Yes, as I said the Confederate Constitution's primary differences with the US Constitution were in expressly recognizing state sovereignty and in limiting the ability of the federal government to spend money.
Absolutely meaningless. It could have been less, more or the same, and the point still stands that the slave owners saw it as breeding animals to be used for slave labor or sold for profit.
The question wasn't how they saw it. The question was whether there were factory breeding conditions or a breeding program for slaves. There were not.
It was deliberately written to protect the institution of slavery. The US Constitution allowed it, although I'm not sure how, until 1865.
The US constitution protected slavery too. Hello fugitive slave clause?
Until the Republicans had the votes to abolish slavery, it wasn't.
Glad we finally cleared that up. The Confederate Constitution's protections of slavery were not materially different from the US Constitution in that regard. The key differences lay elsewhere - namely in recognizing state sovereignty much more explicitly and in limiting the ability of the federal government to spend taxpayer money.
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the states, and wouldn't have offered slavery any protections it didn't already have as you have admitted.
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the Southern States. That's why the drive to get more states to ratify it suddenly halted.
They did as soon as they replaced enough of the Democrats, the party of JD who saw voting "no" as defending states' rights, with Republicans.
The US did not abolish slavery during the war which you claimed as some kind of indictment of the Confederate government. Well the same applied to the US Government. Make all the excuses you want.
The Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have under the US Constitution, which the Confederacy knew and which you have admitted. Besides that, the vast majority of the Union states rejected it. It was nothing.
The Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery expressly effectively forever. The Northern states didn't reject it. The Southern states did. That's when the drive to get more Northern states to ratify it stopped.
I don't care what you mean anyway, because nine years after the Republicans released their platform saying "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in "all our National Territory", they voted overwhelmingly to abolish slavery in ALL states.
You clearly don't get that the first was a party plank to ban slavery in the western territories. I've posted plenty of quotes to show they wanted these territories for themselves - and they wanted to weaken opposition to ever higher tariffs. Duh. They were not abolitionists.
Of course you'll come back with "all our National Territory" doesn't actually mean "all our National Territory", but nine years later they abolished it in "all our National Territory".
Territory. Not States. Try reading.
BTW, it was orchestrated by Lincoln's predecessor, a Democrat, before he took office.
BTW, no it was not. It was orchestrated by Lincoln. Read that nauseating hagiography by admitted plagiarist Doris Kearns-Godwin. "Team of rivals". She can't stop gushing about how "brilliant" it was to orchestrate the Corwin Amendment.
This does nothing to answer my point that many states joined after slavery was abolished.
No, but it backs up my point about the North's culpability for slavery right from the very start.
But to your point, if you've read my other posts on human trafficking, you know I place the blame on the buyers anyway. I also see it that way that with men who pay human traffickers to get a warm wet spot to stick it into.
New Englanders were the Traffickers. The slave trade itself was if anything more brutal than slavery itself. That was a point the Founding Fathers all agreed about.
That's right. He said that if the abolitionist party got power and he was referring to the Republicans, then secession was the correct action for preserving their right to "slave labor", his words. Three years they acted on that.
This was years before secession happened and the original 7 seceding states did not secede over slavery. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US.
That was their real motivation. States' rights and taxes were the decoy to keep the attention off of slavery, which they could see even then was losing support in the Western world.
You have it exactly backwards. The vast majority of people did not own slaves. States' rights and especially being able to set their own economic and trade policy were issues that touched every Southerner's wallet.
Until the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition.<'/P>
Once again, the Confederate Constitution did not materially differ from the US Constitution in protection of slavery. Where it differed was in expressly recognizing state sovereignty in several areas and in limiting the federal government's ability to spend money.
Black Southerners in Gray Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies John McGlone
More spam from an author whose only qualification that you care about is that he says what you want to hear. Here's what your author is saying those blacks were voluntarily defending.
repeats snipped.
LOL! Somebody sure is pissy I could cite multiple sources all backing up the large number of Blacks who fought in the Confederate Army.
Do you mean this?
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Yep
They had every right to prevent insurrectionists from taking office.
They had no right to dictate to the citizens of any state whom they can choose to elect.
Now ask me if I care that a bunch of insurrectionists who seceded to preserve slavery couldn't hold office.
Ask me if I think it the place of representatives of some states to dictate to citizens of other states whom they can elect.
Are you willing to write them off because you want to pretend the Confederate leaders were lying when they said secession was about slavery?
The large majority of Confederate leaders did not say secession was "about" slavery.
The question absolutely was how they saw it, because how they saw it is what they were doing. The fact that they couldn't induce the women to churn out children as fast as their chickens turned out eggs doesn't change that.
The US constitution protected slavery too. Hello fugitive slave clause?
I know that. To put it another way, I don't see how that fugitive clause and slavery in general weren't unconstitutional.
Glad we finally cleared that up.
There was nothing to clear up unless it took you this long to understand that not everyone in the North was among the good guys, which I have pointed out to you numerious times on this thread. About the only thing I've posted to you more often is "repeat snipped".
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the Southern States. That's why the drive to get more states to ratify it suddenly halted.
Five Union states ratified it, so the idea that the rest didn't have enough time to ratify it before the South rejected it is just plain wrong.
The US did not abolish slavery during the war which you claimed as some kind of indictment of the Confederate government. Well the same applied to the US Government. Make all the excuses you want.
I haven't made any excuses. The Democrats, the party of JD, blocked passage of the 13 Amendment in 1864. The voters responded by replacing them with Republicans, who voted to pass the 13th Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. Those are the facts, so no excuses are needed.
The Corwin Amendment offered slavery no protections it didn't already have and was rejected by most Republicans and the Northern states.
FIFY.
You clearly don't get that the first was a party plank to ban slavery in the western territories.
The Republicans showed what they meant by "all our National Territory" (not territories) when they voted to abolish slavery in all states. Likewise, the party of JD, the Democrats, showed what they meant by states' rights in 1864 when they voted against the 13th Amendment.
Repeat snipped.
I've posted plenty of quotes to show they wanted these territories for themselves - and they wanted to weaken opposition to ever higher tariffs. Duh. They were not abolitionists.
Nine years after they published their platform, they had the votes they needed to abolish slavery, and they did it in all states.
BTW, no it was not. It was orchestrated by Lincoln. Read that nauseating hagiography by admitted plagiarist Doris Kearns-Godwin. "Team of rivals". She can't stop gushing about how "brilliant" it was to orchestrate the Corwin Amendment.
No.
They had no right to dictate to the citizens of any state whom they can choose to elect.
Apparently they did, but thanks for your opinion.
Ask me if I think it the place of representatives of some states to dictate to citizens of other states whom they can elect.
Ask me if I'm impressed that you think people who split the nation and defended the right to own slaves should be elected to the federal government.
But then again, we're guilty of using slave labor today as a result of our free trade deals with the communists. The only difference is that instead of importing the slave labor, we've exported the plantations.
The large majority of Confederate leaders did not say secession was "about" slavery.
Yes, yes, and true communism has never been tried.