Numerous? That is the only one you've shown. I've posted several that said the opposite.
Either he was lying when he said it was about slavery, or he was lying when he said it wasn't. Since the slave holding states held on to their slaves until forced to free them, we can conclude he was telling the truth when he said it was about slavery.
The slave holding states that remained in the union held onto their slaves until passage of the 13th amendment also. Davis supported and eventually gained approval to send and sent an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery. He was quite willing to see it end in order to gain independence. He was president of the CSA when the original 7 seceding states turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Cleary - as he stated numerous times - he did not believe secession or the war were "about" slavery.
Which could have been repealed by amendment, just as slavery itself was abolished, as territories became free states. The slave holding states knew this and didn't trust the North.
Yes it could have been. 15 states that still allowed slavery. Ergo, if they vote against it, 45 are needed to pass a constitutional amendment. 15+45 = 60. One hundred sixty years later we have....errr....50 states. Thus protection of slavery would have been IRREVOCABLE without the consent of the states that still allowed slavery. They could do basic math back then too.
The act of war was committed by the slave holders against the humans they enslaved, I don't care how many crooks helped them.
Acts of war are committed against nations - not against individuals.
No revision is needed. The Confederacy had slaves, and their comments saying secession was over slavery were consistant with this. Anything else they said was poor PR.,/p>
Revisionism was obviously needed to push this agenda. The "about slavery" narrative was not popular even in academia until 1960s Leftists engaged in their march through the institutions started pushing it in the 1980s. Both sides had slaves. The original 7 seceding states correctly pointed out that the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the constitution.
The question of how many free states there were in 1861 is totally relevant to the question of whether abolition was popular.
and how many supported abolishing slavery in the states that allowed it? Almost nobody.
And rightfully so, but that doesn't change the fact that the Europeans came over here by choice, unlike the slaves that ended up in the slave holding states plantation.
Some came by choice. Some had no other choice whether due to religious persecution, starvation, etc. The point is the conditions for those at the bottom of the social order in the North at this time were hardly better - and it could credibly be argued were indeed worse 0 than those at the bottom of the social order in the South at the time. An examination of the death rates makes the point clearly.
blah blah blah the same link I've posted a million times before which does not address the point.
there is no reason to believe that the politicians at the time like Lincoln did not mean exactly what they said.
You're right. That proves you are a lefty for being sympathetic to JD.
Davis didn't start a war. Davis didn't trample on people's constitutional rights. Lincoln did both of those. Leftist.
blah blah blah the same link I've posted a million times before which has nothing to do with the point.
Slavery was not threatened in the US. Abolitionists could not win elections anywhere.
Now I know you're a leftist troll trying to associate slavery with the right. I've posted several. I'm not going to waste FR bandwidth posting them again.
I've posted several that said the opposite.
And I've posted comments from Hitler in 1945 saying he didn't want war in 1939. Like Hitler, the Democrats were trying to distance themselves from slavery, much as the modern Democrat party is trying to do now. It was lousy PR, because they seceded over their states' right to slavery. JD said it. The articles of secession said it. Even Democrats in the North who voted against the 13th Amendment said it. No amount of walking it back will change that.
The slave holding states that remained in the union held onto their slaves until passage of the 13th amendment also.
I'm aware of that, although it's more correct to say they allowed it. No one said everyone in the Union was on the right side on this issue, and Lincoln had to work with them to keep the Union together.
He did what he had to do, and slavery was abolished.
Davis supported and eventually gained approval to send and sent an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty to abolish slavery. He was quite willing to see it end in order to gain independence.
Like the Corbomite Manuever, it went no where and did nothing.
He was president of the CSA when the original 7 seceding states turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
They didn't trust the North to keep it's word. That was pointed out on several ocasions.
Cleary - as he stated numerous times - he did not believe secession or the war were "about" slavery.
He also said several times that it was, as did the declarations of secession and other Democrats.
Yes it could have been. 15 states that still allowed slavery. Ergo, if they vote against it, 45 are needed to pass a constitutional amendment. 15+45 = 60. One hundred sixty years later we have....errr....50 states. Thus protection of slavery would have been IRREVOCABLE without the consent of the states that still allowed slavery. They could do basic math back then too.
The territories hadn't been organized as states back then and there's no guarantee they would have been organized in the same way if the slave holding states hadn't seceded.
If the slave holding states hadn't seceded and the North had intended to use the new territories to abolish slavery, then the territories could have been organized as many more states, enough to overcome the 15 Confederacy states. That's what the slave holding states were afraid of, and they said as much. Here's a map of the US in 1860 which helps to make that point.
BTW, JD opposed allowing some territories to join the Union as free states. If it was about states' rights and not slavery, then why would he care if they joined as free states? He cared because it was about preserving slavery.
All of this is assuming all of the Confederacy states wouldn't have voted to abolish slavery. If we accept your claim that secession wasn't about slavery, then some the other states in the South may have joined in voting to abolish slavery. Even in the South there were abolitionists and people who were disgusted with slavery. Many fighting age men even crossed lines to fight for the Union.
But we all know it was about slavery. The Confederacy said so several times, and I see no reason to disbelieve them.
Acts of war are committed against nations - not against individuals.
By your appalling standard, the Holocaust wasn't an act of war either.
This act of war was committed against millions in tribes that may have seen themselves as soveriegn, not that the slave holding states or the traffickers cared about their sovereignty.
Revisionism was obviously needed to push this agenda. The "about slavery" narrative was not popular even in academia until 1960s Leftists engaged in their march through the institutions started pushing it in the 1980s. Both sides had slaves.
JD's speeches supporting slavery and the declarations of secession weren't written in the 1960s.
The original 7 seceding states correctly pointed out that the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the constitution.
The Holocaust was legal too. That didn't make it right or just.
And don't give me your non-answer about how slavery wasn't as bad as the Holocaust. The point is that they were injustices that happened to be legal. Whether one can compare to the other is beside the point.
Some came by choice. Some had no other choice whether due to religious persecution, starvation, etc. The point is the conditions for those at the bottom of the social order in the North at this time were hardly better - and it could credibly be argued were indeed worse 0 than those at the bottom of the social order in the South at the time. An examination of the death rates makes the point clearly.
I know it was hard for some of them, but they saw it as a risk worth taking. The slaves didn't have that choice.
there is no reason to believe that the politicians at the time like Lincoln did not mean exactly what they said.
Davis didn't start a war. Davis didn't trample on people's constitutional rights. Lincoln did both of those. Leftist.
Tell that to the slaves, who were denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until the Confederacy was defeated. Of course they're dead so you'll be spared that uncomfortable inconvenience, so take that to the black church of your choice and see how many agree with you.
Slavery was not threatened in the US. Abolitionists could not win elections anywhere.
According to the Jefferson "The Democrat" Davis and the declarations of secession, it was and they did.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
