Then it was nothing.False. It was a bona fide offer.
The remaining Union states could have ratified it without help from the slave holding states if they had intended to. They didn't. The only states that did ratify it did so after the slave holding states had seceded and the war had already started.
They didn't because the original 7 seceding states turned it down....then 5 more states seceded after Lincoln started the war.
It never became law, or came close to becoming law. It was nothing.
False. It got supermajorities in both houses of Congress, the signature of the president and was endorsed by the ruling party in the North. It only failed because the original 7 seceding states were not interested.
And?
You can't blame Democrats for the 13th amendment not passing sooner. The Republicans could have passed it had they wanted to. They did not.
Yes, I've admitted this. Lincoln admitted this. The Republicans admitted this, which they tried to change in 1864 and succeeded in 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Frederick Douglas acknowledged this. Now that you've posted this, I'll ask again. Was calling "the negro" "inferior" whose "best use" was as slaves "Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution"?
Now that you've acknowledged the blindingly obvious ie that it was the Northern states which violated the Constitution, I'll answer. No, what we all would acknowledge are blatantly racist sentiments expressed in some of the seceding states' declarations of causes were not in and of themselves citing the actual violations of constitution by the Northern states. They were irrelevant statements which we all today would disagree with and object to.
Here we go again......and spam
OK. Here we go again. If you're going to spam, I'm going to counter spam.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
"The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ... The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue," John C Calhoun Speech on the Slavery Question," March 4, 1850
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions." Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" wrote the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.
"The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
There are three themes here. The first is the inferiority of "the negro". The second is the Republicans support for abolition. The last are their claims based on the then current law. In 1864 the Republicans attampted to change that law with the 13th Amendment, but the Democrats blocked them. In 1865 the Republicans had enough votes to pass the 13th Amendment, which they did
As I have already demonstrated your three themes claim is obviously false. You conveniently omitted the numerous economic complaints they had.
You finally get around to sort of admitting that yes indeed it was the Northern states which violated (you falsely try to call it "the current law").....no, it was the Constitution the Northern states were violating. Then you throw in a red herring about changing the constitution later. The Southern states had a perfectly valid legal argument - the Northern states violated the constitution. There is no question that they did violate the constitution. Though it was not necessary in order to make their case legally which they already had, the seceding states also pointed out that the Northern states were screwing them over economically. Again, there is no question that the Northern states were doing this. As much as it angered Southerners, this was not unconstitutional. It was however a sound rational and moral basis upon which to exercise their sovereign right to secede from what was always understood to be a voluntary union of sovereign and equal states.
After the Republicans were blocked by the Democrats from passing the 13th Amendment, the Northern states voted in enough Republicans to pass the law.
Not true once again. The democratically elected congressional representatives of the Southern states who were exclusively (Jeffersonian) Democrats returned to Congress. They agreed to pass the 13th amendment and that is what got it passed.
Here's my reference. CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL: Unionism If slavery wasn't the issue for them, then why did they choose the Union over their own states?
Having read that, nowhere in that does he claim that antislavery sentiments were what was motivating them. What would motivate them? The same thing that motivated most Yankee farmboys and others - good old fashioned nationalism. Not everybody welcomes radical change. Ever.
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." Clearly they are speaking out against slavery, regardless of whether you think "all our national territory" meant "all our national territory".
TERRITORY. Read that word as many times as you need for you to finally grasp the meaning. This did not apply to states in which slavery already existed - As Lincoln made clear over and over again. It only applied to the Western Territory.
From Lincoln in 1854. "If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another..."
"The problem with this lofty rhetoric of dying to make men free was that in 1861 the North was fighting for the restoration of a slaveholding Union. In his July 4 message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated the inaugural pledge that he had 'no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.'" (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 265)
"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 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
The same Congress that imposed Reconstruction on the South after the war also imposed racist policies on the American Indians "The same Congress that devised Radical Reconstruction . . . approved strict segregation and inequality for the Indian of the West." (Catton, editor, The National Experience, p. 416)
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
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 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
In 1864 the Republicans voted to ratify the 13th Amendment, but were stopped by the democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, over arguments of "states rights". Americans in the North responded by voting in more Republicans, who were able to pass it the following year.
As we've already discussed, this is false. The 13th amendment was passed after the duly elected Southern congressional delegation returned to washington DC and agreed to pass the 13th amendment.
Go ahead and post your comments showing some of them talking out of both sides of their mouths. In the end, they abolished slavery, and none of your twisting can change that.
Nobody has argued that the 13th amendment was not passed. Read more carefully.
You allow the slave holding states to use this as legal justification for seceding, but refuse to acknowledge the Republicans couldn't abolish slavery until this was changed.
You mean I cite the US Constitution and note that the Northern states violated it? Yes. I do. They did violate it. Had Republicans in the North wanted to pass a constitutional amendment prior to 1865 they could have - but to do so would have been to admit the Southern states were out of the union. Denying that was their whole premise for launching their war of aggression.
To look at this another way, I have no inclination to fly around like Superman because I can't. If I could, then I would have the inclination to do so. See how that works?
The Republicans had no inclination to abolish slavery in 1861. They did not elect abolitionists. Lincoln himself said he had no inclination....get it? We're not talking legal authority. We're not talking couldn't russell up enough votes for. He clearly said no INCLINATION to abolish slavery. He said that many times.
His quote above from 1854, the EP, the 13th Amendment which would have been passed in 1864 if the Democrats hadn't blocked it are just a few.
In his numerous quotes he said over and over again he had no inclination to abolish slavery where it existed. The EP was a war measure - it did not emancipate any slaves in areas the union army controlled. The 13th amendment did not pass until after he was dead. I don't know why you cling to this fantasy that abolitionism was common in the North (it was not) that Republicans were abolitionists (they were not), or that Lincoln supported abolition (he expressly did not). I guess you have to believe this in the face of all facts and numerous clear statements to the contrary to believe in the myth of the virtuous North.
One of the comments posted there: "Those quotes from Lincoln, when he was debating Douglas, are out of context. He was trying to get elected in a country that was extremely conservative compared to today’s standards. Its not like he could get up on the podium and say “if im president, black people will be equal with whites and they can even run for office”. This site is a sham and you should be ashamed of yourself."
He said it. He said similar things numerous times. He never said anything to the contrary. There is no reason to believe he did not mean what he said. I provided another citation for the above. You are trying to spin anti-historical fairy tales.
"Fragments" could mean anything. What is the evidence he even wrote it, and what was the context? Look at all of the racist comments President Trump was accused of making. Remember the Steele dossier? The phone call? You don't think the Democrats could have been up to the same tricks back then?
Or he could have jotted down his opponent's point of view to analyze it, much like when you copy and paste my comments when you're working on replies to my posts, but with less technology of course. Just because you're putting my comments in your posts doesn't mean you are agreeing with them.
R-E-A-C-H. He said those things. Publicly. He said similar things over and over and over again. He never recanted nor said anything to the contrary. There is no reason to believe he did not mean what he said many times. You are clinging to fairy tales here when you try to deny Lincoln's unambiguous statements.
That's why I asked for a transcript. "https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:133?rgn=div1;view=fulltext" That also lists the quote as a "fragment".
I provided sources. They are numerous. Nobody but a desperate PC Revisionist would even attempt the deny he said those things publicly and he said them many times. The evidence and the sources are overwhelming.
I said that myself and asked for a transcript. Can you produce one?
I provided you numerous credible sources. I have done all that good faith requires.
All of the Republicans voted to pass the 13th Amendment in 1864. The Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, voted to prevent its passage citing states' rights. The voters in the North responded by replacing the Democrats with Republicans. Regardless of what you think their motivations were, the possibility that they would pass the 13th Amendment didn't stop them from voting Republican.
You obviously haven't read much history....I mean real history - not the hopelessly slanted PC Revisionist crap. The few Democrats there were in the North were advocating a negotiated settlement. Their argument had a lot of traction with the war weary Northern populace. Events in the war turned in the union's favor shortly before the election and swung the election in the Republicans' favor. I haven't heard anybody even suggest that passage or non passage of the 13th amendment was THE burning issue for the voters in the North. THE issue was obviously the war.
On the other hand, the slave holding states said in their declarations of secession that preserving slavery was one of their reasons for seceding, used racist terms that had nothing to do with the law, and held on to their slaves, hunting those who escaped like animals, until forced to free them by the North. According to you it wasn't about preserving slavery, but that's what they tried to do regardless of what you think they really wanted.
The only 4 of the original 7 seceding states which actually issued declarations of causes listed the Northern states violations of the US Constitution. They also listed their economic grievances. In the case of Texas they also listed a malicious refusal to secure the border. They also had some racist language in their declarations and some claimed the Republicans were interested in equality of the races. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment by the North, they turned down that offer. Then Lincoln started a war of aggression to force them back in. Then 5-6 more states seceded over Lincoln's war of aggression. You then claim it was "all about slavery". That sums it up.
Unless I see something in your reply that I haven't already replied to, I'll thank you for the lively debate and let you have the last word.
False. It was a bona fide offer.
Did it become law, yes or no?
Could the Northern states have ratified it and made it law, yes or no?
False. It got supermajorities in both houses of Congress, the signature of the president and was endorsed by the ruling party in the North. It only failed because the original 7 seceding states were not interested.
And there weren't enough states in the North to ratify it, if they had any intention of doing so?
You can't blame Democrats for the 13th amendment not passing sooner. The Republicans could have passed it had they wanted to. They did not.
They didn't have the votes in 1864. They had them in 1865, and the 13th Amendment was passed
Now that you've acknowledged the blindingly obvious ie that it was the Northern states which violated the Constitution, I'll answer. No, what we all would acknowledge are blatantly racist sentiments expressed in some of the seceding states' declarations of causes were not in and of themselves citing the actual violations of constitution by the Northern states. They were irrelevant statements which we all today would disagree with and object to.
I really appreciated your brutally honest reply, enough so that I'll overlook the part I didn't agree with (for now).
OK. Here we go again. If you're going to spam, I'm going to counter spam.
And if you're going to spam, then I'm going to summarize.
All of these make the point that secession was for reasons in addition to slavery. None make the point that slavery wasn't a reason. Here are the sources.
10 were from Southern government officials and news sources taking the spotlight off of slavery.
One was from a border state Democrat, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton.
The one from Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter could have been written in 2021.
The three paragraphs from Georgia's declaration stated other reasons but also mentioned slavery.
South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett mentioned slavery at the end of his speech.
As I have already demonstrated your three themes claim is obviously false. You conveniently omitted the numerous economic complaints they had.
I never claimed no other reasons were given. I just stated the three main points from the text I posted.
You finally get around to sort of admitting that yes indeed it was the Northern states which violated (you falsely try to call it "the current law").....no, it was the Constitution the Northern states were violating.
By current law I meant that slavery was legal at the time, until the 13th Amendment was passed. I didn't see the need to go into details about what the Constitution says.
BTW, the slaves who escaped to the North and the abolitionists in the South who helped them escape also "violated...The Constitution".
Then you throw in a red herring about changing the constitution later.
Meaning the 13th Amendment.
The Southern states had a perfectly valid legal argument...
The question is, was that one of their real reasons. Since they held on to their slaves when they could have taken that issue off the table if they had intended to release them, killed abolitionists who tried to free them, and tracked down slaves who escaped, the answer based on their actions is yes.
[My previous] "After the Republicans were blocked by the Democrats from passing the 13th Amendment, the Northern states voted in enough Republicans to pass the law."
Not true once again. The democratically elected congressional representatives of the Southern states who were exclusively (Jeffersonian) Democrats returned to Congress. They agreed to pass the 13th amendment and that is what got it passed.
You're correct in that some Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass the 13th Amendment, but many still resisted. The Republicans needed their gains to get it passed.
House passes the 13th Amendment
Having read that, nowhere in that does he claim that antislavery sentiments were what was motivating them. What would motivate them? The same thing that motivated most Yankee farmboys and others - good old fashioned nationalism. Not everybody welcomes radical change. Ever.
I'll grant I inferred that, but if it was nationalism, then they saw the Union as their nation. Of course we don't know. Many could have been abolitionists or sympathizers. The South had them too.
TERRITORY. Read that word as many times as you need for you to finally grasp the meaning. This did not apply to states in which slavery already existed - As Lincoln made clear over and over again. It only applied to the Western Territory.
First of all, my point was that the Republicans opposed slavery. I tried to take the territory part out of the discussion, but since you insist, "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in "all our National Territory".
The South understood what this meant.
To the readers, you can see my replies to the latest set of quotes on slavery in my previous post.
So the question remains, since Lincoln was clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth, which side was telling the truth?
House passes the 13th Amendment
As Frederick Douglas said years later, "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."
I snipped the repeats.
I provided sources. They are numerous. Nobody but a desperate PC Revisionist would even attempt the deny he said those things publicly and he said them many times. The evidence and the sources are overwhelming.
The sources you provided all said the quote was from a fragment. We don't know what that fragment was. None offered a transcript.
You obviously haven't read much history....I mean real history - not the hopelessly slanted PC Revisionist crap. The few Democrats there were in the North were advocating a negotiated settlement. Their argument had a lot of traction with the war weary Northern populace. Events in the war turned in the union's favor shortly before the election and swung the election in the Republicans' favor. I haven't heard anybody even suggest that passage or non passage of the 13th amendment was THE burning issue for the voters in the North. THE issue was obviously the war.
House passes the 13th Amendment
You then claim it was "all about slavery". That sums it up.
I never said it was all about slavery, but only that it was an issue.