Yes and the latter 5 seceding states did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war.....ie they obviously were not seceding over slavery. In what way was what you wrote an answer to what I wrote?
There you go with the "would have" again. They didn't, and that's all that counts.
Why didn't they? Because the original 7 seceding states rejected it. Slavery forever rejected by the Southern states. That's all that counts.
Name? I suspect he was killed in the cross fire.
Nope. Murdered in cold blood. https://www.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_person_killed_in_the_raid_at_Harper's_ferry
I don't excuse human traffickers in any form or from any area, but it's the buyers who create the market. Without the buyers there would be no human trafficking, and I apply that to today's buyers as well.
This is a silly tangent. Acts of war are only committed against countries or the citizens of countries, not individuals. Next, the slaves that were sold were enslaved by other Africans. Next, it was Yankee slave traders who sailed there and bought those slaves.
Lee opposed slavery but didn't think the time was right to end it.
A position not unlike Lincoln's.
He toured the US twice, in 1842 and after the CW. In 1842 he made some stops in the South and was so sickened by slavery that he cancelled his tour in the South. Here's more. Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War
Dickens inveighed against slavery consistently including while in the Southern states. So much for the claim that nobody could speak out against slavery in the South.
That was the constitution the voters in Kansas voted to replace in 1858.
And yet that was the original constitution of the state. BTW, other Northern states were adopting more and greater restrictions against Blacks at the same time that Kansas dropped its formal ban on Blacks ever settling there.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Correct. Republicans were not abolitionists pre-war. Explicitly not abolitionists.
You've provided anecdotal accounts. I accept those eyewitness accounts as valid, but it wasn't on the scale that escaped and served in the North.
I accept that more eventually did serve in the Union armies....though I will note that plenty were forced to join as the Union army conquered various areas and came across slaves whom they pressed into service. The point is that many thousands of Blacks both slave and free served and indeed fought in the Confederate Army by numerous eyewitness accounts from the Union side. Any claims that only a few served or that there were only 7 eyewitness accounts of such like that book claims are simply false.
I'll give you a hint. "Strike One!"
spell it out. Be specific.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
In what way was what you wrote an answer to what I wrote?
They couldn't abolish slavery in the South before 1865, and they were hesitant about abolishing it in the border states for fear of driving them to the Confederacy. In 1865 they finally had the power and the mandate to abolish slavery, and they did it.
Nope. Murdered in cold blood. https://www.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_person_killed_in_the_raid_at_Harper's_ferry
Well it took you long enough, but there's no excusing that. It was bad, but so was the slavery they were trying to fight.
Repeat, there's no excusing that.
This is a silly tangent. Acts of war are only committed against countries or the citizens of countries, not individuals.
And how many slaves were taken? What number is needed to become an act of war against a country?
Next, the slaves that were sold were enslaved by other Africans.
And whites shoved other whites into the ovens.
Next, it was Yankee slave traders who sailed there and bought those slaves.
I never excused them, but they were breaking the law and were stopped before the CW. They were no different from modern human traffickers.
And no matter who trafficked them, it was the buyers who created the market for the slave trade, legal or illegal, and made it profitable. If you've read my posts on human trafficking, you'll see I'm consistant on this. Just as modern johns are making abusive pimps and human traffickers rich for the purpose of having a warm wet spot to stick it into, the slave holders made the human traffickers of their day rich.
A position not unlike Lincoln's.
Wrong. Lincoln opposed slavery but understood he didn't have the power to abolish it and had to deal with a population that wasn't all in for abolition. When he got the power he acted on it.
Dickens inveighed against slavery consistently including while in the Southern states.
He left the South as soon as he saw how bad it was.
So much for the claim that nobody could speak out against slavery in the South.
Ask Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. OK, both of them rebelled against their masters, but a whole lot of people were executed as a result.
And ask the Underground Railroad who had to operate in secrecy. Oh, wait, they were "stealing property", so that's different.
And yet that was the original constitution of the state.
The constitution the voters elected representatives to abolish in 1858.
BTW, other Northern states were adopting more and greater restrictions against Blacks at the same time that Kansas dropped its formal ban on Blacks ever settling there.
I didn't realize blacks had faced discrimination in the North after the CW. Did anyone else know that? I wonder if the Democrats running the South imposed any discriminatory policies against the blacks living there after the CW. I'll need to look into that.
Correct. Republicans were not abolitionists pre-war. Explicitly not abolitionists.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
OBTW, Cassius Clay was an abolitionist who co-founded the party for that reason. When they finally got the power in 1865, they did it.
I accept that more eventually did serve in the Union armies....though I will note that plenty were forced to join as the Union army conquered various areas and came across slaves whom they pressed into service.
I'll refute that with your own comment on blacks serving in the Confederate military, "Its tough to "force" anybody that you have to give guns to". Now you're saying the North did exactly that even though they had no pressing need to do so.
The point is that many thousands of Blacks both slave and free served and indeed fought in the Confederate Army by numerous eyewitness accounts from the Union side. Any claims that only a few served or that there were only 7 eyewitness accounts of such like that book claims are simply false.
We can go back and forth over whose sources we chose to believe. If you want to make the point that blacks willingly defended a nation that enslaved them, then preach your claims in front of a black church and see how many agree with you.
spell it out. Be specific.
No, this is more fun. I'll add "strike 2". I hope I don't have to repeat.