Why would they have to immediately emancipate their slaves to somehow prove that their real concern was not over preserving the existence of slavery within the US? Your argument makes no sense.
Because it was about slavery. They said so themselves.
It was not about slavery. The actions of the North in passing the Corwin Amendment and sending it to the states for ratification and the actions of the original 7 seceding states in rejecting the Corwin Amendment prove it was not about the preservation of slavery within the US.
What you seem to miss is that those states stayed with the Union. They didn't go seceding over claims of states rights to hold slaves. They didn't quit when the EP was announced. And at the end, slavery was abolished in all states.
The facts that slavery remained legal in the US and that the US passed the Corwin Amendment with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and got the signature of the president after the congressional delegations from the original 7 seceding states had withdrawn shows that both the North was not interested in banning slavery and that the original 7 seceding states were not concerned that slavery would be banned in the US. ie it was not "about slavery".
What does treatment by some feds on some slaves have to do with what the war was about? I've noted that everyone in the North wasn't with the good guys, as did Frederick Douglas, yet you keep throwing that strawman out there.
The North was hardly on some moral crusade to stamp out slavery due to their deep and abiding concern for the humanity of Black people. No. They were concerned about MONEY. They knew - like their Newspapers and Lincoln were saying - that if the Southern states left, those states would be much better off financially and they would be much worse off. ie the Southern states were being used as cash cows by the Northern states.
I never said you did. What I said is that you excused it because they were products of their environment.
I didn't "excuse" it. But I do not engage in what had until the PCers came along, been considered the cardinal sin for a historian, Presentism. judging people in the past who lived in societies with very different views and values by your own contemporary views and values. That doesn't mean I like or approve of what they thought and did in their time. But I'm not going to pretend I am somehow morally superior as an individual just because I happen to have been born at a later time. I'm going to exercise humility and try to avoid breaking my arm patting myself on the back for having been from a different era. If only more people had some perspective and some humility like that when looking at history.
That wasn't my question. I'll repeat. Why aren't you pointing to abolitionists as positive examples of the South?
There were some. Opinions ran the gamut from those who thought slavery a moral good which should continue forever to hardcore abolitionists who wanted it ended now with no compensation to the owners, to those who thought the owners were owed compensation for what was a "Taking" of their property under the constitution, to those who were considered moderates like Lee, Judah Benjamin, Jefferson Davis, Patrick Cleburne, Duncan Kenner, etc who all thought slavery would die out and who were prepared to take intermediate steps such as emancipating those who served in the Confederate Army and their families or by empowering the Confederate ambassador to the UK/France with plentipotentiary powers to agree to a treaty that would ban slavery in the CSA in exchange for recognition.
The Southern states were as democratic in 1860 and 1861-1865 as they had been in 1776 or 1791. People had and expressed varying opinions.
Ignoring the fact that it was the South who fired first on Federal property, don't you think taking slaves is an act of war against them?
Ignoring the fact that Lincoln sent armed warships to invade their territory first which is what prompted them to open fire. Acts of war are committed against sovereign entities - not individuals. If you think the taking of slaves an act of war, then it was Yankee slave traders who committed that act of war.
Meaningless. Of course the slaves couldn't have been freed by the federal government after the slave holding states (their words) had seceded, so yes, it would not have happened until after the war.
As Lincoln himself said several times and as a resolution passed by the US Congress said, the federal government did not go to war to put down slavery. Let's not confuse an outcome with a cause. Those are different things.
So I have Frederick Douglas, a man who was a slave, escaped, and became an abolitionist who worked with President Lincoln on one side, and you on the other. Which to choose?
Douglas was one man and he was entitled to his opinion. Lincoln's own words and deeds show he hated Black people, wanted to deport them all and was not an abolitionist. I have no reason not to take Lincoln at his word when he repeatedly expressed these thoughts and acted upon them.
You might want to read up on what he said about India before citing him to prove your point.
He was certainly a racist by our modern standards as was pretty much everybody else in the world in the mid 19th century. That said, he was an outspoken abolitionist. India was a colony of the British Empire. Indians were not however, slaves.
It would have been the right thing to do, if they believed having slaves was wrong and it wasn't about preserving slavery.
It was not about slavery. The actions of the North in passing the Corwin Amendment and sending it to the states for ratification and the actions of the original 7 seceding states in rejecting the Corwin Amendment prove it was not about the preservation of slavery within the US.
The only proof I need is that the North abolished slavery, and the slave holding states held on to their slaves until the North freed them.
The facts that slavery remained legal in the US and that the US passed the Corwin Amendment with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and got the signature of the president after the congressional delegations from the original 7 seceding states had withdrawn shows that both the North was not interested in banning slavery and that the original 7 seceding states were not concerned that slavery would be banned in the US. ie it was not "about slavery".
It was never ratified or even came close, and "the president" who signed it was James Buchannan, not Lincoln, for the purpose of preventing secession.
The North was hardly on some moral crusade to stamp out slavery due to their deep and abiding concern for the humanity of Black people.
No, they just did it, but they didn't mean to. It just accidentally happened.
I didn't "excuse" it. But I do not engage in what had until the PCers came along, been considered the cardinal sin for a historian, Presentism. judging people in the past who lived in societies with very different views and values by your own contemporary views and values.
Yet somehow the abolitionists managed to see through their times and see slavery was wrong. Let's see if you get around to praising them for it.
There were some (abolitionists). Opinions ran the gamut from blah blah blah.
I guess not.
The Southern states were as democratic in 1860 and 1861-1865
How democratic were they to the slaves who escaped, never mind the ones who didn't?
Ignoring the fact that Lincoln sent armed warships to invade their territory first which is what prompted them to open fire
Ignoring the fact that they were on federal property the whole time...
Acts of war are committed against sovereign entities - not individuals.
Thank you.
If you think the taking of slaves an act of war, then it was Yankee slave traders who committed that act of war.
Have you read anywhere where I excused anyone who participates in any kind of human trafficking, either selling or buying?
BTW, it wasn't just Yankees.
Douglas was one man and he was entitled to his opinion.
I'm sure the 100,000 plus escaped slaves who served in the Union had their opinions of the confederacy and abolition, too.
He was certainly a racist by our modern standards as was pretty much everybody else in the world in the mid 19th century. That said, he was an outspoken abolitionist. India was a colony of the British Empire. Indians were not however, slaves.
He said a lot worse than that. When I want to read about ghosts scaring cranky old millionaires into repenting, I'll go to Dickens. When I was to learn about slavery, I'll go to the people who lived through it.