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.
Still no breeding program.
Nope, they just sold the children of their slaves as slaves to other slave owners, but they didn't see it as breeding slaves.
Saying that makes it different from the US Constitution
Repeating my previous post, 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.
or that it was specifically designed to protect slavery is an outright lie.
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.
Nope! This is an outright lie. The Confederacy's Constitution did not differ materially on the issue of slavery.
I didn't say it did. What I said was and I'll quote, 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.
Hopefully, you got it this time.
Where do they spend more than the US Constitution allowed for preserving slavery?
On the battlefield.
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.
You're right in a way, in that what I've posted came straight from the Democrats.
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
Oh, you mean like the US Constitution did.
Unfortunately, up until the 13th Amendment was passed, yes. How many times do I need to say that to you?
Read the Dred Scott decision. This was NOT different from the US Constitution - damned inconvenient for you to admit though that is.
Wow, as many times as I've granted the US Constitution protected slavery, and you're still at it.
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.
Abolishing slavery at the state level was a lot easier than abolishing it at the national level, because the Democrats weren't going to give up their slaves without a fight. As you yourself said later, it took the CW to get to that point. When they got to that point, they did it.
It does not prove that they wouldn't have ratified it. Only that they had not yet.
They had the time and they didn't ratify it, even given the urgency created by secession and a possible civil war.
They didn't in 8 years. 3 years of bloody war had done that.
Yup. The Democrats weren't going to give up slavery without a fight.
Republicans were perfectly willing to offer nothing.
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.
Too bad you can't see them for the failed PR they were.
You were lying as usual. President Davis said the exact opposite.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858