From their point of view they did. They saw it as breeding slaves and livestock to be sold.
False. They had no "breeding program". You were simply wrong.
Wow you're truthful. I know the US Constitution protected slavery. I just don't understand how when the idea of slavery seems to contradict it's overall meaning. I hope you got it this time.
Once again, you were simply wrong. Oh and FIFY.
All but a few states in the North had already abolished slavery at the state level. When they got the chance, they voted to abolish it at the national level.
Almost nobody in the Northern states supported abolition nationwide prior to late in the war.
Five states had ratified the Corbomite Maneuver, so the rest had the time to do it if they had intended to.
False. 5 states ratified the Corwin Amendment and efforts to get more to ratify it were ongoing - and would have received a huge boost had the Southern states agreed to it. Instead they rejected it.
I said it passed and was sent to the states for ratification in 1865, after the party of JD, the Democrats, blocked it in 1864.
It did not pass as a constitutional amendment until the Southern states agreed to it and ratified it.
The Corwin Amendment was nothing.
The Corwin Amendment would have explicitly protected slavery effectively forever.
And I've already answered your spam. They had to deal with the threat of secession and were speaking out of both sides of their mounths.,
You're just making this up. There is no evidence they did not mean what they said about opposing abolition prior to the war and even in the first few years of the war. There were no writings or accounts of what they "really" thought (ie supporting abolition) before late in the war. The Republicans were not abolitionists. Very few in teh North were.
That isn't evidence, just a book writer's conclusions that happen to match yours, even with all of the negative things you said about her otherwise.
That Lincoln orchestrated the Corwin Amendment and its passage through Congress is not an opinion. Her only opinion was that this was "brilliant" on his part.
The Confederate leaders were leaders of a foreign nation that made war on the Union. They had no constitutional right to public office.
The Republicans's/Lincoln's/the North's entire argument was that they were NOT the leaders of a foreign nation. Had they simply accepted that they were the leaders of a foreign nation there would have been no war at all. Instead they started and waged a war of aggression that cost hundreds of thousands of lives on the premise that the Southern states never really left the union.
I'll do better and ask the Confederacy's leaders themselves.
repeats snipped
Thank you, leaders of the Confederacy, for telling us that the Republicans were a threat to the institution of slavery and that's why you seceded.
Yes, let's ask them
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).
[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions." Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
"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
From Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession: “The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them...It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." -General Patrick Cleburne
Robert Barnwell Rhett's address attached to South Carolina's Declaration of Causes of Secession: "The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
"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
"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/M/
Yes. You think I'm trying to stick slavery on the South, but America today is no better.
Well it is better though not nearly as much better as many want to think. It now outsources the slavery.....or at least its elites are so corrupt they will not sanction a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that has enslaved people and which is committing genocide because that dictatorship lines their pockets.
What made my reply relevant is that everyone uses PR to push unpopular policies, and the Confederacy was no different when it came to the image they were trying to present to the rest of the world.
Your reply was irrelevant.
When you take children from their parents and sell them as live stock, that in itself is a breeding program.
When you rape their daughters and sell or enslave the children that result, that isn't a breeding program, that is something much worse.
Wow you're truthful. I know the US Constitution protected slavery. I just don't understand how when the idea of slavery seems to contradict it's overall meaning. I hope you got it this time.
Yes, I am truthful. You should try it some time.
Once again, you were simply wrong.
On what? That the US Constitution as inherited by Lincoln and the Republicans protected slavery? That the Confederates wrote their Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery? On which of these am I wrong?
Almost nobody in the Northern states supported abolition nationwide prior to late in the war.
Well then you must be impressed with how the Republicans managed to get the country to ratify abolition in only nine years.
In reply to my comment "Five states had ratified the Corbomite Maneuver, so the rest had the time to do it if they had intended to.", you replied False. 5 states ratified the Corwin Amendment and efforts to get more to ratify it were ongoing - and would have received a huge boost had the Southern states agreed to it. Instead they rejected it.
Your "would haves" do nothing to prove my statement false, and your reply proves the other states had the time to ratify it, but rejected it instead.
It (abolition) did not pass as a constitutional amendment until the Southern states agreed to it and ratified it.
I agreed with you on this numerous times, but it had to pass in Congress to get it to the states, and that didn't happen until enough members of the party of JD were replaced with Republicans to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
The Corwin Amendment would have explicitly protected slavery effectively forever.
Your "would haves" don't prove a thing, because it was never ratified. Most of the Union states wanted nothing to do with it even if it meant secession and a CW, or they would have ratified it when the five states did.
Of course if the CW hadn't occurred then it would have taken a lot longer to get the votes to repeal slavery with or without the Corbomite Maneuver, because the slave owners weren't going to give up their right to slave labor without a fight anyway.
That Lincoln orchestrated the Corwin Amendment and its passage through Congress is not an opinion. Her only opinion was that this was "brilliant" on his part.
It was passed in Congress two days before he became president. In fact the party of JD was in a rush to ram it through before the Republicans took office. They failed because all but a few states rejected it.
The Republicans's/Lincoln's/the North's entire argument was that they were NOT the leaders of a foreign nation.
So what? They split the nation and started a war for the purpose of preserving slavery, as they said numerous times. No one was obligated to accept them in any leadership capacity.
Yes, let's ask them (the Confederacy if secession was about preserving slavery).
Repeat of the same poor attempts at PR that failed to impress anyone then or now snipped.
“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
Union Colonel James Jaquess replied "Would the Confederacy be willing to back those high sounding words by freeing the slaves now, no strings attached?"
Jefferson Davis replied "Hell no, we ain't giving up our right to "slave labor" (his words) without a war." He continued "Those slaves are ours to work as animals, rape, or sell as the property they are. If you want to free them, you'll have to beat us first."
The Union replied "Done."