You may have the text of the Confederate Constitution. Too bad you can't understand it.
From post 644, "I doubt millions were transported to what is now the US. The survival rates of those who were transported there was much higher than the survival rates of those transported to more tropical locations and particularly to produce sugar where conditions were often more brutal. Given the natural growth rate of about 27% per decade, it would not have required there to have been a huge number delivered to what is now the US to amount to a population of 4.5 million by the 1860s."
This wasn't fiction. You were largely correct on this point.
That does not mean Southerners were "breeding" them on a massive scale as you claim. That population growth rate was on par with the natural population growth rate of the White population at the time. It was not massively higher. There was no captive breeding program for slaves.
He offered to do it to get military aid, not because it was the right thing to do. That's "being held hostage".
And Lincoln only issued the EP in 1863 as a military measure, not because it was the right thing to do. Ergo, Lincoln and the Republicans and the North were holding slaves hostage too I by your rhetoric.
Abolition would have been unconstitutional at the federal level, meaning the Confederacy's Constitution forbid the federal government from forcing the states to give up "the right of property in negro slaves", its words. JD offered something that was unconstitutional.
It may have been unconstitutional depending on how it was done. The national Confederate government would have had to get each Confederate state to go along in order to enact it. They could have applied moral pressure (ie "we obtained allies on the promise we would do this, as Southern Gentlemen we have an obligation to keep our word, yada yada yada") and maybe some limited financial pressure but they could not have forced it upon the states. That much is true.
There is a difference. When abolition was passed, the slaves were freed, unconditionally. BTW, the Republicans made their first attempt in 1864 while that war "of national survival" was waging, but were blocked by the Democrats.
Abolition wasn't passed until after the war. I DO find it funny though that when I mention the Corwin Amendment failed only because the original 7 seceding states turned it down you say it doesn't matter because it wasn't enacted. Then you go on to claim that the push by some to abolish slavery in 1864 does matter.....even though it wasn't enacted. You can't have it both ways. Context either matters or it does not. Pick one.
Except the US ultimately got abolition done, in 1865, and would have a year earlier if Democrats weren't trying to protect "states rights". Fortunately enough Republicans were elected to pass abolition the following year.
The US won the war and so got the chance to get it done. There is no telling when the CSA would have. Maybe they would have enacted it at about that time had they gotten the foreign military aid they sought and promised to abolish slavery as one of the conditions for that aid. We will simply never know. And again, see the point above how context suddenly matters when its convenient for you to claim it does but somehow doesn't matter when its inconvenient for you to admit.
Unfortunately true
I made this point to PC Revisionists back in the early 1990s about 30 years ago. You cannot condemn the South of 1861 without also condemning the Founding Fathers. The South did not change much between 1776 and 1861. The North changed a lot. The South did not suddenly any mysteriously morph into the equivalent of the Nazis as many Leftists like to claim. Who do modern Leftists think the Southerners of 1861 were? They were the sons and grandsons of those who fought for Independence from 1775-1783. Jefferson Davis' father was in the Continental Army. Robert E. Lee's father was one of Washington's finest cavalry commanders. The Southern troops they raised and led were the next generation, the grandchildren.
I was of course told that I was a nut and a conspiracy theorist for ever thinking the Founding Fathers would be condemned by Leftists or the Stars and Stripes would be condemned like the Confederate battle flag, etc etc. Well.....here we are. I was right. Leftists were full of it as always.
I guess nobody thought to ask them when they said it, so I'll conclude they meant it.
Obviously they did not secede over slavery. Else they would have accepted the Corwin Amendment. They did not.
Once again you refuse to acknowledge that the Corwin Amendment was not only not ratified because the original 7 seceding states rejected it and pretend it was owing to some fictional Northern opposition to it that simply did not exist.
FIFY
All but a few Union states had abolished slavery, and slaves who escaped tried to make their way to those states. Additionally, over 100,000 escaped slaves joined the union forces. That tells me more than some amendment that failed to pass.
So the US had slavery and tens of thousands of Blacks also fought in the Confederate Army. That more were willing to join the side that was vastly better supplied and fed at a time of extreme hardship comes as little surprise.
PC Revisionist propaganda snipped
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
If you buy the argument that it was about states' right then I can guess why you would see it that way, but the Democrats made it clear that voting against abolition was about states' right.
Everything the Republicans of the time did even after the war was about centralizing power in the hands of the federal government by hook or by crook, and trampling on the states. The whole 14th amendment which never lawfully passed is a testament to that.
There are a lot of red areas in the Northeast, but the metropolitan areas are deep blue. If secession happened, a lot of areas in the Northeast would be on the red side. Your attempts to paint all of them with a broad blue paint brush will not help if that's what you want to see happen.
the Northeast is dominated by Leftist elites who seek to centralize all power, dominate that central government and line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. That has not changed in over 150 years.
Why should I believe the slave holding states when they said they had other reasons, when they could see how the western world saw their states' rights to own slaves?
Follow the money. They had every economic interest - slaveowners and the overwhelming majority who were not slave owners alike - in wanting to be able to set their own economic policies and in not seeing themselves taxed for others' benefit. This was basically the same cause that motivated the Founding Fathers to secede from the British Empire a few generations earlier.
That's right, and it made JD's offer to abolish slavery unconstitutional. Like the Corwin Amendment, it was an offer with nothing behind it.
That's why President Davis could not simply empower his ambassador as a plenipotentiary himself. He needed the consent of the Confederate Congress. He needed to be able to tell the individual Confederate states that their elected representatives had agreed to this in order to get them to go along with it.
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
This wasn't fiction. You were largely correct on this point.
That was your point, in reply to my point about how the percentage of slaves imported by the slave holding states was lower to that imported in South American countries didn't excuse the slave holding states, but since we agree on this point no need to go over who posted it.
That does not mean Southerners were "breeding" them on a massive scale as you claim. That population growth rate was on par with the natural population growth rate of the White population at the time. It was not massively higher. There was no captive breeding program for slaves.
Absolute nonsense. We all know the slave holders saw the children born to their slaves as their property to be used or sold for profit. That's probably why the Confederacy's Constitution barred importing slaves from foreign countries, as a disgusting form of protectionism.
Repeat snipped.
And Lincoln only issued the EP in 1863 as a military measure, not because it was the right thing to do. Ergo, Lincoln and the Republicans and the North were holding slaves hostage too I by your rhetoric.
There is a big difference, in that Lincoln and the Republicans had to work within the system they inherited, and that was created before the party was even formed, until the Republicans had enough votes to pass abolition. Lincoln and the Republicans attempted to pass abolition in 1864 but were blocked by the party of JD.
OTOH the Confederacy wrote their Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
It may have been unconstitutional depending on how it was done. The national Confederate government would have had to get each Confederate state to go along in order to enact it. They could have applied moral pressure (ie "we obtained allies on the promise we would do this, as Southern Gentlemen we have an obligation to keep our word, yada yada yada") and maybe some limited financial pressure but they could not have forced it upon the states. That much is true.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for the Confederacy over this? This was a corner the Democrat run Confederacy painted itself into. The Union was in the same situation until the Republicans won enough votes to abolish slavery.
Abolition wasn't passed until after the war. I DO find it funny though that when I mention the Corwin Amendment failed only because the original 7 seceding states turned it down you say it doesn't matter because it wasn't enacted. Then you go on to claim that the push by some to abolish slavery in 1864 does matter.....even though it wasn't enacted. You can't have it both ways. Context either matters or it does not. Pick one.
The push is 1864 does matter because it would have passed if only the Republicans had voted on it, but the party of JD wanted to preserve states' rights, their words. The Corwin Amendment would not have passed if only Republicans had voted on it, and those who voted for it were more concerned about preserving the Union than in giving slavery protections it already had.
The US won the war and so got the chance to get it done. There is no telling when the CSA would have. Maybe they would have enacted it at about that time had they gotten the foreign military aid they sought and promised to abolish slavery as one of the conditions for that aid. We will simply never know. And again, see the point above how context suddenly matters when its convenient for you to claim it does but somehow doesn't matter when its inconvenient for you to admit.
What you think might have happened doesn't prove anything.
I made this point to PC Revisionists back in the early 1990s about 30 years ago. You cannot condemn the South of 1861 without also condemning the Founding Fathers.
Our country is no worse than any other and has contributed a lot to the human race, but I won't pretend we don't have anything to apologize for.
Obviously they did not secede over slavery. Else they would have accepted the Corwin Amendment. They did not.
They said before, during, and after that it was about slavery, and the Corwin Amendment gave slavery no protections it didn't already have.
FIFY (Once again you refuse to acknowledge that the Corwin Amendment was not only not ratified because the original 7 seceding states rejected it and pretend it was owing to some fictional Northern opposition to it that simply did not exist.)
If opposition to it did not exist, then it must have been ratified. I'm checking now and, well look at that, it was never ratified. How strange that a bill that had no opposition was never ratified.
So the US had slavery and tens of thousands of Blacks also fought in the Confederate Army. We're back to that? OK.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
That more were willing to join the side that was vastly better supplied and fed at a time of extreme hardship comes as little surprise.
If that was true, they would have stayed with the Confederacy since the Confederacy was getting the better of it early on thanks to the incompetence of the Union military leadership.
No, they chose to fight against the nation that enslaved them.
Democrat propaganda snipped again.
Everything the Republicans of the time did even after the war was about centralizing power in the hands of the federal government by hook or by crook, and trampling on the states. The whole 14th amendment which never lawfully passed is a testament to that.
Details? I'm not sure how the 14th Amendment makes your point.
the Northeast is dominated by Leftist elites who seek to centralize all power, dominate that central government and line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. That has not changed in over 150 years.
So you you're willing to write off millions of people who would agree with you on other issues because their politics are dominated by the metropolitan areas? Does that include FR, which resides in California?
Now I know you're a Democrat plant. If you weren't you wouldn't be writing Northern Conservatives off like that.
Follow the money. They had every economic interest - slaveowners and the overwhelming majority who were not slave owners alike - in wanting to be able to set their own economic policies and in not seeing themselves taxed for others' benefit. This was basically the same cause that motivated the Founding Fathers to secede from the British Empire a few generations earlier.
Their own economic policies included preserving slave labor and protecting them from foreign competition when it came to selling humans for slavery. Their own Constitution said so.