[TwelveOfTwenty]

Oh but I have. The North offered it....

I stopped there, because the North offered nothing. It was a last ditch effort to prevent secession and the CW that was never ratified by the states, and many of those who voted for it were out of work the following year. The president who signed it was a Democrat who is considered one of the biggest failures in history, and he lost his job in 1861 as well. It was never ratified, and ever would be, which the Confederacy knew.

Even if it had passed, it wouldn't have given slavery any protections that weren't already in place at that time.

Repeat snipped.

Abolitionists did not win any elections in 1858

"A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

or 1860.

According to JD and the declarations of secession, they did.

Lincoln started the war by invading South Carolina's sovereign territory with a heavily armed fleet.

So you want to start that agin? OK.

The oceans and Fort Sumter were under Federal control. SC seceded, but they couldn't take Federal property or the oceans with them.

Furthermore, enslaving millions of people IS an act of war against the people you're enslaving, and I don't care who helped. You can post all of the "tribal kings", "slave traders", and "other nations bought more slaves" nonsense you want, because the slave holding states were the driver behind enslaving those people

BroJoeK, check out the following. You can see my previous post here for context.

He openly said it was because of the EP in the quote I cited above. As I've told you McPherson is a PC Revisionist. pssssst.......these guys are all Leftists.

Then we can all agree he is wrong.

Good, because he did exactly what you're doing, which is tying slavery to the right. He came out and said that in the interview I posted to you in my previous post here. The only difference is that in your case, it's the Confederacy you're tying to the right, but it's the same effect because the Confederacy and slavery are effectively synonymous.

If he's a PC Revisionist, then so are you.

Those who parrot their BS are either Leftists themselves or are dupes.

And which are you? It's clear by now that you and he have the same goals, which is to tie slavery to the modern right.

How many times do I have to respond that he said such things in public and in private. He said them consistently.

You don't. We all know what he said, and why.

He never said anything to the contrary. There is no reason to think he did not mean them.

Not true. He often spoke out against slavery, but granted it couldn't be abolished within the framework in place at the time. In 1865, when they finally had the power the GOP passed abolition, and the states followed suit in ratifying it.

Lincoln did not "push to get abolition done". The most he did was the EP and that was a war measure. He openly said it was a war measure and he went to great pains to make sure it did not free any slaves where the Union Army was in control.

13th Amendment ratified

[BroJoeK]

"BroJoeK, check out the following. You can see my previous post here for context."

Hmmmm... is the question here Union Army desertions following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?
Is it being alleged that desertions increased following the Emancipation Proclamation?

Here's what we know about Union Army desertions:

1. 1861 through 1862 -- 180,000 Union Army desertions before the Emancipation Proclamation.

2. 1863 through 1865 -- 150,000 Union Army desertions after the Emancipation Proclamation.

3. Total = 330,000 desertions or roughly 15% of total Union forces.

4. Official Union records say desertions totaled only 200,000 (8%) -- so what was the difference?
   It's in the definition of "desertion", meaning many (>1/3) "deserters" eventually returned to their units and whether those were counted as "deserters" explains the difference between historians' 330,000 versus the official 200,000.

The percentage of Confederate army desertions is roughly the same = 10% or 103,000 though some historians say it should be much higher, maybe 1/3, but again, how do we define the word "desertion"?

Regardless, I can't find any evidence of increased Union (or Confederate) desertions resulting from Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

[FLT-bird]

I stopped there, because the North offered nothing.

I stopped there. The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

"A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

Getting rid of a constitutional provision that bans all Blacks IS NOT abolitionism.

According to JD and the declarations of secession, they did.

According to the Republicans themselves, they were not.

So you want to start that agin? OK. The oceans and Fort Sumter were under Federal control. SC seceded, but they couldn't take Federal property or the oceans with them.

False. South Carolina lawfully seceded. Their territorial waters were part of their sovereign territory. Ft. Sumter was claimed by the state under its authority as sovereign. The federal troops there were illegal squatters.

Furthermore, enslaving millions of people

There's no such thing as an act of war against people. Acts of war are against sovereign governments.

BroJoeK Has nothing worth listening to. He just repeats the same PC Revisionist drivel.

it's the Confederacy you're tying to the right, but it's the same effect because the Confederacy and slavery are effectively synonymous.

No its not.

If he's a PC Revisionist, then so are you.

Clearly you don't know what the term means.

And which are you? It's clear by now that you and he have the same goals, which is to tie slavery to the modern right.

You've lost the plot entirely and are just embarrassing yourself now. McPherson and other Leftist PC Revisionists try to tie slavery exclusively to the Confederacy/South AND try to claim that this somehow belongs to the modern Right.

You don't. We all know what he said, and why.

All you have to do then is to stop repeating the false claim that he was just playing to the crowd. He wasn't. He was not an abolitionist. He supported slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. He even supported strengthened fugitive slave laws.

Not true. He often spoke out against slavery, but granted it couldn't be abolished within the framework in place at the time. In 1865, when they finally had the power the GOP passed abolition, and the states followed suit in ratifying it.

Oh but its quite true. One can be against slavery and yet not be an abolitionist. That was his position. He just did not want to see slavery spread. He was perfectly willing to protect it where it existed.

13th Amendment ratified

After he was dead.