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.
Really. Show me where the speech below was shown to be bogus.
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.
Actually, he spoke out against it frequently but acknowledged he didn't have the legal means to abolish it. In areas where people supported slavery, and your provided an example in Illinois, he claimed he had no intention of abolishing it to cheering crowds. I never denied that.
The same is true of the Republican Party in general. They went to great pains to make it clear they were not abolitionists.
Cassius Clay, and The Republican party's platform in 1856.
Because the original 7 seceding states turned down their offer.
That wouldn't have stopped them, if they believed slavery should be preserved. They didn't.
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.
You had to go there. Lincoln didn't get much of a chance to grab more territory given that he was dealing with the CW during his first term and was assassinated a year into his second, but that's something the entire nation has to answer for, not just Lincoln.
I don't have an answer for this.
Recognized by everybody. Take it up with Africans that their kings sold slaves to Yankee slave traders.
Do you also blame kidnapped women for the human traffickers who kidnap them?
Acts of war are only committed against sovereign entities.
The villages considered themselves sovereign entities.
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.
In 1858, Kansas joined a lot of other free states by voting to abolish their constitution and make Kansas a free state.
Were there a lot of people in the North who were not abolitionists? Yes, I'll grant that (no pun intended). The Democrats who voted against passing the 13th Amendment in 1864 were elected, but the Republicans who voted to pass the 13th amendment were also elected.
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.
I never denied it happened then. It happens now across the country, but that doesn't mean the country itself is doing it.
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.
It is about the Confederacy. If slaves were bred as if they were animals instead of bought, then you can't blame anyone but the slave states for that.
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.
You didn't respond to my point, which was that the Republicans at the time didn't see it as giving the slave states anything they didn't already have. I know we look at it now and say it would have protected slavery, but at the time the Constitution already did. As I pointed out earlier, if the free states wanted to protect slavery they could have ratified it regardless of what the slave holding states did. They didn't.
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.
Millions did. In fact, many escaped to the North BEFORE the end of the war. The fact that it didn't happen as fast as you think it should have doesn't prove a thing.
The journey was not safe and plenty died along the way.
The risks were known and accepted, just as we take risks when we fly. Of course the risk is much lower now, but 600 years from now they may look at how we travelled through the air and marvel at the risks we were willing to take, just to go on vacation.
Irrelevant and you have yet to prove that that was why voters elected different representatives later on.
What needs to be proven? The Democrats blocked passage of the 13th Amendment in 1864, the voters voted them out, and the Republicans they elected voted to pass the 13th Amendment. I won't pretend I can read their minds, but based on their actions they got what they voted for.
Deflection noted. Tens of thousands joined the Confederate Army and thousands fought in the Confederate Army.
Confederacy approves Black soldiers
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).
PR, nothing more.
1861...notice how he didn't talk about slavery here?
And Hitler didn't talk about genocide.
"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
This is consistant with his speech in 1858 where he said secession was about slavery and the elections of "abolitionists", his words, not mine, in the North. The only difference is he didn't come out and say slavery.
So you are correct in a way, in that he was consistent.
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.
Then your argument is with JD in 1858.