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?
No, more like you'll post the same quote or two you keep quoting and I'll swamp you with dozens and dozens saying the exact opposite. Then you'll make the standard grade school Hitler analogy and I'll laugh and show what a joke that is.
Yet.
It had not happened. When it did, the states made it clear their main concerns were over sovereignty to set trade and tax policy.
When "abolitionists" were elected, his words, then the slave holding states acted on what he said.
Abolitionists were not elected. Lincoln made that perfectly clear.
I'm not goig to waste FR bandwidth pointing out to you what's there. Does anyone else need me to point it out?
What's there is a secession ordnance that does not list any causes.
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."
Lincoln made sure to say any interference in collecting taxes was the trigger. Its right there in his inaugural address. He also supported protection of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. I invite everybody to read his first inaugural address. Its not that long.
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 irrefutable proof is that slavery forever by express constitutional amendment was turned down by the original 7 seceding states. The fact that slavery was abolished YEARS LATER in no way shows that secession on the part of the Southern states or the decision to start a war on the part of Lincoln was "about" slavery. He said it was not. Jefferson Davis said it was not. The US Congress passed a resolution explicitly stating that they were not fighting over slavery.
The Corbomite Maneuver was never ratified. Abolition was.
The Corwin Amendment passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and was signed by the president.
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.
The rulers of various African Kingdoms sold slaves to the slave traders. Buying what the legal authority in place is selling is not an act of war by any legal definition.
How does any of this refute the fact that Licoln had to work with the salve holding states in the Union?
Yes he had to work with them. So what? He was perfectly willing to protect slavery where it existed and even offered to strengthen fugitive slave laws.
Since the North never ratified it and never would have, your argument falls apart.
Since the North Would have ratified it, your argument fails. See how easy that is? I can just make up things too. The fact is that the US Congress which was utterly dominated by Northern congressmen after the Southern delegation withdrew passed the Corwin amendment with a 2/3rds supermajority. Lincoln even managed to get several Northern states to ratify it quickly. Its momentum only stalled after the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
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?
LOL! YOU try to make a Hitler analogy then squeal like a stuck pig when called on it. Jefferson Davis said neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. He said so in private and in public and he said it repeatedly.