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.
The only BS, lies and ignorance in my posts to you are in italics.
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".
It's you who associate the South with slavery by defending the Confederacy. Here's what the Confederacy said on the issue.
Correspondence between Gov. A. B. Moore and Alabama's Commissioner to Delaware
"Its animus, its single bond of union, is hostility to the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States. Its members, numbering nearly two millions of voters, as evidenced by the late Presidential election, have been collected from all the other various political organizations, and although disagreeing totally upon other important political principles, have nevertheless ignored all these, and been molded into a compact mass of enmity to this particular institution, upon which depend the domestic, social, and political interests of fifteen States of the Union, and which institution was recognized, respected, guarded, and protected by the convention which framed the Constitution and by the people of the States by whom it was ordained and established."
Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky
"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as a change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions --- nothing less than an open declaration of war --- for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. Especially is this true in the cotton-growing States, where, in many localities, the slave outnumbers the white population ten to one.".
These are just excerpts. There's plenty more where that came from.
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.
The letters above were written in 1861 and 1860 respectively.
The North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
The North made no such offer. Some attempted to prevent secession by passing a bill that gave the slave holding states what they already had. Some of those who voted for it and the president who signed it were out of work the following year, because most in "the North" wanted nothing to do with it.
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.
And I accepted your point. I'll restate mine in the hopes you'll understand it if I post it again.
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.
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.
At that time, they had no legal grounds or ability to abolish slavery, but they also knew that free territories would ultimately tip the scales against slavery. Both letters I posted above made that point.
I find it amusing that the Southern leaders at the time could see through the charade, but you can't see it even knowing abolition was passed in 1865 after they got enough votes.
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.
Your comparison doesn't work, because both sides have already sold us out to the Chicoms. :(
But to your point, clearly ownership of the land was in dispute. The Union couldn't stop SC from seceding, but SC couldn't take Federal property with them.
No its not. Most Southerners have not been taken in by the Leftist PC Revisionism currently fashionable in Academia. Secession was not "about" slavery.
You've already conceded that slavery was one of their reasons. What's more, JD said it in 1858.
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.
Then the Confederacy must have been run by Democrat trolls, given their statements above. But then again, as it turns out they were. That's why they want to tie the Confederacy's history to the right. I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you're giving them.
The fact that they were never ratified does not mean he did not support them - he clearly did.
The first letter I posted above addresses that point.
A Southern Patriot (assassinated Abraham Lincoln) who should have done so several years earlier. He might have saved many lives had he killed the tyrant Lincoln much earlier.
Now who is making the South look bad? He was provoked by Lincoln's speech calling for full citienship for former slaves. Judging from your comment here, it seems you agree with him.