Nah. Asked and answered above.
He said that to cheering audiences who wanted to hear what he was saying, but JD didn't go for it.
He said it repeatedly. There is no reason to think Lincoln did not mean exactly what he said.
Which was never ratified, even though there was nothing stopping the Union states from ratifying if they had wanted to preserve slavery which they didn't. Repeats snipped.
there was no reason to pass it after the original 7 seceding states rejected it.
So he said to those who wanted to hear it, but he never did and escaped slaves were allowed to immigrate to the Lincoln run North.
He never did because the original 7 seceding states rejected the offer.
I've already given them. Not abolitionists wearing it on their sleeves, but elections in which representatives who were either elected to vote for abolition, or defeated for trying to preserve slavery. If you want to wait for me to post them again, enjoy waiting.
The correct answer is "zero". You could have saved a lot of time by admitting that instead of trying to spin.
Once again I agree with you, and once again you're so blinded by rage that you can't see it. Some of your points are distorted anyway, but I won't go into it because it doesn't change my response. I'll post my reply again.
Rage? You've obviously done a poor job of gauging my emotions - hint: I don't feel any when discussing this on a message board with someone I've never met.
"that's something the entire nation has to answer for, not just Lincoln."
Just as the entire nation bears the blame for slavery.
Maybe you are, but none of that would have happened if there wasn't a market for them.
or willing flesh peddlers eager to profit.....
And you think there's a difference between that and paying someone to do it?
Can you EVER stay on point? I think its not an act of war against those kingdoms to buy what they wanted to sell.
Good points, but how did the slave holders see it? As humans with families, or as additional chattel
They probably saw it as they would be a lot more content and easier to control if they were allowed to have families which is the normal human state. I'm sure they were happy to see their slaves have children because that meant they would not have to go buy more.
Of course you snipped what I said about blacks escaping to the North during the war, but that's OK. I'm sure anyone who is still interested in this thread saw it.
Certainly some did move north during the war but it wasn't millions. Remember the entire Black population was about 4.5 million at the time.
I would point to the elections in kansas in 1858, and in the Union after Congress passed the Corbomite Manuever and one of the biggest presidential failures in the US signed it, but I won't.
Voting to strip a provision that barred any Blacks from settling in a territory does not equal support for abolition on the part of voters in all the Northern states. As for the Corwin Amendment, I get that its inconvenient for you but it was done at the hand of Republicans and passed by the North's elected representatives overwhelmingly.
Just because you buy that doesn't mean it has been established. As I said, take your evidece to the black church of your choice, and see what their response is.
I've posted numerous Union Army accounts of lots of Blacks fighting in the Confederate Army before 1864.
He was trying to take the focus off of slavery, but earlier he clearly stated abolitionists as the reason for seceding.,/p>
He did not believe secession or the war were about slavery. He was quite clear in that and he said so from the start.
The desertions were largely over the incompetence of the military leadership.
No. There were a lot of desertions over the EP specifically.
When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil War.
That was over the draft.
the draft and the EP.
Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making about JD.
Thanks for agreeing with my point about Lincoln.
The same spam
You have no answer.
Find that in his 1858 speech.
Find that in the numerous comments he made in the US Senate or in his first Inaugural Address as President and in his comments to Confederate Senators and in his comments to Union negotiators.
I agree. He meant exactly what he said, and his actions backed what he said about how the nation can't survive being half free and half slaves.
there was no reason to pass it after the original 7 seceding states rejected it.
You are correct. The North had no intention to preserve slavery, so there was no reason to pass it. If they had ever intended to preserve slavery, then they could have passed it anyway.
The correct answer is "zero". You could have saved a lot of time by admitting that instead of trying to spin.
No the correct answers are 1858, 1860, and 1864.
Rage? You've obviously done a poor job of gauging my emotions
I was speaking tongue in cheek. I guess I needed to put an emoticon or something in there.
hint: I don't feel any when discussing this on a message board with someone I've never met.
Sure about that? ;)
Just as the entire nation bears the blame for slavery.
Nope. The abolitionists including those in the South don't bear the blame. The voters who elected reps to abolish slavery don't bear the blame. Nor do the states that voted to abolish it with the 13th Amendment.
Yes, I know the Southern states also voted to abolish slavery. That's the whole point you seem to miss. The South that voted to abolish slavery isn't the same South that seceded. My saying "the Confederacy did this" doesn't mean "the South did this". The South had abolitionists, and fighting age white men who crossed the lines to fight against slavery, and everything else. I don't tie the Confederacy and its defense of slavery to the South or to you. Do you?
or willing flesh peddlers eager to profit.....
Without the market, there would be no human traffickers of any kind. That's my stand whether it was back then, or with human trafficking today
When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil War.
And who is this author that I need to believe this? I mean, besides someone who writes what you want to hear.
Besides, it is well known that desertions started long before the EP due to the losses resulting from incompetence of the Union generals. It didn't just start with the EP.
Thanks for agreeing with my point about Lincoln.
I don't agree with any of your points about Lincoln, except that he said a lot of things we would find repugnant today. He said those things to cheering audiences who wanted to hear it, and who he had to deal with. Frederick Douglas understood that. I understand that. You? Nope.