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?
It was prima facia evidence that the North and the Republican Party were not abolitionist. Hell, it was prima facia evidence that they didn't really care about slavery. That was the first bargaining chip they were prepared to offer up. It was also prima facia evidence that slavery was not what was motivating the original 7 seceding states to go. Were it slavery, this would have satisfied their concerns. It did not.
And of course, Lincoln started the war - deliberately - by sending a heavily armed fleet of warships to invade Confederate territory
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.
No, they weren't lying. The states that did issue declarations of causes noted that the Northern states violated the constitution. They did violate the constitution. That much is clear. You do understand that the legal argument one makes for their position might not be what is actually motivating them right? People make arguments all the time citing one reason for why they are doing what they're doing even though everybody knows that's not the real reason why. Something else is actually motivating them.
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.
Anyone who refuses to see the exact quotes from Republicans that they were not Abolitionists must also struggle with what the meaning of "is" is.
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.
Lincoln WAS one of those racists - a flaming one at that. So was Seward. So was pretty much everybody. So much for the myth of the virtuous North.
But the Republicans won and freed the slaves, and that's the bottom line.
But that's not why they started the war - that's the bottom line.
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.
I've cited 3 or 4 of the most prominent including Lincoln. I've also cited several Newspapers which were their mouthpieces. I've also noted that actual Abolitionists could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in elections. You are being willfully blind to reality at this point.
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.
The Republicans were not abolitionists. They were perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Its hilarious you think me citing the actual facts is somehow "propaganda" let alone "leftist". Take a look at who spouts PC Revisionism today. Here's a hint: it ain't those of us on the Right.
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.
You're delusional. PC Revisionism like what you are spouting here comes from LEFTISTS in Academia. It is furthermore pushed by LEFTISTS in the media. Government is their god. They want all power centralized and concentrated in ever fewer hands. They despise the whole idea of states' rights. Leftists are always against decentralized power.
There's a reason they're trying to bury the confederate past, and it isn't because they're proud of it.
They are trying to obliterate the South's history for the same reason that they are trying to obliterate America's history. These are global socialists. I told you PCers they would move on to American symbols and leaders next way back in the 1990s. You lot assured me that I was nuts and it would never get to things like the stars and stripes, the Founding Fathers, American history, etc etc back then. Well look where we are today. Told ya so.
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.
It didn't happen until AFTER the war because the Republicans were not abolitionists. The US itself still had slavery. They didn't even get around to the EP which was a war measure until 2 years into the war. Even then Lincoln went miles out of his way to not include not only slaves in the North but also slaves in Confederate territory the Federals were then occupying. It only happened after the war because Republicans needed to tell all those voters in the North that their loved ones had been killed, maimed and crippled for some noble purpose other than just lining special interest groups' pockets.
Not the abolitionists.
Who were miniscule in number.
That the slaveholders' crimes didn't measure up to what the nazis and commies did doesn't make their crimes any less abominable.
Well on that we disagree. Chattel slavery was nowhere near as bad as mass extermination.
I understand the logistics of the slave trade, but that doesn't change the nature of the crimes committed against those taken.
Nobody is denying slavery was awful - even Chattel slavery which wasn't as bad as State Slavery.
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.
You're trying to make a 21st century moral argument. No matter how much you and I abhor slavery today, the fact remains that most people in the West and in the US - and even in the Northern states - in the mid 19th century did not share our views. It was a different time. People's views and values were quite different....and before you say "but they abolitionists" they were a tiny minority seen as extremists by the vast majority. There were even people who believed in equality of the sexes and equality of religions and ethnic groups back then. They were a tiny minority too and were seen as extremists too.
The South didn't secede over slavery, even though that was their stated reason for seceding and they never freed their slaves until forced.
It was the legal grounds cited by 4 states which issued declarations of causes - not the whole South. The fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment shows that this is not what was really motivating them.
The abolitionists weren't actually anti-slavery.
strawman. I never said that. What I said is that the Republicans were not abolitionists. I stand by that. They weren't.
The Republicans weren't abolitionists even though they did free the slaves.
Correct. They freed the slaves AFTER the war. That does not make them abolitionists BEFORE The war. They did after all support slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
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.
No, they offered the fig leaf of ending slavery to try to salve the deep wounds the war caused even in the North. People naturally recoil at the idea that loved ones were killed or maimed for something so base as money. They always want to believe they are the "good" guys fighting for some noble cause.
And last but not least, both the Republicans and the confederacy lied about all of this being about slavery.
Do I have to explain to you again that people can make a legal argument that is perfectly valid even though the legal argument they make is not the real reason why they are doing something? Do you understand the concept of a pretext?
Does that cover it?
Yeah, that covers it.