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."
They had no breeding program. The birthrate for Blacks was the same as for Whites in this time period. You were simply wrong. Trying to change the definition of things in order to avoid admitting you were wrong is a standard Leftist tactic.
Yes, you are truthful. I should try it some time.
FIFY
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?
The latter. The Confederate Constitutions' main differences with the US Constitution were not over slavery. The differences were more expressly recognizing the rights of states and in limiting the power of the federal government.
Well then you must be impressed with how the Republicans managed to get the country to ratify abolition in only nine years.
As I've said many times, views changed on that subject by late in the war.
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.
False. They did not reject it. They simply had not passed it yet. In case you haven't noticed, states aren't always in a sprint to ratify constitutional amendments. Sometimes it takes a little time.
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.
You have no evidence that "most of the union states wanted nothing to do with it....."
They simply hadn't ratified it yet. Not yet ratifying something is not the same as rejecting something. The states that did explicitly reject the Corwin Amendment were the original 7 seceding states.
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.,/p>
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists.
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.
This is patently false. It was introduced in each House of Congress by REPUBLICANS. It is named after Thomas Corwin a REPUBLICAN from Ohio.
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.,/P>
This is a lie. They did not leave to preserve slavery. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Not only was it not threatened, the first thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it. It was called the Corwin Amendment.
Repeat of the same direct quotes I cannot refute snipped.
insert fantasy quotes by me that were never said by either party because, hell I've got nothing and I'm desperate here.
this is the most honest thing you've said in this thread.