Why do you keep regurgitating the same refuted arguments? The corbomite manuever or whatever it was called was never ratified, the president who signed it was not Lincoln, and it was too late to prevent secession or thw CW. BTW, President Buchanan said this was his reason for signing it.
As you insist on repeating this, I have snipped the other ocurrences.
HA! You think I'm the one reaching for alternate realities?
Well, let's see.
All declarations of secession mention slavery as a reason for seceding, including Virginia's which mentioned the treatment of the slave holding states, and the confederacy never freed their slaves until forced to by their defeat in the war, but you say secession wasn't about slavery.
After the war, the North abolished slavery in all states, but you say it wasn't about abolishing slavery.
The corwin ammendment was never ratified, but you say the North offered the South perpetual protection for slavery signed, sealed, and delivered.
The South had slaves but the North were racists.
So yes, you are the one reaching for alternate realities.
They couldn't have abolished it after the Southern states seceded? There were slaveholding states that remained in. Why couldn't they have abolished slavery there?
How many times does this have to be explained to you? Not everyone in the North was on board with abolishing slavery, and Lincoln had to work with all sides. After the war when they had full authority to abolish slavery, they did.
Nor for Indians. Nor for women. What's your point? Nobody else was either. Guess what. The mid 19th century was a different time. People did not view the world the same way then that we do now.
Some did. I don't care how small a minority they were, they grew up during the same time and they could see slavery was wrong. The slave holding states were clearly on the wrong side of history, and that error cost hundreds of thousands of lives to correct.
And there were enough of them for the slave holding states to cite them as a reason for seceding. Do I need to post those snippets again?
South Carolina claimed it as the sovereign. The sovereign can lay legal claim to any land within their territory under eminent domain. The owners are owed compensation but they cannot keep the land.
Since South Carolina seceded, their laws meant little to the federal government.
It continued on a very large scale long long after it became illegal when the grandfather clause in the constitution expired in 1810.
Did you mean 1910? Those laws were passed in Southern states. Even after hundreds of thousands killed, they weren't going to give it up until forced.
Here's more on that (blacks serving in the confederate forces): These are all union army accounts BTW
You wasted an awful lot of bandwidth to substantiate what that article I posted to you said. Yes there were blacks in the confederate forces as reported in that article. Not all of them were by choice, and many deserted to the North when they got the chance. I suggest rereading it.
BTW, in all of that blah blah blah, you accounted for less than 6,000 troops even if you count the two mentions of 1400 troops as separate groups.
Highly necessary. You're the one making those claims about him. Prove it.
As you wish.
Charles Dickens' vicious racist remarks (1857) against Indians
Racism in the work of Charles Dickens
That is not what he thought. Why would he support the South as an abolitionist but not support the North which mostly had gotten rid of slavery by this time?
See the previous link.
Cooborated here. Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War
And as I said, he was wrong. The North did abolish slavery.
Lincoln orchestrated the Corwin Amendment. It was not ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It does not matter that it was Buchanan who signed it rather than Lincoln. Lincoln would have signed it because once again, he orchestrated it. You say it was to "prevent" secession. So? The fact is that the North was so willing to bargain away any prospect of banning slavery that they were perfectly happy to offer it up right away. Get it? The North was not interested in banning slavery.
Well, let's see. All declarations of secession mention slavery as a reason for seceding, including Virginia's which mentioned the treatment of the slave holding states, and the confederacy never freed their slaves until forced to by their defeat in the war, but you say secession wasn't about slavery.
Yes the 4 states which did issue declarations of causes did mention the North's violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution.....because that was irrefutable proof that the Northern states had broken the deal. The CSA did not free their slaves though they offered to, until after the war. How does this show the war was "about" slavery when the North was said over and over again that they did not want to ban slavery and when the first thing they offered was slavery forever by express constitutional amendment?
After the war, the North abolished slavery in all states, but you say it wasn't about abolishing slavery.
Not only I say that. They themselves said they did not enter the war to abolish slavery. Yet you refuse to take them at their word.
The corwin ammendment was never ratified, but you say the North offered the South perpetual protection for slavery signed, sealed, and delivered.
No. I said they offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. So they did. The original 7 seceding states turned it down. That's why more states did not ratify it - it was a dead letter at that point.
The South had slaves but the North were racists.
Racism was universal in the world at the time.
So yes, you are the one reaching for alternate realities.
Nah. That's you.
How many times does this have to be explained to you? Not everyone in the North was on board with abolishing slavery, and Lincoln had to work with all sides. After the war when they had full authority to abolish slavery, they did.
Hardly anybody was on board with abolishing slavery. They did so ONLY in areas they did not control ONLY after waiting 2 years to do so as a war measure. They did so in the few border states that still had slavery after the war.
Some did. I don't care how small a minority they were, they grew up during the same time and they could see slavery was wrong. The slave holding states were clearly on the wrong side of history, and that error cost hundreds of thousands of lives to correct.
It need not have cost any lives to correct. Practically everybody else in Europe and the Americas got rid of slavery without a massive bloodbath at this time. It only cost lives because it was connected to a war of Independence that was mostly about the same thing wars are usually about - money. The reason I point out very few were abolitionists is to show that there was no real threat of abolition in 1860.
And there were enough of them for the slave holding states to cite them as a reason for seceding. Do I need to post those snippets again?
There were enough $ for the original 7 seceding states to leave. Their economy was geared toward producing cash crops for export. They needed low tariffs to facilitate trade. The North which was industrializing needed captive markets and tariffs to raise the price of foreign goods it could not compete with otherwise. It also found the tax money raised very convenient in building up its infrastructure. Had every slave instead been a sharecropper as they were after the war, none of the above economic realities would have changed.
Since South Carolina seceded, their laws meant little to the federal government.
You have it backwards. South Carolina is sovereign. Any claims of the federal government meant nothing to them in their sovereign territory.
Did you mean 1910? Those laws were passed in Southern states. Even after hundreds of thousands killed, they weren't going to give it up until forced.
No, I meant 1810. That's when slave trading became illegal in the United States. Yankee slave traders continued however well into the mid 19th century - illegally - by greasing the palms of corrupt government officials.
Not all of them were by choice, and many deserted to the North when they got the chance. I suggest rereading it.
The vast majority by choice. Desertions among Black Confederates were not noted to be particularly high.
BTW, in all of that blah blah blah, you accounted for less than 6,000 troops even if you count the two mentions of 1400 troops as separate groups.
BTW, other than the examples of individual troops there were accounts of entire companies and of "thousands, manifestly a part of the Confederate Army."
Charles Dickens' vicious racist remarks (1857) against Indians Racism in the work of Charles Dickens
That he was a racist I have never doubted. Pretty much everybody was in the mid 19th century. Still, he was an outspoken abolitionist. He did not support for example enslaving Indians even though he thought them inferior.
See the previous link. Cooborated here. Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War And as I said, he was wrong. The North did abolish slavery.
The previous link does not make your case. He supported the Southern states because he supported their right to self determination and because he clearly saw that the North had been economically exploiting the South for many years. Any claims of concern about the welfare of slaves on the part of Northerners were pure pretense. They hated Blacks and would not tolerate their company. They passed laws to exclude and drive out Blacks from their territory. They were only interested in maintaining economic control over the Southern states so as to continue lining their pockets.