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.
Right on cue. My "standard grade school Hitler analogy" is to point out the Holocaust like slavery was legal, and that Hitler lied about not wanting war in 1939 just as JD lied about slavery not being the cause of secession. You haven't answered either of those points. You just fall back to your "but slavery wasn't as bad as the holocaust", but neither of my points above say it was, although it sure was for those who were trapped in it and hunted like animals if they escaped.
it did, the states made it clear their main concerns were over sovereignty to set trade and tax policy.
And use their cheap slave labor to gain an unfair advantage over states that did not use slave labor.
Much like what the free traitors have done to this country now.
Abolitionists were not elected. Lincoln made that perfectly clear.
JD and the declarations of secession made it clear they were, and Lincoln was one of them.
What's there is a secession ordnance that does not list any causes.
I'm not going to go back and forth with you while you try to make Conservatives look stupid by playing one. As I said numerous times, if anyone else needs to have it pointed out then I'll do it. So far no takers.
Lincoln made sure to say any interference in collecting taxes was the trigger. Its right there in his inaugural address.
If states want federal protection (and as things are now federal goodies) they need to help pay for it.
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.
Not the Corwin Amendment again. Are you a bot?
It came too late to make a difference, was never ratified and never had a chance of being ratified, and was nothing more that a last ditch effort by the Democrats with some Republicans to prevent secession and a civil war. Many who voted to pass it were out of work the following year, as the North for the most part wanted nothing to do with it. It didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have. It was nothing.
Repeats snipped.
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.
It was an act of war by them against the tribes they attacked. The slave holders paid for it.
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.
Neither became law. They were talking points to appease the secessionists and the factions in the Union that supported slavery. When he and the Republicans got the votes they needed, abolition was passed and made law.
Since the North Would have ratified it, your argument fails. See how easy that is? I can just make up things too.
For once we agree on something. You've proven on this thread you can make things up over and over again.
Jefferson Davis said neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
He said so in private and in public and he said it repeatedly.
He lied, as Hitler did in 1945 when he said it was untrue he wanted war in 1939.
Cue the whining about Hitler comparisons.