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
You've posted one quote from Davis 2 years before secession talking about slavery. I've posted numerous quotes before and during the war in which Davis said neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. Clearly you are the Leftist troll trying to associate the South exclusively and the modern Right with Slavery.
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.
and I've refuted your incredibly weak Hitler analogy. The claim of trying to distance themselves from slavery is a strange one because that is always made by Yankees and PC Revisionists about things Southerners said after the war. That is exactly why I have produced numerous quotes from Southerners saying it was not about slavery both before and during the war. Davis said many times it was not "about" slavery. The original 7 seceding states turned down the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Upper South only seceded after Lincoln chose to start a war. Obviously neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery which was not threatened in the US anyway.
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.
LOL! You have spent months trying to claim that the Southern states not abolishing slavery during the war somehow means both secession and the war were "about" slavery yet when I point out that several states that remained in the Union did the exact same thing you pivot on a dime and claim that was no big deal.
He did what he had to do, and slavery was abolished.
Lincoln did not set out to abolish slavery. He set out to protect it forever where it existed.
Like the Corbomite Manuever, it went no where and did nothing.
It showed both he and the Confederate Congress were willing. That's what you've been arguing all along....ie that it was all "about" slavery and that they were unwilling. The Corwin Amendment shows the North was willing to protect slavery effectively forever. They were not abolitionists and did not set out to get rid of slavery. Just because it was eventually abolished does not mean people set out with that goal several years earlier.
They didn't trust the North to keep it's word. That was pointed out on several ocasions.
It was not a matter of the North "keeping its word". It was an express constitutional amendment.....one that could not be revoked without their consent. They still said no. Slavery was obviously not their real motivation for leaving.
He also said several times that it was, as did the declarations of secession and other Democrats.
No he didn't. All you've provided.....about 50 times...was one speech 2 years before secession. I have provided numerous statements he made as a US Senator and during the war as Confederate President saying neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
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.
LOL! S-T-R-E-T-C-H
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.
Firstly, this is laughable. "oh yeah well.... well.... well.... then a whole bunch of new states could have been created for the sole purpose of getting rid of slavery which people in the North were not in favor of anyway.....and ummmm....there's nothing the Southern states could have done to counter it. And they said so even though I have not produced one single quote from anybody saying that. So there!" This is an argument you would expect from a kindergartner.
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.
LOL! You obviously have not read the quote from Davis I've posted numerous times. Here it is again
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
It was a power struggle. Seats in the US Senate were vital. The North wanted to convert the federal government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. ie they wanted higher protective tariffs for their industries so they could increase both profit margins and gain market share, more federal subsidies for Northern companies, more federal subsidies for infrastructure projects to be built in the North. In short, it was all about MONEY.
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.
There is every reason to think Slavery would have died out in the South as it did everywhere else in the Western world over the 19th century as the South industrialized. It was already happening in the Upper South. Industrialization is incompatible with chattel slavery. But of course we all know neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. The political leaders and newspapers of the Southern states said so many times. They also demonstrated this by turning down an express offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Also, at least 5 states seceded only when Lincoln chose to start a war. Clearly they were not seceding over slavery either.
By your appalling standard, the Holocaust wasn't an act of war either.
By any legal standard. And the Holocaust was not an act of war. It was a crime against humanity. These terms have different meanings.
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.
The internationally recognized rulers of those countries sold them. You can argue the slave trade should have been considered a crime against humanity. I don't think many would disagree with that today. It wasn't at the time though. There wasn't even such a concept at the time.
JD's speeches supporting slavery and the declarations of secession weren't written in the 1960s.
Yes and the "all about slavery" myth was not popular even in academia until 1960s Leftists engaged in their "long march through the institutions" started pushing this revisionist school of thought in the 1980s. You really don't know the historiography obviously. Read Beard. Read Stampp. Then read Zinn and McPherson. There is a very clear break. The latter 2 are revisionists.
The Holocaust was legal too. That didn't make it right or just.
Analogy fail. Not everything you dislike is the holocaust, Hitler or Nazism. Again, this is an argument you'd expect from a kindergartner.
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.
You are obviously trying to compare them. Otherwise you would not keep falling back on this lazy and inaccurate analogy. and yes many injustices happen that are legal. The world can be a cruel shitty place sometimes.
blah blah blah I'm going to post the same crap I've posted 50 times before that doesn't address the point.
Davis believed neither the war nor secession were about slavery. He said so many times both before and during the war. All you can produce is a speech about slavery in 1858. It does not address what the power struggle between North and South were about let along what secession (which had not happened yet) or the war (which had not happened yet) were about.
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.
No, the slaves were denied that until passage of the 13th amendment. And Davis did not enslave people. He was elected to represent the Confederate States. He suspended habeas corpus far less than Lincoln did. He censored newspapers hardly at all unlike Lincoln. He did not unconstitutionally disarm citizens in several states. He did not establish Confederate gulags to match the Federal gulags into which political dissenters were thrown. Oh yeah, he did not have jackbooted thugs come arrest thousands and thousands of political dissenters and throw them into those gulags the CSA did not have - unlike Lincoln. He also never ordered ethnic cleansing or a mass execution - unlike Lincoln.
According to the Jefferson "The Democrat" Davis and the declarations of secession, it was and they did.
No it wasn't and they didn't.
