves because it was legal. The South didn't secede over slavery, even though that was their stated reason for seceding and they never freed their slaves until forced. The abolitionists weren't actually anti-slavery. The Republicans weren't abolitionists even though they did free the slaves. The Republicans justified the CW by ending slavery to win the population over, even though only a tiny minority in the North cared about slavery. And last but not least, both the Republicans and the confederacy lied about all of this being about slavery.
Does that cover it?