Then why didn't he? He could have anyway, if that had been his intention.
I am correct. The North was perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment in order to get their cash cows the Southern states not to leave. The MONEY is all they were interested in - not abolitionism.
The states never ratified the Corbomite Manuever, and many that voted for its passage and the president who signed it were out of work the following year.
There were incredibly few abolitionists North or South prior to late in the war.
They had JD fooled. He cited them as the justification for secession in 1858.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Southern states voted to abolish it with the 13th amendment too.
Yes, that's what I said in the text you butchered below.
Of course the Southern states voted to abolish slavery by passing the 13th amendment. I haven't missed that at all...and by the way, yes that is the same South that seceded. It was their democratically elected representatives who voted for it. They were not unconstitutionally unseated and the voters in the Southern states not disenfranchised until they voted against passage of the 14th amendment which massively infringed on the rights of the states in favor of the federal government and dictated to sovereign states whom they could and could not elect. There were very few abolitionists in the South or the North until late in the war. It simply did not have much popular support. I don't agree that the CSA was defending slavery. That was not what the Southern states seceded for.
This isn't funny, and it certainly isn't true, especially the last part, as JD's speech in 1858 above makes clear.
Leftist history prof at Princeton and author. He is one of the chief PC Revisionists who pushed the "all about slavery" myth. I cited this quote as a statement against interest. LOL!
Here was the quote.
"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."
This seems to make your point that it was the EP that caused desertions, although now that I look at it, it actually says that there were desertions when it happened. Since troops were deserting before the EP, we can conclude the EP wasn't the cause.
I understand he was a man of his time and had opinions that were in many cases in line with the majority. You seem to cling to the fantasy that he didn't really mean what he said even though there is no reason to believe that other than a desire to whitewash several of his more ugly (by our standards) views.
No, I see him as Frederick Douglas described him. A flawed man, but one who had to work with the people of his day to get things done. We can easily talk about how appalling slavery is today and no one, including anyone in the modern South, would disagree. That wasn't how it was in the mid 1800s. It wasn't even that way in the entire North in the 1860s, as you and your friend are so fond of pointing out. He had to work with that to keep the Union together and get things done, and whatever personal demons he had to deal with, he overcame them to do just that.
Because the original 7 seceding states turned down the offer. What is this the 30th time I've answered this?
The states never ratified the Corbomite Manuever, and many that voted for its passage and the president who signed it were out of work the following year.
They never ratified it because the original 7 seceding states turned the offer down. 31st time.
They had JD fooled. He cited them as the justification for secession in 1858.
Yes both sides amped up the rhetoric. The fact remains that abolitionists simply could not win elections.
This isn't funny, and it certainly isn't true, especially the last part, as JD's speech in 1858 above makes clear.
Oh its very much true. If the original 7 states were seceding over slavery they could have simply accepted the Corwin Amendment to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South obviously did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war.
This seems to make your point that it was the EP that caused desertions, although now that I look at it, it actually says that there were desertions when it happened. Since troops were deserting before the EP, we can conclude the EP wasn't the cause.
No we can't. There was a desertion crisis in the Union Army caused by the EP. That's exactly what McPherson admitted.
No, I see him as Frederick Douglas described him. A flawed man, but one who had to work with the people of his day to get things done. We can easily talk about how appalling slavery is today and no one, including anyone in the modern South, would disagree. That wasn't how it was in the mid 1800s. It wasn't even that way in the entire North in the 1860s, as you and your friend are so fond of pointing out. He had to work with that to keep the Union together and get things done, and whatever personal demons he had to deal with, he overcame them to do just that.
There is zero evidence that it was some kind of political maneuver. He was not an abolitionist and said so many times both in public and in private.