You didn’t even know who your fellow Leftist James McPherson was. LOL!
Here's an interview with him, where he is clearly trying to tie those who opposed abolition with "the right wing in American politics", his words.
This is exactly what you're doing. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly by accepting the Confederacy's history as ours, but it's the same effect.
The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
Wrong, some representatives in the North made a last ditch effort to prevent secession and the CW by drafting the amendment. Some of those representatives and the president who signed it were out of work the following year.
It was never ratified by more than five states, because no one else was interested in preserving slavery even at the risk of secession and the CW.
Much like reality in your posts, it was nothing.
Getting rid of a constitutional provision that bans all Blacks IS NOT abolitionism.
Of course Kansas couldn't abolish slavery because they were already a free state, but the first constitution was used to pass proslavery laws by the "Bogus Legislature". More here.
The Four Kansas Constitutions: Topeka
The voters showed the "Bogus Legislature" what they thought of their proslavery laws in 1858.
According to the Republicans themselves, they were not.
Some Rpublicans made questionable statements to audiences who wanted to hear them, but JD and the writers of the declarations of secession saw through this, and said so several times.
And they were right. When the Republicans finally got the votes they needed in 1865, they passed abolition.
False. South Carolina lawfully seceded. Their territorial waters were part of their sovereign territory.
Both sides had their legal claims to the waters. Since both sides had claims to the territory, the CW was the only way to resolve this.
Ft. Sumter was claimed by the state under its authority as sovereign. The federal troops there were illegal squatters.
It was also claimed by the Federal government.
There's no such thing as an act of war against people. Acts of war are against sovereign governments.
Does this mean bombing civilians aren't acts of war as long as they leave the governments alone? Who knew?
No its not (the same effect because the Confederacy and slavery are effectively synonymous).
It most certainly is. Most of the people in this country who don't buy your revisionism know secession was about slavery, regardless of any other reasons the slave holding states made up for seceding. When you tie the Confederacy to the right, you are tying slavery to the right.
All you have to do then is to stop repeating the false claim that he was just playing to the crowd.
The 4th debate with Douglas in 1858, where he made appalling comments to cheering crowds. These were some of the people Lincoln had to work with. You have even stated that not everyone in the North supported abolition and you are correct, yet you can't understand that this was what Lincoln had to work with.
He wasn't. He was not an abolitionist. He supported slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. He even supported strengthened fugitive slave laws.
Two policies that were never ratified.
(13th Amendment ratified) After he was dead.
By a Confederacy supporting democrat, who made the decision to assassinate Lincoln after Lincoln gave a speech on granting slaves citizenship.
Yes I did. I refuted all of your BS, lies and ignorance. I will keep refuting your BS for as long as you post it.
Here's an interview with him, where he is clearly trying to tie those who opposed abolition with "the right wing in American politics", his words.
Yeah....cuz he's a South hating Leftist. That's why he and his fellow Leftists revived wartime Yankee propaganda to claim "it was all about slavery"....to try to put the South at a moral disadvantage so he and they could smear the region, its culture, its history and its current overwhelmingly conservative political views.
This is exactly what you're doing. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly by accepting the Confederacy's history as ours, but it's the same effect.
You have no idea what you're talking about. My view is the view of the majority in this country even in Academia before the Leftist Revisionists came along in the 1980s to push the "it was all about slavery" narrative. That view is that it was overwhelmingly about money - which it was. BTW, the South's history IS American history. The South provided almost all of the intellectual horsepower behind the secession from the British Empire as well as the Constitution as well as leadership in the early formative years of the Republic.
Wrong, some representatives in the North made a last ditch effort to prevent secession and the CW by drafting the amendment. Some of those representatives and the president who signed it were out of work the following year.
Your denial is just an outright lie. The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Far from being "all about" slavery, slavery was in fact the very first bargaining chip they were prepared to give away. SO much for the myth of the virtuous North.
It was never ratified by more than five states, because no one else was interested in preserving slavery even at the risk of secession and the CW.
It was not ratified by more than 5 states because it was a dead letter once the original 7 seceding states indicated protecting slavery forever was not really what they wanted. There was no point in passing it after that.
Much like reality in your posts, it was nothing.
This is what shrinks call "projection". It was damned inconvenient for you PC Revisionists. It destroys your entire argument. I can see why you are so desperate to pretend it didn't happen even though it obviously did.
blah blah blah repeated BS that does not address the point.
As I said, removing a ban on all Blacks from a state constitution is NOT abolitionism. That is obvious no matter how desperately you try to spin.
Some Rpublicans made questionable statements to audiences who wanted to hear them, but JD and the writers of the declarations of secession saw through this, and said so several times. And they were right. When the Republicans finally got the votes they needed in 1865, they passed abolition.
No, it was not "some Republicans" as you would like to claim. ALL the ones who actually got elected said they were NOT ABOLITIONISTS. This wasn't a "some people said something" moment a la Ilhan Omar either. They were quite explicit in saying they were not abolitionists and were not trying for abolition. They were just fine with slavery where it existed. They were simply against the spread of slavery. They wanted to preserve the western territories for White people only which they said many times.
Both sides had their legal claims to the waters. Since both sides had claims to the territory, the CW was the only way to resolve this.
Both sides claimed it but only South Carolina's claim was legitimate. States are sovereign. They never agreed to bind themselves forever when they ratified the Constitution. In fact, all the evidence at the time says they explicitly did not intend to bind themselves forever but instead preserved the right of unilateral secession.
It was also claimed by the Federal government.
Yes, but the US Federal government had no legitimate claim to property in another sovereign country which that country could not seize under its power of eminent domain. It would be like the Chinese government owning a piece of land in the US and then trying to claim the US could not claim that land under its power of eminent domain. Obviously the US would never accept such a claim by a foreign government - anymore than South Carolina would accept such a claim by a foreign government.
Does this mean bombing civilians aren't acts of war as long as they leave the governments alone? Who knew?
No it means bombing the civilians of a country would be an act of war against that country. Get it. That country. Not a people. A country....a sovereign entity. Buying something a government is willing to sell is not an act of war. It may be something we find abominable, but it is not an act of war if that government willingly sold it. "Act of War" has a specific meaning. Learn it.
It most certainly is. Most of the people in this country who don't buy your revisionism know secession was about slavery, regardless of any other reasons the slave holding states made up for seceding. When you tie the Confederacy to the right, you are tying slavery to the right.
No its not. Most Southerners have not been taken in by the Leftist PC Revisionism currently fashionable in Academia. Secession was not "about" slavery. Had it been so, the original 7 seceding states could have simply accepted the North's offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. They rejected it. The Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln chose to start a war. They were obviously not seceding over slavery. The efforts to revise history by Leftists in Academia in the last generation are obviously intended to denigrate and delegitimize the South which is the heart of the modern Conservative Movement. Those like you who claim to be Conservative while supporting Leftists in this are nothing more than useful tools of the Left.....or Leftists trolls claiming to be Conservatives.
The 4th debate with Douglas in 1858, where he made appalling comments to cheering crowds. These were some of the people Lincoln had to work with. You have even stated that not everyone in the North supported abolition and you are correct, yet you can't understand that this was what Lincoln had to work with.
I fully realize abolitionism was not popular in the North. After all, Abolitionists could not only not get elected, they couldn't even come close to getting elected. They routinely got low single digit percentages of the vote in various elections. What you refuse to grasp in the face of all evidence is that Lincoln wasn't just "playing to the crowd". He shared their views....the overwhelmingly majority view in the North - which was not in favor of abolitionism. He made such statements in public far more often than just the Lincoln-Douglas debates and he made them in private. He made such statements over the course of many years. There is no reason to doubt he believed what he was saying.
Two policies that were never ratified.
The fact that they were never ratified does not mean he did not support them - he clearly did.
Who assassinated Abraham Lincoln?
A Southern Patriot who should have done so several years earlier. He might have saved many lives had he killed the tyrant Lincoln much earlier.