Nothing more needs be said.
That's right. He spelled it out in advance.
No he didn't. It had not even happened.
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.
what's in front of me is a secession ordnance for Virginia that does not list causes. Its obvious you've never read it.
If anyone else failed to understand that, they can say so and I'll explain it.
I'll take that as proof you cannot express yourself in plain English.
The states had the opportunity to ratify it and they didn't. It was nothing.
They didn't ratify it because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was irrefutable proof that neither side was fighting over slavery.
Both JD and the declarations of secession said it was.
The Republicans, Lincoln and the US Congress said it wasn't. To prove that it wasn't they offered express protection of slavery effectively forever by constitutional amendment.
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.
You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. They did not commit acts of war. Those tribes were not sovereign and SOLD THEM the slaves in the first place. Secondly, the Confederacy didn't pay slave traders. Importing slaves was made illegal in the Confederate Constitution. You're just spewing gibberish as usual.
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.
It went on for 50 years after the sunset clause for importing slaves in the US Constitution expired. This was overwhelmingly before Lincoln came to office. Learn some actual history for a change.
They refused to ratify it for the same reason they chose to ratify abolition.
No they didn't. They refused to ratify it because it FAILED to draw the original 7 seceding states back in.
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.
They "knew" no such thing. Had that really addressed their concern, they could have simply said they would be happy to come back in and ratify it when enough Northern states had ratified it to ensure its passage. Instead they turned it down flat. What they were really interested in was self determination for reasons of taxation and trade - not protection of slavery which was not threatened anyway.
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 analogy is lazy, stupid and a failure. Neither the CSA nor the USA were ever remotely comparable to Hitler or Nazi Germany.
So here we go again. I'll post all of the quotes showing that secesiion was about slavery. Then you'll whine that I'm spamming you and you can spam too, so you'll post a bunch of quotes walking back what they said about secession being about slavery. Then I'll post that Hitler said in 1945 that Germany didn't want war in 1939, to which you'll reply that comparisons to Hitler are wrong, or liberal tactics, or some other strawman that has nothing to do with the point being made.
No he didn't (spell it out in advance). It had not even happened.
Yet.
When "abolitionists" were elected, his words, then the slave holding states acted on what he said.
what's in front of me is a secession ordnance for Virginia that does not list causes. Its obvious you've never read it.
I'm not goig to waste FR bandwidth pointing out to you what's there. Does anyone else need me to point it out?
I'll take that as proof you cannot express yourself in plain English.
Does anyone else need me to explain my paraphrase of FLT-Bird, which was "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."
They didn't ratify it because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was irrefutable proof that neither side was fighting over slavery.
Your opinion of why it wasn't ratified isn't irrefutable proof of anything. The fact that slavery was abolished is irrefutable proof that it WAS about abolition.
The Republicans, Lincoln and the US Congress said it wasn't. To prove that it wasn't they offered express protection of slavery effectively forever by constitutional amendment.
The Corbomite Maneuver was never ratified. Abolition was.
You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. They did not commit acts of war. Those tribes were not sovereign and SOLD THEM the slaves in the first place. Secondly, the Confederacy didn't pay slave traders. Importing slaves was made illegal in the Confederate Constitution. You're just spewing gibberish as usual.
Tribes conquered other tribes and sold each other at slaves. That was an act of war, which was funded by money that ultimately came from the slave holders.
It went on for 50 years after the sunset clause for importing slaves in the US Constitution expired. This was overwhelmingly before Lincoln came to office. Learn some actual history for a change.
How does any of this refute the fact that Licoln had to work with the salve holding states in the Union?
They "knew" no such thing. Had that really addressed their concern, they could have simply said they would be happy to come back in and ratify it when enough Northern states had ratified it to ensure its passage.
Since the North never ratified it and never would have, your argument falls apart.
Repeat snipped.
The analogy is lazy, stupid and a failure. Neither the CSA nor the USA were ever remotely comparable to Hitler or Nazi Germany.
Just as I predicted, Your reply to "Only to make a point, which is that Hitler lied about Germany's intentions and made his actions legal" was to fall back to the "but the Confederacy wasn't as bad as Hitler" strawman." It wasn't my point that the slave holder's atrocities were as bad as the Nazis. My point was that like Hitler, JD was lying when he tried to walk back his statements that secession was about slavery. Can you try answering that instead of replying with non sequiturs?