Your reply was right out of Clinton's playbook. Of course they didn't go announcing to everyone "We're going to breed black children to be sold as slaves, and we're going to rape black females and sell their children as slaves."
It's like Lewinsky and Clinton's defense that they never conspired to lie to Congress. Of course they didn't meet and say "This is what we're going to do. We're going to lie and commit perjury." But if they coordinated to give false testimony, then that's what they did even if they didn't spell it out.
Likewise, if the slave holders sold their slaves' children to others or used them as slaves, then that's what they were doing whether they announced it as a policy or not.
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.
Recognizing the rights of states to own slaves and limiting the power of the federal government to ban slavery. The Confederate's Constitution came right out and said this.
As I've said many times, views changed on that subject by late in the war.
Right. The states that had outlawed slavery changed their views and opposed slavery instead.
False. They did not reject it. They simply had not passed it yet.
If they didn't ratify it, then they rejected it.
In case you haven't noticed, states aren't always in a sprint to ratify constitutional amendments. Sometimes it takes a little time.
This time was different, in that the country was splitting and about to go to war and there was an urgency among some to prevent it. The Corbomite Maneuver was a desperate attempt to prevent this. If they were on board with this approach, they would have ratified it when the other five states did.
You have no evidence that "most of the union states wanted nothing to do with it....."
Do you mean besides the fact they didn't ratify it?
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists.
1858, 1860, 1864.
This is patently false. It was introduced in each House of Congress by REPUBLICANS. It is named after Thomas Corwin a REPUBLICAN from Ohio.
Yes, but the majority of Republicans voted against it while all but two House Democrats voted for it. Those who supported it understood that it didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
To give credit where due, the two Democrats who voted against it were William Stewart (MD) and Thomas C. Hindman (AK).
This is a lie. They did not leave to preserve slavery. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Not only was it not threatened, the first thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was nothing.
insert fantasy quotes by me that were never said by either party because, hell I've got nothing and I'm desperate here.
Wow. There's no getting tricks like this past you.
Of course they didn't actually say this in the conversation, but both sides said it with their actions.
Besides FLT-Bird, did anyone else who read that need me to make that clarification?
That was a lot of words to desperately try to avoid admitting you were wrong. But you were. They had no breeding program.
Recognizing the rights of states to own slaves and limiting the power of the federal government to ban slavery. The Confederate's Constitution came right out and said this.
Nope. States could allow slavery under the US Constitution. The limitations on the power of the federal government in the Confederate Constitution revolved around the states' ability to remove federal officials, strict limitations on spending, and the express recognition of state sovereignty.
Right. The states that had outlawed slavery changed their views and opposed slavery instead.
Many if not most in the Union came to favor abolition when they had not before.
,i>If they didn't ratify it, then they rejected it.
No, these are not the same thing. Not yet ratifying is NOT the same as explicitly rejecting.
This time was different, in that the country was splitting and about to go to war and there was an urgency among some to prevent it. The Corbomite Maneuver was a desperate attempt to prevent this. If they were on board with this approach, they would have ratified it when the other five states did.
False assumption on your part. States are often slow to ratify constitutional amendments.
Do you mean besides the fact they didn't ratify it?
Correct! Not yet ratifying something is not equivalent to rejecting something.
1864.
1864 was the first time there was a serious political move to abolish slavery and the first time it enjoyed widespread popular support.
Yes, but the majority of Republicans voted against it while all but two House Democrats voted for it. Those who supported it understood that it didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
Yes but it was written by and sponsored by REPUBLICANS. It was also orchestrated by and endorsed by Lincoln who was a REPUBLICAN.
blah blah blah snipped. Not only was it not threatened, the first thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever.
glad you can finally admit it. We're making progress!
Wow. There's no getting tricks like this past you.
Only took ya what, 5? months to figure that out? You're a fast one I see.
Of course they didn't actually say this in the conversation, but both sides said it with their actions.
Only in your deluded imagination.
Besides FLT-Bird, did anyone else who read that need me to make that clarification?
Anybody who read that and who knows the actual history knew you were pulling it straight out of your azz (as usual for you) right from the start.