The amendment could have been repealed at any time, so unless you want to tell me the slave holding states would NEVER have voted to repeal it, it wouldn't have been permanent.
So go ahead and admit the slave holding states would not have voted to repeal it.
Who said they intended to abolish slavery?
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."
And before you go into another rant about how this was their legal justifcation based on constitutional law, I'm answering your question about who said.
Does your argument make sense? No.
The confederacy didn't give up their slaves until forced to do so, true or false?
I don't care what some nauseating hagiography says.
Do you care what someone with first hand knowledge of being a slave, escaping slavery, being an abolitionist, and dealing with President Lincoln said? I guess not.
Here's what many Yankees themselves were saying:
I don't deny there was rascism in the North. No one does. Even Frederick Douglas whose oration I posted to you acknowledges that, and added that President Lincoln had to work with it.
But when the chips were down, the Republicans followed through and abolished slavery, and the confederacy didn't give up their slaves until forced to do so. That's all that matters.
"I (president Lincoln) 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."
When he originally made that quote, he had no power to abolish slavery. If I'm correct your quote came later, when he was trying to keep those who were not committed to abolition in the camp. Yes I admit that. I've admitted it several times. Everyone in the North was not in favor of abolition, and he had to speak out of both sides of his mouth to keep them on board.
When he finally got the power to abolish slavery, he did it.
Lincoln started the war when he sent a heavily armed fleet to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory. South Carolina was forced to fire to drive the invaders away.
The waters and the Fort were federal property, although I'm sure the confederacy didn't see it that way.
There is also the fact that abolitionists received a pathetically small share of the vote in one election after another.
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".
Who was the "they" whose candidate the nation elected President?
Correct! PC Revisionism comes from Leftist Democrats today.
They want to stick us with their history.
They are the ones who started pushing the "all about slavery" BS in the 1980s. People like Howard Zinn, James McPherson, etc etc.
Started this "all about slavery" in the 1980s? let's see about that.
From Georgia: "or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
Also from Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."
From Mississippi: "It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."
From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery"
Today's Democrat Party is not the same as the Democrat Party of the mid 19th century. Hell, the Democrats used to be for limited government, balanced budgets, states' rights/decentralized power and a non interventionist foreign policy.
That's partially true, but the states rights they were fighting for was the right to keep their slaves, and the limited government was the feds leaving their slave holding rights alone. Do I need to post those snippets from the declarations of secession again?
It was a war measure. It wasn't some moral gesture. As the English (who by then were real abolitionists having abolished slavery in 1838 noted: "The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." --London Spectator, 1862
So why would President Lincoln have used abolition as a moral gesture if the North wasn't in support of abolition? You yourself posted a quote which says the opposite. You have explained that they couldn't say their sons were killed for money and empire and that's fair enough, but why say it was for something that they opposed? You have yet to explain that.
No. That is not what I said. Lincoln didn't do any such thing. After the war....AFTER....that would be AFTER Lincoln was dead....
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."
All of the above was said BEFORE the war...BEFORE.
though views in the mid 19th century were different.
You keep trying to hide behind that excuse, but there were enough people in the 1860s who understood slavery was wrong to get it abolished.
Here I'm going to spam you with the exact same quote I've used a dozen times at least about how the Republicans did not want slavery spread to the territories. Being against the spread of slavery is not the same thing as advocating abolition everywhere. We've gone over this.
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."
Show me in these quotes where it wasn't about abolition.
As we've already gone over, it could never have been repealed without the consent of the states in which slavery was still legal. As in NEVER. The math simply does not work. It doesn't work even today. Everybody understood that. (in order to obtain their consent the federal government would have had to offer a generous compensated emancipation scheme like practically every other country in the western world did to get rid of slavery).
So go ahead and admit the slave holding states would not have voted to repeal it.
OF COURSE they would not have voted to repeal it without a generous compensated emancipation scheme. That's the whole point. When the Northern states got rid of slavery, they did so slowly and via grandfather clauses usually (ie when a slave reaches the age of 27, 25, 30, etc). This gave slave owners in those states plenty of time to sell their slaves out of state or to someone who would take them out of state. ie slave owners in the Northern states got the chance to dispose of their "property" without taking a financial loss. Well now those states could have demanded the federal government would have had to compensate slave owners in their states such that the slave owners did not suffer a financial loss.
From the Republicans in 1856: here I am going to spam you with the same quote about the territories I've been using and I'm going to try to pretend that that somehow supported abolition....even though it clearly did not.
We've gone over this. Get some new material. It would be helpful if the new material said what you are trying to claim it said unlike the previous quote.
Here I am going to spam you with the same quotes from the declarations of secession which we've gone over a million times already.
And before you go into another rant about how this was their legal justifcation based on constitutional law, I'm answering your question about who said.
The Republicans themselves said over and over again they were not abolitionists. Mississippi is obviously wrong in saying the Republicans supported equality. They did not and nowhere in the Northern states were Blacks treated equally. In fact the "Black Codes" on the books there were brutally discriminatory.
The confederacy didn't give up their slaves until forced to do so, true or false?
With some exceptions like those who served in the Confederate Army and their families and with the understanding that the CSA empowered a representative with plenipotentiary power (meaning it would have the force of law) to agree to a treaty under which slavery would be banned in the CSA in exchange for British and French recognition and military aid....true, the CSA did not emancipate its slaves as a whole. and?
Do you care what someone with first hand knowledge of being a slave, escaping slavery, being an abolitionist, and dealing with President Lincoln said? I guess not.
No. I care what Lincoln himself said and did.
But when the chips were down, the Republicans followed through and abolished slavery, and the confederacy didn't give up their slaves until forced to do so. That's all that matters.
"when the chips were down"? You mean after the war when Republicans were desperate for some kind of fig leaf to offer the families of the bereaved up North.
When he originally made that quote, he had no power to abolish slavery. If I'm correct your quote came later, when he was trying to keep those who were not committed to abolition in the camp. Yes I admit that. I've admitted it several times. Everyone in the North was not in favor of abolition, and he had to speak out of both sides of his mouth to keep them on board.
He wasn't "speaking out of both sides of his mouth". Abolitionists were incredibly few in number. They need not have been appeased and they were not. It wasn't just that Lincoln believed himself to have no power to emancipate all slaves. He also had no inclination to do so as he said. He was no abolitionist and said that many many times. And by the way, no he did not emancipate all the slaves. That came via constitutional amendment after he was dead.
When he finally got the power to abolish slavery, he did it.Only as a war measure and even then he was very meticulous in making sure he did not free any slaves in areas controlled by the union army.
The waters and the Fort were federal property, although I'm sure the confederacy didn't see it that way.,/p>
The land and the waters around it were the sovereign territory of the state of South Carolina.
From Georgia: here I am going to spam you with the exact same crap I've posted at least 20 times already. Who was the "they" whose candidate the nation elected President?
The Northern states.
They want to stick us with their history.
They want to rewrite history to suit their Leftist politics. They want to twist and distort history to try to make us ashamed of our past rather than to celebrate our ancestors. That way there would be far less resistance to their promises of a centralized socialist utopia under their control of course. Its the same reason they are trying to trash US history and why they tear down statues. "deconstructionism". They STARTED this crap by first trying it with the South and its history.
Started this "all about slavery" in the 1980s? let's see about that. Here I'm going to spam you with the exact same crap I've posted going on 25 times now.
Yes. The PC Revisionists have revived Northern wartime and immediate post war propaganda.....things that had long long since been dropped from the history curricula. Go back and see what most historians even in Academia were saying from the early 20th century right through to the 1980s. Its very different from what the PC Revisionists say. Its very different from what you will see from Academia and Leftist Hollywood today.
That's partially true, but the states rights they were fighting for was the right to keep their slaves, and the limited government was the feds leaving their slave holding rights alone. Do I need to post those snippets from the declarations of secession again?
It has always been nothing more than Yankee and later Leftist propaganda to say states rights was "all about slavery". No it was not. It was not before the mid 19th century when slavery became a big political issue and has not been since then. States' rights is about the original constitution. Its about exercising local control. Its about bringing power as far down to the people as possible so that local communities can exert more democratic power and influence over government to make it more responsive to their needs. Its about thwarting would be tyrants who want to concentrate power in their own hands as much as possible.
So why would President Lincoln have used abolition as a moral gesture if the North wasn't in support of abolition?
He didn't. YOU are trying to spin it that way.
You yourself posted a quote which says the opposite.
Which quote?
You have explained that they couldn't say their sons were killed for money and empire and that's fair enough, but why say it was for something that they opposed? You have yet to explain that.
Now you are talking about the postwar period. After the war people had come to accept that slavery was at an end. Incidentally that is why the Southern states agreed to ratify the 13th amendment with their own democratically elected representatives before the voters there were disenfranchised and occupation governments were installed. The vast majority in the North had not been abolitionists pre-war. After the war it became the reason for the "great moral crusade" at least that is what they told themselves to make the horrendous losses more acceptable to them.
From the Republicans in 1856: "here I'm going to spam you with the exact same crap I've spammed you with 26 times already which does not say what I'm trying to claim it says." All of the above was said BEFORE the war...BEFORE.
And NONE of it supports abolition of slavery in the states where it exists. NONE.
You keep trying to hide behind that excuse, but there were enough people in the 1860s who understood slavery was wrong to get it abolished.
Its not "an excuse". Its reality. Slavery was only abolished after the horrendously bloody war which was fought for other reasons.
:"Here I'm going to spam you with the exact same crap I've spammed you with 27 times already...the crap which does not say what I'm trying to claim it says ie that the North or that Republicans were abolitionists. They clearly weren't."
Show me in these quotes where it wasn't about abolition.
"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . . 'I think Sumner [abolitionist Charles Sumner] and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way,' he told the Radicals. . . . 'We didn't go into this war to put down slavery . . . and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith.' Vindication of the president's view came a few weeks later, when the Massachusetts state Republican convention--perhaps the most Radical party organization in the North--defeated a resolution endorsing Fremont's proclamation." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76, emphasis added)
"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" Abraham Lincoln's inaugural Address
"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois December 22, 1860
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Abraham Lincoln
"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” -Abraham Lincoln
“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abraham 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
Those are not the words of a guy merely "going along with" racists. That is a guy who himself is a racist.....a hardcore flaming racist. He also made it very clear numerous times - as in the above quotes and plenty of others - that he was no abolitionist.