I did. It was very nice of him/her/them to admit that "Jefferson Davis said nothing walking back his support of slavery."
They were not abolitionists as they themselves said over and over again. They only emancipated slaves in territories they did not control even as late as 1863.
We've already been over that. Lincoln had to keep the Union united, and had to talk out of both sides of his mouth. In 1864 with the war still going on, the Republicans in Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere but were blocked by the party of Jefferson Davis. In 1865 with the war still going on, Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere.
They were terrorists and murderers. Practically every other western country got rid of slavery via compensated emancipation - and without bloodshed.
And that was meant to defend the Confederacy? I'll bet you can't even see what's wrong with what you posted.
The people who supported them were criminals and terrorist sponsors. Those who sheltered them harbored terrorists.
So were the people who harbored the resistance, according to the Nazis.
The US considers it an act of war to do what they did - ask the Taliban.
When did the Taliban attempt to free slaves?
Yes but the point is, buying something the local rulers were willing to sell is not an act of war.
They were traitors who sold their own people into slavery, so yes, siding with traitors to take them by force was an act of war.
The graft and corruption were rife. This was a major industry for the Northeast well into the mid 19th century.
How major? It had trickled down to nothing by the 1860s.
I don't deny that....though the vast majority of Yankee Slave Traders' customers were in Latin and South America - that is especially the case after 1810.
Not that your answer to this would excuse the Confederacy, but numbers?
Lincoln didn't like slavery but was not an abolitionist and was even willing to protect it forever via express constitutional amendment and by strengthened fugitive slave laws.
You mean that football that Lucy tried to temp the Confederacy with, but unlike Charlie Brown they knew it was nothing?
Yes, but he openly spoke out against it while in the South as a known abolitionist - something you said people could not do. That was the whole point.
Details?
Yes. Why do you think Blacks almost all stayed in the economically devastated South until very late in the 19th century? They were not allowed to move North.
That was weak. It's not like they could have just boarded planes or hopped on buses and migrate North. The migration started slowly at first, then picked up as the Democrats passed oppressive laws in the South. You can look up the great migration for more on the history of that.
And before you respond by saying the "great migration" didn't start until 1910, I know that, but migration itself started decades earlier and led up to that.
Oh by the way, the Republicans including Lincoln were not abolitionists and said so many many times.
The Republicans weren't abolitionists even though they voted to abolish slavery in Congress twice before the CW ended, and the South didn't secede over slavery even though they stated it several times and didn't give up slavery until after the war.
That includes every prominent Republican.
Like Cassius Clay who co-founded the Republican party?
Those who were abolitionists could not gain power or influence. Read Republican party controlled newspapers and what they said about slavery...or just read their statements or read the Corwin Amendment.
You mean that amendment that was voted on mostly by Democrats, was signed by a Democrat president who is considered one of the biggest failures in US history, and never got more than 5 or 6 states to ratify it?
Republicans were not abolitionists until very late in the war. and no matter how many times you say "but 1865" that does not make them abolitionists earlier.
Then why did Jefferson Davis say they were in 1858?
Both sides enslaved Blacks.
Yes, and the Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, in the North voted to keep slavery in 1864. The voters responded by replacing many of them with Republicans.
I have already cited numerous Union Army sources indicated thousands of Blacks fought in the Confederate Army.
"Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
I'll just ignore you on this since you have nothing to say and are obviously not interested in an honest conversation on the point.
I struck out "add" and replaced it with "repeat". You didn't add anything, you just repeated the same nothing.
His source disproved the claim of the dubious source you kept citing.
We've already been over that. Lincoln had to keep the Union united, and had to talk out of both sides of his mouth. In 1864 with the war still going on, the Republicans in Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere but were blocked by the party of Jefferson Davis. In 1865 with the war still going on, Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere.
Yes we've been over that. Lincoln was not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said openly and repeatedly he was not an abolitionist. He never said anything to the contrary before very late in the war. The same is true of the Republican Party in general. They went to great pains to make it clear they were not abolitionists. They were quite willing to protect slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and even to strengthen fugitive slave laws.
And that was meant to defend the Confederacy? I'll bet you can't even see what's wrong with what you posted.
No. It was meant to point out that John Brown and his band were terrorists and murderers as were the people who supported them - exactly as I said. Do you ever try anything other than strawman arguments and red herrings?
So were the people who harbored the resistance, according to the Nazis.
Analogy fail. Neither side were the Nazis or even close. Anybody who has read Mein Kampf knows Hitler was more sympathetic to the North than the South - he hated states' rights.
When did the Taliban attempt to free slaves?
The Taliban harbored OBL and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks did they not?
They were traitors who sold their own people into slavery, so yes, siding with traitors to take them by force was an act of war.
They were the recognized rulers of those lands. You disapproving of them over 150 years later does not change that. There was no "act of war" in buying something the rulers of those lands were quite happy to sell. We can find it morally reprehensible, but that is different from being an act of war which it was not. Words have specific meanings.
How major? It had trickled down to nothing by the 1860s.
Very major. Read Complicity, how the North promoted, prolonged and profited from slavery. You can read several other books on the subject. Slave trading was THE largest industry in the Northeast for at least a century.
Not that your answer to this would excuse the Confederacy, but numbers?
Something like FIVE PERCENT of all slaves transported from Africa to the Western Hemisphere were sold in what is now the United States. The vast majority went to Brazil and the Caribbean. The Caribbean islands were disease ridden hellholes with staggering mortality rates. They needed constant replenishment with more slaves to keep the sugar plantations going.
You mean that football that Lucy tried to temp the Confederacy with, but unlike Charlie Brown they knew it was nothing?
I mean the constitutional amendment which the Republican Party and Lincoln supported and which gained a supermajority of both Houses of Congress after the Southern delegation had withdrawn. The one the original 7 seceding states rejected.
Details?
Already provided. Go back and read.
That was weak. It's not like they could have just boarded planes or hopped on buses and migrate North. The migration started slowly at first, then picked up as the Democrats passed oppressive laws in the South. You can look up the great migration for more on the history of that.
That was reality. People could move about and did throughout the 19th century when there were better opportunities elsewhere. Hell, tens of millions of Europeans sailed across the Atlantic Ocean. To imply that Blacks did not move North until late in the 19th century because of difficulty in being able to transport themselves is what is really weak.
And before you respond by saying the "great migration" didn't start until 1910, I know that, but migration itself started decades earlier and led up to that.
It did not start in any significant numbers until about 1890 when the Northern states finally lifted their exclusionary laws which had kept Blacks in the now devastated and impoverished Southern states.
The Republicans weren't abolitionists even though they voted to abolish slavery in Congress twice before the CW ended, and the South didn't secede over slavery even though they stated it several times and didn't give up slavery until after the war.
The Republicans weren't abolitionists and said so many times. They even supported slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and strengthened fugitive slave laws. Only 4 of the 12 states which seceded issued declarations of causes and of these all but Mississippi listed economic causes even though this was not unconstitutional while the Northern states violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution was. They then turned down the bona fide offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The 5 states of the Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln started a war.
Like Cassius Clay who co-founded the Republican party?
Like Lincoln, Seward and practically every elected Republican officeholder.
You mean that amendment that was voted on mostly by Democrats, was signed by a Democrat president who is considered one of the biggest failures in US history, and never got more than 5 or 6 states to ratify it?
You mean the amendment that was written by a Republican Senator and which was orchestrated by the President Elect who was the de facto leader of the Republican Party and which lots of Republicans in Congress supported?
Then why did Jefferson Davis say they were in 1858?
There was heated rhetoric on both sides. What is indisputable is that the Republicans themselves openly said they were not abolitionists and did not support abolition.
Yes, and the Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, in the North voted to keep slavery in 1864. The voters responded by replacing many of them with Republicans.
Yes and this doesn't change the fact that Republicans were not abolitionists and did not come around to supporting abolition until late in the war.
"Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Yet we know even from Union Army sources that many thousands of Blacks did fight in the Confederate Army.
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.] Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA
"Next to the demands for safety and equality, the secessionist leaders emphasized familiar economic complaints. South Carolinians in particular were convinced of the general truth of Rhett's and Hammond's much publicized figures upon Southern tribute to Northern interests." (Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, Ordeal of the Union, Volume 2, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950, p. 332)
I struck out "add" and replaced it with "repeat". You didn't add anything, you just repeated the same nothing.
Hell, that's all you've been doing for a month.