Replies

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.