It was one year after the EP. Davis had been pushing for it for longer than that.
Are we supposed to be impressed that he was holding humans hostage as slaves to get military aid from other countries? Is that your defense?
He was holding? No. Both the USA and the CSA still had slavery. Davis offered to abolish it in exchange for military aid. The very thing you claim the CSA was fighting for they offered to give up. The very thing you claim the CSA was fighting for, they could have had without firing a shot when it was offered to them by Lincoln. They chose independence over slavery both times.
Posts like this are why I suspect you're a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad. You just admitted that JD was guilty of what the human trafickers were guilty of, which we all knew anyway. The only alternative is that you really believe that was a good defense of JD.
This is why I believe you are the Leftist here. Your arguments are moronic and you cling to PC Revisionist dogma in the face of all facts and evidence. Davis was "guilty" of nothing Lincoln wasn't guilty of in that sense. Both were presidents of countries that still had slavery.
They weren't actions at all. They were nothing but talk. If he meant any of it, he would have abolished slavery without holding them hostage for something in return.
Gosh it sure was cruel of Davis to go to Africa, enslave all those people and drag them across the Atlantic and seed them around the US. I mean, it was all his doing right? He was the one holding them hostage. By the way, why did Lincoln hold slaves hostage?
These are the actions of someone who realized his nation's defense of slavery was appalling to others, which would explain why he and others in the Confederacy made all of those comments you keep posting about how secession wasn't about slavery. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't lie their way out of this any more than Hitler could in 1945.
They realized Britain and France having already abolished slavery would find it far easier to ally with them if they too abolished slavery AND THEY OFFERED TO DO SO. Yes, that is an action, not words. They chose Independence over slavery and furthermore they did so consistently.
I knew you wouldn't answer this so I'll post it again. Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
Godwin. This is just sad. Get some new material.
And everybody outside of the Confederacy amen corner also knows JD and the seceding states meant what they said about seceding to preserve slavery.
Everybody who is not a PC Revisionist can read Davis' repeated statements that the CSA was not fighting for slavery.
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 Democrats along with their socialists and communist bretheren have never changed. To them, it has always been about gaining power by promising goodies.
You are grossly ignorant about history. The Democrat Party started out as the party of limited government, states' rights and balanced budgets. They were that throughout the 19th century.
Before and during the CW it was about the "right" to own slaves.
False. They could have kept that by simply agreeing to the Corwin Amendment. They refused. Obviously states' rights was and is about far more. Know how I know you're a Leftist?Then it was about white supremecy.I got news for ya. That didn't really become an issue until the 1950s and 60s. White Supremacy was the overwhelming view of White people until after WWII. The Democrats didn't need to stand for it particularly. Neither party was against it.
In the Democrat ruined cities it's about getting government freebies.
NOW that is true. That shift in the Democrat Party didn't really happen until FDR.
And look at the millions who have been slaughtered by socialism and communism in return for the promise to others of cradle to grave government benefits.
Socialism and Communism are evil murderous totalitarian ideologies. Both exalt the government and especially the central government at the expense of the individual and of states.
The only thing that has changed is who they make promises to in return for power, but it's still the same messaging. Take your goodies and look the other way.
until they get in power. Then they can do as they like. They're totalitarians.
They hired people who came over voluntarily for the opportunity to work for a better life, as opposed to paying slave traders to kidnap humans to be slaves, and to breed more slaves.
We're back to you not having read history. The Northeast was THE hub of the slave trade industry. Yankee slave traders brought over not only the slaves that were sold to the American South but also the Caribbean and to Brazil. They were the slave traders. Later, corporate fatcats in the North were perfectly willing to import cheap labor they could abuse for massive profits - which they did. Their cheap immigrant labor was treated arguably worse than slaves. They were disposable. There were always plenty more so they didn't care about constant industrial accidents in their factories or disease in the filthy tenement housing.
JD and the slave holding states cited the election of abolitionists as one of their reasons for secession.
They turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
The slave holding states turned it down because they didn't believe the North would live up to it. They were right, since the Northern states wouldn't ratify it even in the face of secession and war.
This is entirely false. It would have been a constitutional amendment. There was nothing for the Northern states to "live up to". It would have been a permanent bar on any abolition of slavery without the consent of the slaveholding states. The Northern states did not ratify it ONLY because the original seceding states turned it down before they could rendering it a moot point.
Yes, their perceived Constitutional right to own slaves.
the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.
How would tariffs on foreign goods have hurt the Confederacy's economy?
By slashing their sales abroad and increasing the amount they had to pay in tariffs AND by increasing the amount they then had to pay in manufactured goods. This wasn't a theoretical point to them either. They had already had experience with it in the Tariff of Abominations in the 1820s and 1830s.
Nope, that was just a side issue that no one paid any attention to, just as in 1858 in Kansas and 1864 after the Democrats blocked passage of abolition over "states' rights". The election of enough Republicans to pass abolition the following year was just a coincidence.
attitudes changed by late in the war, but note, attitudes changed. Before that there was no widespread support for abolition.
To repeat, 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 aboltionists were elected in 1860. Abolitionists were elected, and the slave holding states followed up with their threats to secede AFTER this speach was made, because they did not believe he intended to preserve slavery regardless of what they told him. 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."
Abolitionists were not elected in 1860. Lincoln and the Republican Party were not abolitionists and they went well out of their way to say so numerous times. Had concerns about the preservation of slavery actually been what motivated the original 7 seceding states, they could have simply indicated their acceptance of the freely offered Corwin Amendment which would have done exactly that. They refused. While the seceding states could legitimately say the Northern states had violated the constitution, they were not interested in a remedy. They were not interested in anything but Independence.
Neither became law, while abolition did.
Eventually. AND that does not mean he was unwilling to protect slavery effectively forever and to strengthen fugitive slave laws. He was.
If I was trying to tie the modern right to slavery, I would do exactly what you're doing. Your "defense" of JD above was right on target, if making Conservatives look bad was your goal.
False. Yours is the standard PC Revisionist dogma designed to make the North and the Federal government look good while simultaneously laying all the blame for slavery....and conveniently for decentralized power exclusively at the feet of the South. Have you ever stopped to notice that all the PC Revisionists are hardcore Leftists?????????
repetitive PC Revisionist dogma snipped.
Lincoln had to deal with the people and attitudes of his time.
Lincoln shared those attitudes.
You can't hide behind that after admitting that JD offered to free slaves in return for military aid. He clearly understood the evils of slavery, or at least understood that others could see the evils of slavery. <>p>"Hide"? Davis was no radical "fire-eater". He was a noted moderate. He felt that slavery would be ended eventually as did many others like Lee, Judah Benjamin, Duncan Kenner, etc etc. People weren't blind then. They could see that the British Empire had ended slavery in 1838. The French before that. They could see which way the wind was blowing.
A moderate who was willing to hold humans hostage as slaves as a bargaining chip to get military help.
Davis didn't create/implement slavery. It existed already. He didn't personally hold all the slaves hostage as you are repeatedly claiming.....yet somehow you excuse Lincoln for those slaves held in the USA. Davis was willing to abolish slavery to help win the war just as Lincoln was.
That would be funny if it wasn't so ugly. A defender of the Confederacy talking about oppressing people.
You think the Federal government didn't oppress people???? As the slaves held in the US. Ask the Native Americans ethnically cleansed and those who suffered genocide at the hands of the federal government. Ask Southerners.....
Absolute nonsense. No one on the right associates the modern South with slavery. That's why plants like you have to pretend to be Conservatives so you can accept it on our behalf. It's the same as what Jussie Smollett did. Why FR gives you a forum to do it is beyond me.
Uh helloooo????? What the hell do you think you've been doing for page after page? You want to lay all the sins of slavery exclusively at the South's feet.....while conveniently claiming it was the Federal government which was the "good" guy here. The Left hates the South and has always hated the South because the South has always been conservative. It was in the 19th century and it is now. Southerners then believed in decentralized power, limited government, balanced budgets, etc and they still do today.
So why do you keep re-electing RINOs like McConnell and Grahamnesty, and which side gave us the Bushes? All of them did what you just said the South is against.
What you say about electing RINOs is sadly true but it is true not just of the South. The Republican Establishment has long played this game of saying the right things every time it was election season only to then refuse to do anything once elected. I think all of us on the Right have woken up to that now.
OBTW, Clinton also came from the South.
Sure and so did Jimmy Crater. Now wanna tell me where most Leftists have come from? Wanna tell me where the heart of the modern conservative movement is and has always been?
I don't care that JD, the Confederacy, or Confederacy defenders are saying that secession was not about slavery, any more than I care about what Hitler said about not wanting war in 1939. In both cases, their actions put a lie to what they said.
False. Their actions fully backed up what they said about it not being "about" slavery. They could have accepted slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and they turned it down. During the war they offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid.
To anyone else reading this, do I need to point it out?
Go ahead.
IOW, slavery wouldn't have been abolished without the CW.
Had the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery could only have been abolished with the consent of the slaveholding states. They could have demanded a generous compensated emancipation scheme as the price of doing so. That is the mechanism practically everybody else used to get rid of it.
So what stopped him? They had just formed a new nation, and there was no Constitution (until March, 1861) stopping him from abolishing slavery. He could have abolished it and taken that issue off the table.
He was holding? No. Both the USA and the CSA still had slavery.
(Later) Davis was "guilty" of nothing Lincoln wasn't guilty of in that sense. Both were presidents of countries that still had slavery.
There was a difference. Until 1865, slavery was still protected by the Constitution in the US. It could have been abolished in ALL states before the CW ended if the Democrats had voted for the 13th Amendment, but they blocked it to protect "states' rights", their words. The nation had to wait until 1865 when enough Republicans were elected, coincidentally and having nothing to do with ending slavery or so you say, to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
OTOH, there was nothing stopping JD and the Confederacy from abolishing slavery, if that had been their intention. Of course it wasn't, as the Confederate Constitution was deliberately written to protect slavery.
And you can't excuse them as being products of their time. The fact that they offered to give up slavery in return for military aid shows they understood the rest of the world could see the evil in slavery, assuming they couldn't see it themselves.
Repeats snipped.
Davis offered to abolish it in exchange for military aid. The very thing you claim the CSA was fighting for they offered to give up.
That would have been unconstitutional according to the Confederate Constitution.
The very thing you claim the CSA was fighting for, they could have had without firing a shot when it was offered to them by Lincoln.
I find it very interesting that much of your case is built on policies that were never ratified. The Corbomite Maneuver or whatever it was called, strengthening fugitive slave laws, and abolition in return for military aid, were never ratified. OTOH, you just brush off the one policy we've discussed that was ratified, which is total abolition of slavery in ALL states.
Repeats snipped.
They chose independence over slavery both times.
They never gave up their slaves until defeated.
Gosh it sure was cruel of Davis to go to Africa, enslave all those people and drag them across the Atlantic and seed them around the US. I mean, it was all his doing right? He was the one holding them hostage.
Hitler didn't personally shove any Jews into the ovens either, but that doesn't excuse him.
By the way, why did Lincoln hold slaves hostage?
Because they couldn't be freed until the Constitution was amended, which could have happened in 1864 if the Democrats hadn't blocked the 13th Amendment.
Godwin. This is just sad. Get some new material.
I knew you wouldn't answer this so I'll post it again. Hitler said he didn't want war in 1939. Do you believe him?
C'mon, we all know you're a plant, so why not just go for it, say "yes", and try to make us look like Nazi sympathizers in addition to trying to tie us with the Democrat's history of slavery? Isn't that what you're here for anyway?
Everybody who is not a PC Revisionist can read Davis' repeated statements that the CSA was not fighting for slavery.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
You can also read the Confederacy's Constitution. Just search for the words "slave" and "Negro" to get to the relevant parts.
You are grossly ignorant about history. The Democrat Party started out as the party of limited government, states' rights and balanced budgets. They were that throughout the 19th century.
Slavery was one of those "states' rights".
We're back to you not having read history. The Northeast was THE hub of the slave trade industry.
It was legally abolished long before secession and the CW, but the slave holding states were relying on breeding their own slaves by then.
the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.
But if it wasn't about slavery, why would this matter?
By slashing their sales abroad and increasing the amount they had to pay in tariffs AND by increasing the amount they then had to pay in manufactured goods. This wasn't a theoretical point to them either. They had already had experience with it in the Tariff of Abominations in the 1820s and 1830s.
Maybe they would have preferred what the free traitors did to this country. But then again, both used slave labor to make their products cheaper so maybe they would have agreed.
Lincoln shared those attitudes.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
You think the Federal government didn't oppress people???? As the slaves held in the US. Ask the Native Americans ethnically cleansed and those who suffered genocide at the hands of the federal government.
I never said that. In fact I agreed with your point about that, and I don't pretend it wasn't about what it was.
Ask Southerners.....
How many of those Southerners would support the Confederate Constitution as it was written and ratified in March 1861?
You want to lay all the sins of slavery exclusively at the South's feet.....while conveniently claiming it was the Federal government which was the "good" guy here.
I've done no such thing. As I have posted again and again and again and again, slavery has nothing to do with the modern South. It's you who want to tie the Confederacy, and in effect slavery, to the right.
The Left hates the South and has always hated the South because the South has always been conservative. It was in the 19th century and it is now.
In case you haven't seen the news in the past year, the "Conservatives" in Georgia caved to the Democrats when they could have made a stand and forced a validation of the election results.
Southerners then believed in decentralized power, limited government, balanced budgets, etc and they still do today.
Read the Confederacy's Constitution if you want to see what the South believed in in the 1860s, and tell me that's still true today.
Sure and so did Jimmy Crater.
Jimmy Carter was a patriotic conservative compared to the bunch we have now, and I'm not just talking about Democrats.
One more year of Brandon and we'll all be begging for a return to the Carter years.
Now wanna tell me where most Leftists have come from?
One is sitting in front of your computer.
Wanna tell me where the heart of the modern conservative movement is and has always been?
Given the condition of the modern Conservative movement, I'm not sure that's something to brag about.
Had the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery could only have been abolished with the consent of the slaveholding states.
Same with abolition in 1865, and that wouldn't have happened without the CW.