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.
The first? It wasn't ratified until after most of the "slaveholding states" (their words) had seceded and the war had started.
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.
If they had intended to abolish slavery, they could have done it and taken that cause off the table. Why didn't they? Because that's what they were fighting for.
And of course, Lincoln started the war - deliberately - by sending a heavily armed fleet of warships to invade Confederate territory
Did those ships fire the first shot?
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.
Did they free their slaves? No.
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.
From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph
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.
I never said the North was virtuous. I even conceded that President Lincoln had to work with that. Being a product of his times, he may have had to overcome that in himself. Which he did, as Frederick Douglas said.
From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph
But calling the North racists when it was the South who held slaves until forced by the North to free them is beyond absurd. Let's see what their declarations of secession said about blacks.
From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." So much for your claim the "Yankees" weren't abolitionists.
Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
None of these were fully legal justifications, so why would they make these statements if they didn't believe them?
But that's not why they started the war - that's the bottom line.
Then why did they fire on Fort Sumter?
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.
I suppose ten or twelve snippets tell the whole story. Here's a snippet from Frederick Douglas, who I remind you was an escaped slave.
From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph
The Republicans were not abolitionists.
From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.
I'll also repeat what the declarations of secession said.
From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
Take a look at who spouts PC Revisionism today. Here's a hint: it ain't those of us on the Right.
Nope, it's the same party that fought to preserve slavery and is now trying to bury their historic role in defending it, and it starts with a "D".
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.
The revisionism is that they want to stick us, the right, with their history. You're only helping them.
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 only thing they're trying to obliterate is their own history. I agree with you it should be preserved as a reminder of what we never want to happen again, but if they don't want the statues in their cities, then what can anyone do about it?
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.
I know I'm going to set you off on a rant about the North's poor military leadership early in the war and you'll be right, but President Lincoln waited until the North had won a solid victory before announcing the EP. It had nothing to do with not wanting to abolish slavery.
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.
Even though most in the North were racists who opposed abolition, is that what you're saying?
Not the abolitionists. Who were miniscule in number.
There were enough of them that President Lincoln sold the abolition of slavery as the purpose of the war, as you've been saying. You can't have it both ways. If they were a teeny, tiny, minority, the President Lincoln wouldn't have used abolition to sell the war to the North.
Well on that we disagree. Chattel slavery was nowhere near as bad as mass extermination.
I'll clarify. That the slaveholders' crimes didn't measure up to what the nazis and commies did doesn't make their crimes of taking slaves any less abominable if the Holocaust hadn't happened.
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.
Then why would President Lincoln use their cause to justify the war? You still haven't explained that.
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.
No one even ratified that amendment until after the war had already started, and it never came close to ratification. It was a last ditch attempt to save the Union. It never had a chance and the confederacy knew it, which is why they rejected it.
strawman. I never said that. What I said is that the Republicans were not abolitionists. I stand by that. They weren't.
From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.
From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
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.
I see. There were no abolitionists before the war to pander to. OK.
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.
Why would they offer abolishing slavery if the people were against it or didn't care?
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?
No, but you have to explain why they kept their slaves if it wasn't about preserving slavery.