Nah. You post PC Revisionist lies and BS.
blah blah blah the same crap I've posted hundreds of times before
This was 2 years before.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Umm Virginia's is the secession ordnance and does not list causes. Its obvious you have never read it.
The Union backed their words that it was not about slavery by offering slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The Union then warned the South that if they attacked, an equal force would be hurled against them destroying them, and that since the Corwin Amendment had been implemented, no attacker has ever survived the attack.
In English please.
That's as close to reality as your Corwin Amendment. At least the Corbomite Maneuver made money for its writers. The Corwin Amendment did nothing but give you a talking point.
The Corwin Amendment demonstrated quite clearly that the North was perfectly happy to protect slavery where it existed - as Lincoln and many other Republicans said they would. It also showed that the original 7 seceding states were not concerned over the protection of slavery - which was not threatened in the US anyway. But you knew that.
Yes they did, through proxies.
THEY didn't. The African slave traders were not their proxies - they were their business partners.
Pointing out what would have happened if doesn't prove anything. As JD and others said, the Confederacy saw having slaves as a right and weren't going to give them up without a fight. Just like the Democrats with their entitlement attitude of today.
They didn't have to give up slavery in the US. Slavery was not threatened in the US. The US Congress pass a resolution saying so. Lincoln said so. They even passed a constitutional amendment which would have expressly protected slavery and which would have been mathematically impossible to overturn without the consent of the states that still allowed slavery.
Lies like this are why I call you a liar. I have acknowlwdged several times that some states in the Union still had slaves and everyone in the North wasn't onboard with abolition, and Lincoln had to work with them.
Every single thing I wrote was 100% truthful.
Except the Confederacy was formed to preserve the slave labor they thought they were entitled to.
Except it wasn't. Slavery's preservation was not threatened in the US. Your lies are why I call you a liar.
The union had slave states, but their goal as a nation wasn't to preserve slavery, as shown by their refusal to ratify the Corbomite Maneuver even thought it meant secession and war.
The North only "refused" to ratify the Corwin Amendment because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
All of my sources are from before the PC revisionism you say happened in the 1980s.
Is that why you cite a supposed declaration of causes that is in fact just an ordnance which lists no causes? Or perhaps why you list a speech by Davis 2 years before secession even happened?
Many said so then too, and several nations had already abolished it. In this environment, the Confederacy was formed to preserve it. They said so several times.
That is a lie. They did not say that and furthermore slavery was not threatened in the US. If anybody thought it was, the North passed a constitutional amendment that would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever. The original 7 seceding states turned it down. Slavery was obviously not their main concern. While some European countries had gotten rid of slavery by 1860, some still had not. Obviously Brazil and Cuba had not.
Do you have to be comparable to Nazi Germany to be wrong?
You keep trying to make the Hitler/Nazi analogy.
Unless you were born a slave.
Or an an Indian. Neither were considered to be citizens.
Both sides also said the opposite, so we must base our conclusions on what happened.
One side offered explicit protections for slavery effectively forever. The other side turned that offer down.
They also said it was.
Davis said it was not many times. He said it to Southerners. He said it to Northerners. He said it in public and in private. At no point in 1860 or at any time during his presidency did he say secession or the war were about slavery.
IOW, it was about preserving slavery. Are you serious?
Are you capable of grasping even basic facts? It doesn't seem like it. The 4 states that issued declarations of causes pointed out that it was the Northern states which had violated the US Constitution. They wanted out for other reasons (ie to set their own tax/economic policies) and the Northern states by breaking the deal gave them cause to say it was the other side which had acted in bad faith. It wasn't about preserving slavery. There was almost zero support for abolishing slavery.
blah blah blah A speech Davis gave 2 years before secession.
Davis did not say secession in 1860 was about slavery at any time in 1860 or at any time during the war. In fact he said the exact opposite. But you knew that.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Repeat snipped.
This was 2 years before.
That's right. He spelled it out in advance.
Repeat snipped.
Umm Virginia's is the secession ordnance and does not list causes. Its obvious you have never read it.
As I said, I'll let the readers decide. If anyone else needs me to spell it out I will, but I'm not going to waste any more effort trying to get you to see what is in front of you.
In English please.
If anyone else failed to understand that, they can say so and I'll explain it.
The Corwin Amendment demonstrated quite clearly that the North was perfectly happy to protect slavery where it existed - as Lincoln and many other Republicans said they would.
The states had the opportunity to ratify it and they didn't. It was nothing.
It also showed that the original 7 seceding states were not concerned over the protection of slavery - which was not threatened in the US anyway.
Both JD and the declarations of secession said it was.
Repeat snipped.
THEY didn't. The African slave traders were not their proxies - they were their business partners.
They committed the acts of war that captured those humans. The Confederacy paid them to do it. You can cover it with nice terms like "business partners", but they paid the traders to commit acts of war against those tribes.
And before you run back to "but the North had slaves too and there were crooked politicians who looked the other way while it happened", I know that. Lincoln had to deal with them too.
The North only "refused" to ratify the Corwin Amendment because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
They refused to ratify it for the same reason they chose to ratify abolition.
And of course the slave holding states turned it down. They knew it wasn't going to be ratified. Even if you were right about the causes, why would they accept nothing.
You keep trying to make the Hitler/Nazi analogy.
Only to make a point, which is that Hitler lied about Germany's intentions and made his actions legal. You don't have an answer for that so you keep falling back to the "but the Confederacy wasn't as bad as Hitler" strawman.
The rest was repeat so I snipped it.