Thanks, but I don't want them.
Yep! Right on cue. Nowhere in that speech did he say secession or the were were "about" slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The first three paragraphs in his speech, although taken altogether the entire speech ties secession to abolition.
I've snipped the repeats.
4
5 "states issued declarations of causes", your words. Maybe you meant only 4 cited slavery, not that I agree with that either.
I've already told you numerous times...
I don't care what you told me, or what Rockwell and DiLorenzo have to say. JD, his VP, the declarations of secession, and many others said it was about preserving slavery, and their actions prove they meant it. None of their poor attempts at PR to walk it back will change that.
You cannot seriously claim the Southern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war somehow "proves" that the war was "about" slavery while dismissing the Northern states' failure to abolish slavery during the war.
I don't dismiss it, nor do I excuse it. I admit that this was an injustice, but Lincoln had to deal with them to keep the Union together. Frederick Douglas understood and acknowledged it.
Once they had the votes they needed, they passed abolition, and the states including some former slave holding states ratified it.
Combining with the fact that slavery was not threatened in the US
According to JD and the declarations of secession it was.
AND the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
Which they already had until the 13th Amendment was passed.
which was offered by the Northern states
Who never ratified it, and many who voted to pass it were out of work the following year.
AND their comments indicating neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery is all the evidence a reasonable person would need to conclude that neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
Do I really need to spam you with all of the comments saying it was about slavery again?
I take the Corwin Amendment for what it was
You take it for what you want to pretend it was. I take it for what it was - NOTHING.
You're making PC Revisionist arguments....the kind of arguments one did not see until Leftist PCers in Academia started pushing this narrative in the 1980s.
The declarations of secession and JD's speech weren't written in the 1980s.
It isn't an act of war against the Jewish people. One cannot commit an act of war against a people. Acts of war can only be committed against countries. The fact that they do not fit the definition of "act of war" which has a very specific meaning does not mean they were not atrocities. Of course, you're an ignoramus impersonating a Conservative so I'm not surprised you cannot grasp this.
How many Conservatives still following this topic agree with this?
What you're calling "confederacy sympathizers" were American citizens.
So were the KKK and some Nazi sympathizers.
Last I checked, individuals were supposed to have their god given rights protected from government abuse under the constitution.
You mean those rights that the Confederacy sympathizers wanted to claim for themselves but denied to the slaves who escaped from the slavery in the Confederacy they sympathized with?
Lincoln was a tyrant.
So was Trump, if you believe the Democrats.
Strawman alert! I never posted that several of the most prominent newspapers in the Southern states did not say secession and the war were about economics. They did say that. They also criticized Davis harshly for his conduct of the war.
So what? After watching our biased media lie through their teeth about everything, why should I believe the Confederacy's media was any less biased back then?
I'm hardly a cheerleader for PC Revisionists like McPherson.
It almost seems as if you are McPherson. You're both trying to tie slavery to the modern right. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly through the Confederacy. Most consider the Confederacy synonymous with slavery, so the result would be the same.
No its radically different from being a Nazi in 1941 or at any time.
I was speaking in the context about what was known about Nazi Germany in 1941, which was bad enough.
Oh gee. Is (38,000) all? The union only controlled an area with a population of about 22-23 million. The US population is roughly 15 times the size today. Imagine a president today ordering jackbooted federal thugs to just lock up 570.000 Americans without any charge and without trial. That would be equivalent. We would rightly call any president doing that a tyrant.
So what would we call a president who defends the enslavement of 4,000,000 humans?
Then stop telling them.
The first three paragraphs in his speech, although taken altogether the entire speech ties secession to abolition.
This was 2 years before and of course at odds with what he said in the US Senate prior to secession, to the Confederate Congress in his first inaugural address and directly to Union representatives as well as in correspondence with Confederate Congressmen as I've posted several times already.
5 "states issued declarations of causes", your words. Maybe you meant only 4 cited slavery, not that I agree with that either.
4. South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas.
I don't care what you told me, or what Rockwell and DiLorenzo have to say. JD, his VP, the declarations of secession, and many others said it was about preserving slavery, and their actions prove they meant it. None of their poor attempts at PR to walk it back will change that.
And I don't care what you or the other PC Revisionists have claimed. Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, Judah Benjamin, Duncan Kenner, Patrick Cleburne, Newspapers North, South and Foreign, all said it was not about slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US. Their actions in turning down the Corwin amendment and in not seceding until Lincoln started the war all prove that was not their real motivation. None of the poor attempts at wartime propaganda or later Leftist Revisionism in Academia will change that.
I don't dismiss it, nor do I excuse it. I admit that this was an injustice, but Lincoln had to deal with them to keep the Union together. Frederick Douglas understood and acknowledged it.
The Northern states did not even abolish slavery during the war. Your claim that the Southern states not abolishing slavery during the war somehow "proves" the war was about slavery is a complete joke.
Once they had the votes they needed, they passed abolition, and the states including some former slave holding states ratified it.
Slavery was not abolished until after the war. Once again, that is not evidence as to what the war was "about".
According to JD and the declarations of secession it was.,/p>
According to Lincoln and the Northern dominated Congress it obviously was not.
Which they already had until the 13th Amendment was passed.
Which again shows slavery was not threatened in the US.
Who never ratified it, and many who voted to pass it were out of work the following year.
Who didn't ratify it because the Southern states turned it down and there is zero evidence that those who voted for it were put out of office by voters because they voted for a constitutional amendment to expressly protect slavery effectively forever.
Do I really need to spam you with all of the comments saying it was about slavery again?,/p>
Do I really need to spam you with all of the comments saying it was not about slavery again?
You take it for what you want to pretend it was. I take it for what it was - NOTHING.
No, that's you pretending. It was EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL protection of slavery EFFECTIVELY FOREVER.
The declarations of secession and JD's speech weren't written in the 1980s.
Correct they weren't.....nor were JD's speeches saying it was not about slavery nor all the others saying the same. Once again, this was not the majority view even in Academia until 1960s Leftists who were rising through the ranks in Academia started pushing it beginning in the 1980s.
How many Conservatives still following this topic agree with this?
You obviously fail to understand that something can be awful, horrible, cruel, inhuman, a crime, a crime against humanity, without being an act of war. Act of War is a legal term which has a specific meaning.
So were the KKK and some Nazi sympathizers.
They were of course not that. They were people who questioned the war. They were people who questioned the tyrant Lincoln's unconstitutional censorship or his unconstitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus. They were American citizens.
You mean those rights that the Confederacy sympathizers wanted to claim for themselves but denied to the slaves who escaped from the slavery in the Confederacy they sympathized with?
I mean the rights they were due as American citizens. No matter how much you and I might not like it today, slaves were not considered citizens. Also, some didn't have any particular sympathy for the CSA. Some merely thought going to war to impose government rule on people who did not consent to it to be tyrannical, contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers, unconstitutional, or simply folly. Others questioned the unconstitutional trampling upon of civil liberties by Lincoln and his jackbooted federal thugs.
So was Trump, if you believe the Democrats.
Trump did not trample upon people's constitutional rights. Lincoln did.
So what? After watching our biased media lie through their teeth about everything, why should I believe the Confederacy's media was any less biased back then?
OF COURSE they were biased. All media is biased. Nevertheless, President Davis was harshly criticized by the free press in the Southern States. Feel free to research it yourself.
It almost seems as if you are McPherson. You're both trying to tie slavery to the modern right. The only difference is you're doing it indirectly through the Confederacy. Most consider the Confederacy synonymous with slavery, so the result would be the same.
Here you show your titanic ignorance once again. I am not tying slavery to the modern right. That is of course absurd. The Confederacy was hardly synonymous with slavery any more than the USA was. Both still permitted it at that time.
I was speaking in the context about what was known about Nazi Germany in 1941, which was bad enough.
The Nazi dictatorship is not comparable to a democracy which had a constitution which protected individual rights.
So what would we call a president who defends the enslavement of 4,000,000 humans?
We would call them all of the first 16 US presidents.