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.
Yes, but Jefferson Davis truthfully said neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. Had that not been the case, the original 7 seceding states could simply have accepted slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Yet they rejected that when it was offered. And of course, the Upper South did not even secede until Lincoln chose to start a war. So your analogy is just a miserable failure.
And use their cheap slave labor to gain an unfair advantage over states that did not use slave labor.
Firstly, slaves were not cheap. They were quite expensive. Secondly many of the states that by 1860 had gotten rid of slavery, were the very states that had a massive slave trade industry for generations and/or states which had shipping, banking, insurance and wholesaling industries which serviced goods produced at least in part by slave labor. They were also states which benefitted enormously from a captive market for their manufactured goods, being able to charge ever higher prices for those manufactured goods thanks to high tariffs, and a lot of federal money raised by tariffs they spent on themselves for things like corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects. The North benefitted enormously from slavery right from the very start.
JD and the declarations of secession made it clear they were, and Lincoln was one of them.
But Lincoln and the Republicans were no abolitionists. They even supported and offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment in case anybody had the idea that they were abolitionists. They made sure to leave no doubt that they were not.
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.
The only one falsely playing at being a Conservative while pushing the LEFTISTS PC Revisionist narrative here is you. As anybody who reads that link can see for himself, what is listed there is the Virginia secession ordnance. It does not list causes.
If states want federal protection (and as things are now federal goodies) they need to help pay for it.
The original 7 seceding states didn't want federal goodies. They simply wanted to be left alone in peace.
Not the Corwin Amendment again. Are you a bot?
For so long as you pretend it didn't exist or pretend it had no significance, I am going to keep bringing it up.
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.
This entire statement is BS. It wasn't the Democrats who wrote it or made the effort to pass it. It was Republicans - at Lincoln's behest. It never had a chance of being ratified only because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. There is zero evidence any politicians who voted for it were turned out of office in the next election for voting for it. Indeed Northern voters at this time were vehemently not abolitionist as evidenced by them refusing to vote for abolitionists in election after election. Sure it was an effort to stop secession by Lincoln....but look at what was offered in the attempt. Slavery forever. That was the very first bargaining chip they offered up. So much for any idea that they were committed to abolishing slavery.
It was an act of war by them against the tribes they attacked. The slave holders paid for it.
Buying what the legal and recognized rulers of a country are offering to sell is not an act of war by any legal definition.
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.
They were offers made. Lincoln and the Republicans were perfectly willing to offer them. They orchestrated the passage of this constitutional amendment through Congress. He and the Republicans had the votes. They had the presidency and control over both houses of Congress. Had they wanted to push abolitionism at that time, they could have. They did not want to and did not in fact do so until late in the war.
For once we agree on something. You've proven on this thread you can make things up over and over again.
I've proven I can adopt the same idiotic and dishonest tactics you use to highlight how idiotic and dishonest they are.
blah blah blah the same speech offered 2 years BEFORE secession even happened.
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
He lied, as Hitler did in 1945 when he said it was untrue he wanted war in 1939.
No he didn't. He told the unvarnished truth. He did so consistently and for years.
Cue the whining about Hitler comparisons.
Cue the grade school Hitler comparisons.