His source disproved the claim of the dubious source you kept citing.
You're not off to a very good start. That quote WAS WP's rebuttal to my "dubious source". Maybe you and WP can debate whether JD walked back his support of slavery.
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.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
They were quite willing to protect slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and even to strengthen fugitive slave laws.
Then why didn't they ratify it when they could have?
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.
Like the Confederacy, Hitler thought owning slaves was one of those states' rights.
The Taliban harbored OBL and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks did they not?
Yes. Did the terrorists they harborded try to free slaves?
They were the recognized rulers of those lands.
Recognized especially by the human traffickers and the slave owners who wanted their product.
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.
It most certainly was an act of war against a people, committed by the slave owners, the slave traders, and their own government.
We can find it morally reprehensible, but that is different from being an act of war which it was not. Words have specific meanings.
A lot of people saw it this way then. The slave holding states were clearly on the wrong side of history. As you said, "Practically every other western country got rid of slavery via compensated emancipation - and without bloodshed." Very major. Read Complicity, how the North promoted, prolonged and profited from slavery.
"The North" didn't promote or prolong slavery. It was some bad actors in the Northern states and some of the border states who did this.
You can read several other books on the subject. Slave trading was THE largest industry in the Northeast for at least a century.
That is refuted by you below.
Something like FIVE PERCENT of all slaves transported from Africa to the Western Hemisphere were sold in what is now the United States.
Some numbers say it was a lower percentage, but it still amounted to millions. As I said, being such a low percentage doesn't excuse the Confederacy.
I mean the constitutional amendment which the Republican Party and Lincoln supported
The majority of the Republicans voted against it, and those that voted for it did so in an attempt to prevent what happened, and with the understanding it didn't give the slave holding states any protections they didn't already have at that time. The Constitution already implicitly protected slavery.
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...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.
I never said they didn't migrate North early on "difficulty in being able to transport themselves", because I never said they didn't migrate North early on. It just happened a lot slower than you seem to think it should have.
They left because of the rampant discrimination they faced in the South even after they were freed. I don't deny there was discrimination in the North too, but to imply they didn't want to leave the South because they had it so good there is beyond belief.
BTW, the settlers had ships ready to take them to the "New World".
and which gained a supermajority of both Houses of Congress
Many of whom found themselves unemployed afterwards.
after the Southern delegation had withdrawn.
Of course. They knew what everyone but you knows. It was nothing.
The one the original 7 seceding states rejected.
And all but 5 or 6 in what would become the Union rejected.
Yet we know even from Union Army sources that many thousands of Blacks did fight in the Confederate Army.
Even if every last one had enlisted into the Confederate military and fought willingly which we know isn't the case, it was still a fraction of the number that escaped to the North, joined the Union Army and navy, and fought against the Confederacy.
"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
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939." Adolf Hitler, April 29, 1945
“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
Both were from an interview in 1864. What was JD saying eariler?
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Was JD walking back from his statements from 1858?
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
Before I click, who is this "cwcrossroads" that I need to read them?
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).
Of course he did.
“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
Here's some history, written by the Confederacy.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
"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)
So they gave other reasons. So what? Even if we accept there were other reasons, it doesn't change the fact that slavery was one of them.
That was in response to the rest of the claims made obviously.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
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.
Then why didn't they ratify it when they could have?
Because the original 7 seceding states turned down their offer.
Like the Confederacy, Hitler thought owning slaves was one of those states' rights.
Like Lincoln, Hitler thought all power should be concentrated and that people who got in the way of his ambitions - like the plains Indians for example - should be ethnically cleansed.
Yes. Did the terrorists they harborded try to free slaves?
The terrorists they harbored tried to start a bloodbath and had no qualms about cold bloodedly murdering even Black people to do it.
Recognized especially by the human traffickers and the slave owners who wanted their product.
Recognized by everybody. Take it up with Africans that their kings sold slaves to Yankee slave traders.
It most certainly was an act of war against a people, committed by the slave owners, the slave traders, and their own government.
Acts of war are only committed against sovereign entities.
A lot of people saw it this way then. The slave holding states were clearly on the wrong side of history. As you said, "Practically every other western country got rid of slavery via compensated emancipation - and without bloodshed."
A lot of people....not in the United States at the time. Most people in the United States were not abolitionists prior to very late in the war.
"The North" didn't promote or prolong slavery. It was some bad actors in the Northern states and some of the border states who did this.
The slave trade carried on on a large scale in New England well after the grandfather clause expired in 1810. It was common knowledge. Minor officials took bribes and with a wink and a nod ignored the fact that slave trading was still being conducted on a large scale out of those ports.
That is refuted by you below.
No its not. Yankee slave traders sold most of their "cargo" in the Carribean and South America.
Some numbers say it was a lower percentage, but it still amounted to millions. As I said, being such a low percentage doesn't excuse the Confederacy.
this is about the slave trade, not the Confederacy - keep up. I doubt millions were transported to what is now the US. The survival rates of those who were transported there was much higher than the survival rates of those transported to more tropical locations and particularly to produce sugar where conditions were often more brutal. Given the natural growth rate of about 27% per decade, it would not have required there to have been a huge number delivered to what is now the US to amount to a population of 4.5 million by the 1860s.
The majority of the Republicans voted against it, and those that voted for it did so in an attempt to prevent what happened, and with the understanding it didn't give the slave holding states any protections they didn't already have at that time. The Constitution already implicitly protected slavery.
A Republican wrote it and sponsored it. He did so at the behest of the de facto leader of the party Abraham Lincoln, and plenty of Republicans voted for it.
I never said they didn't migrate North early on "difficulty in being able to transport themselves", because I never said they didn't migrate North early on. It just happened a lot slower than you seem to think it should have.
Had they been free to settle there, it is obvious millions of Blacks would have migrated North immediately after the war. The Southern states were left destitute by the ravages of war, the massive theft of the occupation governments and by the massively high Morrill Tariff which tripled pre-war Tariff rates.
They left because of the rampant discrimination they faced in the South even after they were freed. I don't deny there was discrimination in the North too, but to imply they didn't want to leave the South because they had it so good there is beyond belief.
ummmmm I never said anything of the kind.
BTW, the settlers had ships ready to take them to the "New World".
The journey was not safe and plenty died along the way.
Many of whom found themselves unemployed afterwards.
Irrelevant and you have yet to prove that that was why voters elected different representatives later on.
Of course. They knew what everyone but you knows. It was nothing.
it was a bona fide offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment made by the overwhelmingly Northern dominated Congress. Own it.
And all but 5 or 6 in what would become the Union rejected.
No they didn't. Republicans stopped pushing for its ratification by the states once it became obvious the Southern states were not going to accept it and would not return.
Even if every last one had enlisted into the Confederate military and fought willingly which we know isn't the case, it was still a fraction of the number that escaped to the North, joined the Union Army and navy, and fought against the Confederacy.
Deflection noted. Tens of thousands joined the Confederate Army and thousands fought in the Confederate Army.
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939." Adolf Hitler, April 29, 1945
Davis said this during the war to a couple of Northern representatives. In fact he consistently said so.
Both were from an interview in 1864. What was JD saying eariler?
Davis had consistently said similar things.
Beginning in 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).
1861...notice how he didn't talk about slavery here?
"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
Of course he did.
That answered your question above. You have no good response here.
Here's the same spam I posted before Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Asked and answered above.
So they gave other reasons. So what? Even if we accept there were other reasons, it doesn't change the fact that slavery was one of them.
I never denied slavery was ONE of them. I never even denied it was an important reason for the strife between the regions. I do deny however that it was "all about" slavery or that slavery was the sine qua non of either secession or the war.