Tell that to the families that were split as parents watched their own children get sold into slavery, never to see them again. The slave holding states saw it as breeding slaves. That they didn't fill out enough paperwork to get your endorsement doesn't change that.
Nope.
Yes. The Confederacy's Constitution recognized the rights of states to own slaves and limited the power of the federal government to ban slavery. Saying anything to the contrary is an outright lie.
States could allow slavery under the US Constitution.
How many times do I have to acknowledge this before you understand that I know this? Slavery was allowed under the US Constitution, and was until the Republicans got the votes to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification. I said it again. Unless your reading skills are so poor that you can't understand what I just wrote, there is no need for you to repeat it again in this thread.
The only difference is that the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the leaders of the time to protect slavery, while the protections in the US Constitution were written generations before the Republican party was even formed.
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...
You mean like the money they spent trying to preserve slavery?
I know, you're now going to repeat the same Confederate propaganda about how the war wasn't about protecting slavery, even though they said it was.
and the express recognition of state sovereignty.
Yes, the states' soveriegn rights to own slaves.
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.
Many if not most
IOW, you don't know.
in the Union came to favor abolition when they had not before.
Your claim that states that had already abolished slavery came around to favoring abolition is nonsense.
No, these are not the same thing. Not yet ratifying is NOT the same as explicitly rejecting.
Of course it is. They either ratified it or rejected it. There's no middle. Repeats snipped.
False assumption on your part. States are often slow to ratify constitutional amendments.
That wasn't an assumption, that was a fact. Five states ratified it, PROVING the rest had the time if they intended to ratify it. They didn't.
1864 was the first time there was a serious political move to abolish slavery and the first time it enjoyed widespread popular support.
If true, then you must be amazed at how the Republicans got the country to that point in only eight years.
Yes but it was written by and sponsored by REPUBLICANS.
Whose only purpose was to prevent secession and the CW, and who understood it didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
It was also orchestrated by and endorsed by Lincoln who was a REPUBLICAN.
It was orchestrated by his Democrat predecessor. He passed it on to the states where it was REJECTED.
Not only was it not threatened...
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
the first thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was nothing.
Only took ya what, 5? months to figure that out?
Yes, after five months of watching you fall for every Confederate propaganda trick in the book.
You're a fast one I see.
Too bad you can't see the explicit statements from the slave holding states and their own Constitution saying that secession was about protecting slavery.
Only in your deluded imagination.
My only delusion is that you were intelligent enough to be able to read the Confederacy's Constitution well enough to understand that it was written to protect slavery.
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.
I pulled it out of the Confederacy's own documents and statements, but at least you got the material right. Here they are again, straight from the Confederacy.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Still no breeding program.
Yes. The Confederacy's Constitution recognized the rights of states to own slaves and limited the power of the federal government to ban slavery. Saying anything to the contrary is an outright lie.
Saying that makes it different from the US Constitution or that it was specifically designed to protect slavery is an outright lie.
The only difference is that the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the leaders of the time to protect slavery, while the protections in the US Constitution were written generations before the Republican party was even formed.
Nope! This is an outright lie. The Confederacy's Constitution did not differ materially on the issue of slavery. It differed primarily in more explicitly recognizing the powers of states and in limiting the ability of the central government to spend money.
You mean like the money they spent trying to preserve slavery?
Where do they spend more than the US Constitution allowed for preserving slavery?
I know, you're now going to repeat the same Confederate propaganda about how the war wasn't about protecting slavery, even though they said it was.,/p>
I know, I know. You're going to repeat the same Leftist propaganda that the war was about protecting slavery even though Southern political leaders said it was not.
Yes, the states' soveriegn rights to own slaves.,/p>
Oh, you mean like the US Constitution did.
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.
Read the Dred Scott decision. This was NOT different from the US Constitution - damned inconvenient for you to admit though that is.
Your claim that states that had already abolished slavery came around to favoring abolition is nonsense.
No it isn't. We saw abolitionists routinely not be able to get more than single digit percentages of the vote in election after election in the Northern States prior to 1864. If they had favored abolition beforehand, they would have voted for politicians who wanted abolition nationwide. They did not.
Of course it is. They either ratified it or rejected it. There's no middle.
No its not.
That wasn't an assumption, that was a fact. Five states ratified it, PROVING the rest had the time if they intended to ratify it. They didn't.
It does not prove that they wouldn't have ratified it. Only that they had not yet.
If true, then you must be amazed at how the Republicans got the country to that point in only eight years.
They didn't in 8 years. 3 years of bloody war had done that.
Whose only purpose was to prevent secession and the CW, and who understood it didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
Republicans were perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever and to do so by express constitutional amendment. Obviously this wasn't that important of an issue to them since it was the very first bargaining chip they were willing to give up. Obviously it wasn't that important a thing to even the Deep South either since they refused it and chose to remain independent.
It was orchestrated by his Democrat predecessor. He passed it on to the states where it was REJECTED.
Another outright lie. It was orchestrated by Lincoln. In very limited time he managed to exert enough influence to get it passed by several states so that it would be taken seriously when he endorsed it in his first inaugural address. It was REJECTED by the original 7 seceding states. It then became irrelevant.
repeats snipped.
The First thing Lincoln offered in his first inaugural address was express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever.
FIFY
Yes, after five months of watching me parrot every Leftist PC Revisionist propaganda talking point in the book.
FIFY
Too bad you can't see the explicit statements from the slave holding states and their own Constitution saying that secession was about protecting slavery.
Too bad you can't see the explicit statements from President Davis and several other prominent Southern leaders saying that secession was not about protecting slavery.
My only delusion is that you were intelligent enough to be able to read the US's Constitution well enough to understand that it was written to protect slavery.
FIFY
I pulled it out of the Confederacy's own documents and statements, but at least you got the material right. Here they are again, straight from the Confederacy. Repeats snipped.
You were lying as usual. President Davis said the exact opposite.