OK. If you're gonna be lazy and do a cut and paste, I will too.
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
The slave holding states seceded before the war, and preserving slavery was the main reason they gave. All the other reasons like states rights were related to their perceived right to have slaves. They were no different than their modern Democrat counterparts who believe they're entitled to our money. The only difference is if they split the country now, there will be no one to pay for their goodies.
No, only SOME states that still allowed slavery seceded before the war. Only 4 issued declarations of causes. Of the 4 which did, 3 of them listed a variety of causes including their economic exploitation by the Northern states even though this was not unconstitutional while the Northern states violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution was actually unconstitutional. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US at the time. The modern Democrats are like the Republicans were then - they are oppressive and feel they are entitled to other people's money. Notice its the Northeast leading the charge both times.
They were cheaper than hiring Americans to do the work (sound familiar?) and after the slave trade was cut off they counted on slave reproduction to maintain and increase the supply. You made that point yourself.
They were not cheaper than cheap imported labor. Living Conditions in many cities in the Northeast were unsanitary and atrocious. Factories were filthy and horribly unsafe. Corporate fatcats simply did not care if their cheap imported labor died in droves or if children were maimed. There was plenty more cheap labor to import. (sound familiar?)
According to JD and the declarations of secession, they were.
According to they themselves they were not.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them.” -Abraham Lincoln first inaugural address
The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Constitution passed by the Congress on March 2, 1861. Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin (A Republican) offered the amendment in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. An identical proposal was offered in the Senate by Republican Senator William Seward of New York (both at Lincoln’s behest). The Congress passed it with the necessary 2/3rd’s majority and 3 Northern states ratified it. Note that Corwin and Seward were both REPUBLICANS. AND no, they were not voted out of office for sponsoring the Corwin Amendment as you falsely try to imply.
“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln
Which a minority of squishy Republicans voted for to try to prevent secession and the CW, and which was never ratified because the states wanted nothing to do with it.
It was sponsored in both houses of Congress by REPUBLICANS. LINCOLN championed it in his inaugural address and got 3 Northern states to ratify it. It only failed because the original 7 seceding states rejected it. It was a dead letter at that point and efforts to get more Northern states to pass it ceased.
They tried to convince the seceding states they weren't. Lincoln made the same attempt in his first inaugural address, but the slave holding states didn't believe it.
They believed it. The Corwin Amendment was ample proof of it. Its just that the protection of something that was not threatened in the first place ie slavery, was not their main concern. Looking out for their economic self interest with low tariffs and not being subject to paying tariffs to benefit Northerners was their main concern.
My sources have been from the Democrats running the Confederacy themselves. Your attempts to tie the modern right to them will only help the Democrats wash their hands of their history.
My sources have been from the people involved at the time most definitely including Northern Republicans. Your attempts to tie the South and the Right to slavery as their only motivating cause will only help Leftists in their attempts to rewrite history to serve their current political interests.
I'm still waiting for someone else to say they can't see it. So far no takers.
I'm still waiting for you to point out how the Virginia ordnance discusses causes.
And to keep their slaves. I'm speaking collectively, so don't waste time with "but this state blah blah blah.",/p>
They could have kept their slaves by staying in. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Alternatively, they could have signaled their assent to the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln and the Republicans would have gotten it passed in enough Northern states to ensure its passage. Yet the original 7 seceding states took neither course of action. Obviously secession was not "about" slavery.
And as long as FR is willing to allow you to waste their bandwidth helping the Democrats tie their slave holding past to the right, I'll keep replying.
As long as you keep trying to revise history to help Leftists claim the North and above all the Federal Government were the "good guys" and that support for states' rights, the original constitution, the South and Conservative values was really "all about slavery", I am going to keep replying to counter this false narrative.
Not entirely true. The Democrats passed it overwhelmingly, with a minority of Republicans who were hoping to prevent secession.
It was two REPUBLICANS who SPONSORED it in each house of Congress. It was the de facto leader of the REPUBLICANS who orchestrated it and who endorsed it in his first inaugural address.
1858, 1860, 1864.,/p>
Correct! They refused to vote for abolitionists prior to 1864. You are correct to point that out.
It could have been abolished later in the same way slavery was abolished, but it would have taken a lot longer. Of course at that time the Republicans knew they couldn't abolish slavery under the system in place at that time, so they were working for abolishing it in the long term. The CW sped things up, as wars often do.
As I've already pointed out, there are not enough states even today to have overturned the Corwin Amendment without the consent of the 15 states that still had slavery. Republicans were most definitely not working toward the abolition of slavery. They were not abolitionists and were quite willing to take extra steps to protect slavery where it existed.
Taking the slaves was an act of war by some tribes against others. Making it legal doesn't change that. The slave holders paid for it.,/p>
Buying a product from the sovereign rulers of a kingdom is not an act of war against that kingdom by any legal definition. Acts of war can only be committed against a sovereign.
He said secession was the proper response should the North elect abolitionists, and acted on it two years later.
But the North didn't elect abolitionists - and Davis never said they did.
I couldn't care less what the Democrats at the time had to say about what secession was about. They split the country then over their perceived entitlement to own slaves, just as they're splitting the country now over their perceived right to our money.
And just as they now use nice terms like "voting rights" and "equality" to put a pretty face on their goals, and just as the LGBTQ+ groups use the rainbow and other nice symbols to cover the disease of their lifestyle and people multilating themselves to look like the opposite gender, so did the Confederacy then with terms like "states' rights". In both cases, it was their way of fooling the masses into supporting their goals. Same party, same play book.
Ah so you don't care what the people of the time North or South had to say about what secession or the war was about. You've got your own dogma you picked up from Leftist PC Revisionists in Acadamia and you're going to stick to it no matter what. The original 7 seceding states did not secede over slavery which was not threatened in the US anyway. To say they did is to gaslight and lie just like the Corporate Media and the Democrat Party Establishment (along with RINOs) do today.....to just make up a propaganda narrative regardless of the actual facts.
The Southern states stuck with the original intent of the Founding Fathers when they insisted that each state was sovereign and that the union was voluntary....and that whenever a state determined that the union was no longer to its benefit, when it perceived that others were taxing it for their benefit rather than for the benefit of every state equally, they were free to leave. It was the Northeast in particular that had greedy busybodies who wanted to centralize all power in the hands of the federal government they knew they could control so as to dictate to everybody else how they must live and to help themselves to other people's money. Some things never change.
Once again, we agree.
Yes we do.
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
Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
The Democrats say "voting rights" is about election integrity. Do you believe them?
The homosexual alliance said all they wanted was to be left alone. Were they telling the truth?
All of them were and are socialists and Democrats, just as JD was. Why should we believe him any more than we believe them?
Repeat snipped.
They were not cheaper than cheap imported labor. Living Conditions in many cities in the Northeast were unsanitary and atrocious. Factories were filthy and horribly unsafe. Corporate fatcats simply did not care if their cheap imported labor died in droves or if children were maimed.
If it would have been cheaper to hire immigrants rather than import and breed slaves, they would have done it.
There was plenty more cheap labor to import. (sound familiar?)
Yes.
According to they themselves they were not.
Cassius Clay wasn't an abolitionist?
Both parties talked out of both sides of their mouths. When it came to actions, the Confederacy kept slavery until forced to abandon it. When the Republicans had the votes they needed they abolished slavery.
The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Constitution passed by the Congress on March 2, 1861. Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin (A Republican) offered the amendment in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. An identical proposal was offered in the Senate by Republican Senator William Seward of New York (both at Lincoln’s behest). The Congress passed it with the necessary 2/3rd’s majority and 3 Northern states ratified it. Note that Corwin and Seward were both REPUBLICANS.
It was never ratified. Abolition was, largely due to the election of enough Republicans to get it passed.
Its just that the protection of something that was not threatened in the first place ie slavery, was not their main concern.
JD and the declarations of secession said they were.
Looking out for their economic self interest with low tariffs and not being subject to paying tariffs to benefit Northerners was their main concern.
The slave holding states seceded over the injustice of tariffs that would have protected American companies. Is that your defense of the Confederacy?
AND no, they were not voted out of office for sponsoring the Corwin Amendment as you falsely try to imply.
I didn't say ALL of them were voted out.
“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln
Although I snipped most of your spam, I kept this because it helps to show what Lincoln was up against.
We all KNOW what Lincoln said. We also understand that Lincoln had to deal with several dynamics besides abolition all at the same time. He had to deal with Union states that still allowed slave holding. He had to deal with abolitionists who were growing impatient with the lack of progress.
And he had to deal with JD and the slave holding states threatening to secede if abolitionists were elected in 1860. Abolitionists were elected, and the slave holding states followed up with their threats to secede AFTER this address was made, because they did not believe he intended to preserve slavery regardless of what he said. Frederick Douglas understood this when he later said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
No one denies he said a lot of things we would find disgusting today, but when you take the conditions of the time into consideration, something you have even pointed out, you get the complete picture of what he was up against.
I know you're going to say the complete picture is that Licoln and the Republicans were not abolitionists, but the Corwin Amendment was never ratified, and the legislation mentioned was never passed. Abolition was passed and made law. That's all that counts.
They believed it. The Corwin Amendment was ample proof of it. Its just that the protection of something that was not threatened in the first place ie slavery, was not their main concern. Looking out for their economic self interest with low tariffs and not being subject to paying tariffs to benefit Northerners was their main concern nothing
My sources have been from the people involved at the time
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
most definitely including Northern Republicans.
You mean the ones who voted to abolish slavery?
Your attempts to tie the South and the Right to slavery as their only motivating cause will only help Leftists in their attempts to rewrite history to serve their current political interests.
I'm not tying the South to slavery. No one in the South today supports slavery, with the possible exception of the free traitors and we have here too. No one in the South today ever bought or owned slave, except for those who bought sexual favors from the victims of human traffickers, and we have them here too.
I'm tying the Democrat run Confederacy to slavery. It's you who are tying the Confederacy and in effect slavery to the modern South, and to the modern right.
I'm still waiting for you to point out how the Virginia ordnance discusses causes.
I don't care what you're waiting for.
They could have kept their slaves by staying in. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Alternatively, they could have signaled their assent to the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln and the Republicans would have gotten it passed in enough Northern states to ensure its passage. Yet the original 7 seceding states took neither course of action. Obviously secession was not "about" slavery.
It was about slavery as late as 1865. On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom:
Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
All of this is consistant with what JD and the Confederacy said in the links below.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
If FR is willing to give you a forum to post Democrat lies, then I'll keep replying with the truth.
As long as you keep trying to revise history to help Leftists claim the North and above all the Federal Government were the "good guys" and that support for states' rights, the original constitution, the South and Conservative values was really "all about slavery", I am going to keep replying to counter this false narrative.
The Democrats said it themselves. I'm sure their political descendents appapreciate your efforts to free them from their history and tie our side to it.
It was two REPUBLICANS who SPONSORED it in each house of Congress. It was the de facto leader of the REPUBLICANS who orchestrated it and who endorsed it in his first inaugural address.
It was never ratified. It was nothing.
Even if it had been ratified, it could have been repealed later, although that would have taken a lot longer if the CW hadn't occurred because the slave holding states would not have given up their "property" otherwise.
Correct! They refused to vote for abolitionists prior to 1864. You are correct to point that out.
This is why I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to you what's in the Virginia declaration of secession. You clearly won't acknowledge anything that would prevent you from sticking the right with your Democrat history of slavery.