The lies in this thread are yours and those of your fellow PC Revisionist leftists.
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. blah blah blah
"several quotes from JD"? Well yes you've posted several. In none of them did he say secession or the war were "about" slavery. "as if calling blacks inferior who are only fit to serve as slaves is a legal justification". Their argument - and it is a correct one - is that the Northern states violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. There's no question this is true.
and of course only 4 states issued declarations of causes. The other 8 did not and 5 of those only seceded after Lincoln chose to start a war. Of the 4 that issued declarations of causes, 3 of those went on at length about how the Northern states were economically exploiting them through federal legislation even though this was not unconstitutional. Clearly, they were highly pissed about that.
Nobody is saying we should agree with the opinions of people in the mid 19th century about various ethnic groups...or indeed women for that matter. What the actual topic is is whether secession and the war were "about" slavery. They were not.
blah blah blah blah.........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.
if you're going to regurgitate, then I'm going to regurgitate.
“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
"The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ... The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue," John C Calhoun Speech on the Slavery Question," March 4, 1850
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions." Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“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
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them...It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." -General Patrick Cleburne
Finally South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" wrote:
"The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
You claim Davis "defended slavery". No he didn't. He defended the original constitution. He defended the right of the sovereign states to self determination. Slavery was not threatened in the US. There was no need to secede to defend it. Even after secession, the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The original 7 seceding states of which Davis was president, turned that offer down. BOTH sides had slavery throughout the war. One side did not go to war to end slavery and the other did not go to war to preserve slavery. There was no popular will on either side to end slavery in 1861.
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.
Yes I have. I've refuted your weak and endless Hitler/Nazi analogies. There is a reason for Godwin's law. Hitler/Nazi analogies are the first things every lazy ignoramus resorts to....to the point that its a cliche.
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.
Yet you cannot produce one quote from him saying that secession was "about" slavery while I've produced several from him saying it wasn't.
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.
You tried to minimize the North keeping slavery throughout the war even while trying to damn the South for doing the exact same thing. psssst, keeping slavery during the war does not mean that secession or the war were "about" slavery anymore than keeping a market economy in both "proves" that secession and the war were "about" free market economics.
Slavery couldn't be revoked without ratification from the Southern states anyway, so the Corbomite Manuever amounted to nothing they didn't already have.What? This makes no sense. What the Corwin Amendment would have done would have been to offer express protections of slavery that had not been mentioned directly in the Constitution. The very fact that they were willing to write and ratify a constitutional amendment like this proves beyond any doubt that the North was not going to war to end slavery and had no real desire to end slavery. If one side is not fighting to do something then it naturally follows that the other side is not fighting to prevent them from it. Neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
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.
They said it wasn't numerous times. I have posted several. I see no reason to post them again when everyone has seen them numerous times by now.
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.
You have to make a whole series of far fetched assumptions to even reach a point somewhere in the murky future in which there might have been enough states to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery. You also have to assume states would have been formed for the sole purpose of voting to abolish slavery. This is pure fiction. Had the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery could not have been abolished without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery.
Third, your posts are what I would expect from a leftist plant trying to make the right look bad.
That'd be your posts. You are the one making the PC Revisionist arguments favored by Leftists.
I don't need to read it. I have his speeches and his actions to prove my point. All you have are Confederate lies.
You have yet to post any quote from Davis in which he said secession or the war were "about" slavery. I have posted several from him saying they were not.
Right. No reply needed. I am correct.
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.
You realize they did not consider the slaves to be citizens right? Women did not enjoy all those rights either. The Indians did not either. People in the 18th and 19th centuries had very different views from ours today.
He defended slavery. He said so himself, several times.
Nope. This is an outright lie on your part. He said the opposite.
Here's something on this: blah blah blah
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned somewhere between 13 and 38 THOUSAND political dissidents. Read the case decided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruling this to be unconstitutional - ex parte Merryman.
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.
You mean after he imprisoned and tortured political dissidents? You mean after he censored all telegraphs and newspapers? You mean after stuffing the ballot boxes in several instances? You mean after unconstitutionally admitting both Nevada and West Virginia? Lots of tyrants have "won" elections in similar fashion. Hell, just look at resident Biden. He supposedly "won" too.
Why would JD, when they were covering for him? You proved that.
Clearly you haven't read much. The criticism of Davis in the newspapers in the South was much harsher than that of Lincoln by the newspapers in the North.
Details?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/11/thomas-dilorenzo/lincolns-second-american-revolution/
Let me guess....you will attack the source now.
Details?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-dilorenzo/the-american-gulag/
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?
Here is an excerpt from one:
One of those imprisoned for fourteen months for simply questioning the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus was Francis Key Howard, the grandson of Francis Scott Key and editor of the Baltimore Exchange newspaper. In response to an editorial in his newspaper that was critical of the fact that the Lincoln administration had imprisoned without due process the mayor of Baltimore, Congressman Henry May, and some twenty members of the Maryland legislature, he was imprisoned near the very spot where his grandfather composed the Star Spangled Banner. After his release, he noted the deep irony of his grandfather’s beloved flag flying over "the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed" (John Marshall, American Bastile, pp. 645—646).
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."
The Confederate constitution allowed for states to join which did not allow slavery.
". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. "The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter.
". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
Then your disagreement is with JD.No its not because he expressly said that they were not fighting for slavery. You haven't produced a single quote from him saying the opposite.
The only lies in my posts are the points I'm replying to.
"several quotes from JD"? Well yes you've posted several. In none of them did he say secession or the war were "about" slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
and of course only 4 states issued declarations of causes
5.
Nobody is saying we should agree with the opinions of people in the mid 19th century about various ethnic groups...or indeed women for that matter. What the actual topic is is whether secession and the war were "about" slavery. They were not.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
if you're going to regurgitate, then I'm going to regurgitate.
In your last post you said, and I quote, "You've posted one quote from Davis 2 years before secession talking about slavery." Now you're accusing me of regurgitating previous posts. If you're going to lie about what I said, can you at least be consistant?
“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861
Rest of Confederate propaganda snipped.
I don't care what JD and Confederate sympathizers said about how secession wasn't about slavery, because they said on numerous ocasions that it was, and their actions backed the fact that it was about slavery.
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
From Georgia:
"or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."
"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".
None of this has anything to do with economics or legalities, so there was no reason to add them unless they believed it.
You tried to minimize the North keeping slavery throughout the war even while trying to damn the South for doing the exact same thing.
I never minimized it. On the contrary, I said everyone in the North wasn't the good guys. I condemned it as I condemn the free traitors who got us hooked on Chicom slave labor now, but the fact is that Lincoln had to work with these states to get things done.
psssst, keeping slavery during the war does not mean that secession or the war were "about" slavery anymore than keeping a market economy in both "proves" that secession and the war were "about" free market economics.
No, but combining that with their comments defending slavery is all the evidence any jury would need to convict.
You have to make a whole series of far fetched assumptions to even reach a point somewhere in the murky future in which there might have been enough states to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery. You also have to assume states would have been formed for the sole purpose of voting to abolish slavery. This is pure fiction.
You're the one making assumptions. You're assuming the Corwin Amendment could have been anything but the failed last ditch effort that it was. I'm just pointing out that we can't assume there would have only been 50 states if the slave holding states hadn't seceded.
Had the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery could not have been abolished without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery.
But it wasn't passed, and slavery couldn't have been abolished without enough states voting to ratify the 13th Amendment anyway. It was nothing.
That'd be your posts. You are the one making the PC Revisionist arguments favored by Leftists.
Everything I've posted comes from the Democrat run Confederacy itself.
You have yet to post any quote from Davis in which he said secession or the war were "about" slavery. I have posted several from him saying they were not.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Right. No reply needed. I am correct.
No, "no reply needed", as in if you want to make the point that the Holocaust wasn't an act of war against the Jewish people, then I'll let the readers decide. If you're not a lefty trying to make the right look bad, then I'm sure you can see how appalling that is to others. Of course, as a leftist impersonating a Conservative, that's your goal anyway, isn't it?
You realize they did not consider the slaves to be citizens right? Women did not enjoy all those rights either. The Indians did not either. People in the 18th and 19th centuries had very different views from ours today.
I never pretended otherwise, but according to the Confederacy, Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to abolish slavery.
You mean after he imprisoned and tortured political dissidents? You mean after he censored all telegraphs and newspapers? You mean after stuffing the ballot boxes in several instances? You mean after unconstitutionally admitting both Nevada and West Virginia?
Your only solid example was a Confederacy sympathizer which I answered below. The treatment of Confederacy sympathizers was no worse that the treatment escaped slaves who were recaptured got from the Confederacy they sympathized with.
Lots of tyrants have "won" elections in similar fashion. Hell, just look at resident Biden. He supposedly "won" too.
Pointing to Biden doesn't prove anything about Lincoln.
Clearly you haven't read much. The criticism of Davis in the newspapers in the South was much harsher than that of Lincoln by the newspapers in the North.
Once again you can't get your story straight. In your previous post you posted excerpts from their "MSM" defending the Confederacy against claims that secession was about preserving slavery. Now you're saying the exact opposite. Which is it?
Let me guess....you will attack the source now.
The credibility of the source is fair game, especially after you used a leftist who is trying to tie slavery to the modern right to make your point in previous posts. Neither Lew Rockwell nor Thomas DiLorenzo are FR Conservatives, but they both reject socialism so they have that going for them. Of course, the only qualification they need is that they say what the Confederacy amen corner wants to hear.
However, not everyone is impressed with Thomas DiLorenzo's work. Here is a counterpoint.
Here is an excerpt from one: One of those imprisoned for fourteen months for simply questioning the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus was Francis Key Howard...
He left out that Francis Key Howard was a Confederacy sympathizer, which I pointed out in my previous post. That's no different than being a Nazi sympathizer in 1941. He did mention that many were Democrats but left out that many were Confederate sympathizers.
And before you rant about Hitler comparisons, no one in 1941 outside of Germany was sure of what was going on inside of Germany. In 1941 they were seen as an enemy nation. The horrors of the Nazi regime came out later.
BTW, 38,000 was just the max estimate.
No its not because he expressly said that they were not fighting for slavery. You haven't produced a single quote from him saying the opposite.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858