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.
Outright lies like this are why I believe you're a lefty plant.
I have posted several quotes from JD, the articles of secession, his veep, and many others. Your response is "oh that was their legal justifications", as if calling blacks inferior who are only fit to serve as slaves is a legal justification. Here are some of those quotes, mostly from the decalartions of secessuion but also from other sources.
From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
John B. Baldwin, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery...." [Journal of the Virginia Secession Convention, Vol. II, p. 139]
Baldwin again: "But, sir, the great cause of complaint now is the slavery question, and the questions growing out of it. If there is any other cause of complaint which has been influential in any quarter, to bring about the crisis which is now upon us; if any State or any people have made the troubles growing out of this question, a pretext for agitation instead of a cause of honest complaint, Virginia can have no sympathy whatever, in any such feeling, in any such policy, in any such attempt. It is the slavery question. Is it not so?..." [ibid, p. 140]
But here's the whole problem with your argument. I only need one reference from JD to illustrate my point, because JD fought to protect slavery. The proof of his intentions is in his actions.
Repeat snipped.
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.
You haven't refuted anything. Hitler also lied before and during the war. In 1936, he said to Reichstag in Berlin "It is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe..." We all know that was a lie too.
With the exception of you, everyone knows JD was lying about secession wasn't about slavery, because he had said several times that it was.
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.
Another outright lie. I said everyone in the North wasn't the good guys either, and Lincoln had to work with them to get things done.
Lincoln did not set out to abolish slavery. He set out to protect it forever where it existed.
He succeeded at the former at the cost of his life, while the latter went nowhere.
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.
Slavery couldn't be revoked without ratification from the Southern states anyway, so the Corbomite Manuever amounted to nothing they didn't already have.
They still said no. Slavery was obviously not their real motivation for leaving.
They said it was, numerous times. I have posted several. I see no reason to post them again, when everyone has seen them numerous times by now.
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.
First, if you looked at that map, you'll see that way more states were formed from those territories. We don't know what would have happened if the slave holding states hadn't seceded, although I'm sure you'll post your opinions on the matter as if they were facts.
Second, here you go.
Third, your posts are what I would expect from a leftist plant trying to make the right look bad.
LOL! You obviously have not read the quote from Davis I've posted numerous times. Here it is again
I don't need to read it. I have his speeches and his actions to prove my point. All you have are Confederate lies.
By any legal standard. And the Holocaust was not an act of war. It was a crime against humanity. These terms have different meanings.
No reply needed.
No, the slaves were denied (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) until passage of the 13th amendment.
That doesn't even make sense. It was the slave holding states who were denying the slaves these rights. You're big on the Constitution, but you're clearly OK with the South disregarding this part of it to keep their slaves.
Of course that isn't true. As we all know by now you're a leftist plant, so you're trying to make it look like Conservatives are OK with this. We're not.
And Davis did not enslave people. He was elected to represent the Confederate States.
He defended slavery. He said so himself, several times.
He suspended habeas corpus far less than Lincoln did.
Here's something on this: Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis
BTW, Lincoln won re-election after all of this, so the voters were clearly OK with how he utilized his powers, which BTW were granted by Congress in 1863.
He censored newspapers hardly at all unlike Lincoln.
Why would JD, when they were covering for him? You proved that.
He did not unconstitutionally disarm citizens in several states.
Details?
He did not establish Confederate gulags to match the Federal gulags into which political dissenters were thrown.
Details?
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.
Now that's amusing. Assuming you are referring to Confederate sympathizers which is what I found when searching for this, they were sympathetic to a regime that gave escaped slaves far worse treatment than they received.
If that's not what you're referring to, then...details?
He also never ordered ethnic cleansing or a mass execution - unlike Lincoln.
JD and the Confederacy were every bit into "expansion" as the North. The only difference is they wanted the new territories to allow legal slavery. Here's from the Confederate Constitution:
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."
No it wasn't and they didn't.
Then your disagreement is with JD.