You said they had a breeding program. They did not. That was factually incorrect.
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.Yet you want to repeat the lie that it was "designed to protect slavery". No it wasn't. It was designed based on the US Constitution. The principle differences were not over slavery.
repeats snipped
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
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.
And I'll repeat, this is an outright lie. The Confederate Constitution was based on the US Constitution. The main differences were over expressly recognizing more of the sovereignty of the states and limiting the ability of the Confederate government to spend money. The rest was simply carried over from the US Constitution largely unchanged.
Hopefully, you got it this time.
Hopefully, you get it.
On the battlefield.
But they weren't fighting to abolish slavery. They said so themselves via a joint resolution of the US Congress and by Lincoln's express declarations many times.
You're right in a way, in that what I've posted came straight from the Democrats. Repeats snipped
and what I've posted came straight from President Davis and other key Southern leaders.
Unfortunately, up until the 13th Amendment was passed, yes. How many times do I need to say that to you?
So the US Constitution did not differ.....yet somehow Southerners are to blame for largely copying the US Constitution and only differing in the area of states' rights and limiting the power of the Confederate government to spend money. This "proves" it was "all about" slavery. Natch!
Wow, as many times as I've granted the US Constitution protected slavery, and you're still at it.
Because you keep lying and claiming that the Confederate Constitution was designed from the ground up to protect slavery. It obviously wasn't.
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.
How do you know Southerners were "not going to give up slavery without a fight"? Northerners opposed compensated emancipation schemes of various kinds that were put forth for several years. In fact, it was New England politicians especially - those inveterate slave traders of New England - who opposed compensated emancipation most bitterly. They never offered anything remotely approaching fair market value even though they damn sure insisted on top dollar when they sold the slaves in the first place.
They had the time and they didn't ratify it, even given the urgency created by secession and a possible civil war.
We've been around this mulberry bush many times already. Just because they didn't pass it in the few months between Congress passing it and Lincoln offering it in his first inaugural address, does not mean they wouldn't have passed it - especially if the original seceding states indicated this would satisfy their concerns. You are just making an extremely convenient assumption for which you have no evidence.
Yup. The Democrats weren't going to give up slavery without a fight.
Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid.....and remember what we said before about you making extremely convenient assumptions which you have no evidence for? As Ronald Reagan famously said to Jimmy Crater "there you go again:.....
Republicans were perfectly willing to offer slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
FIFY
Too bad you can't see them for the failed PR they were.
Too bad you can't see them for the reality that they were.....but then again, doing so would destroy your entire argument. The refusal to see reality is typical of Leftists when reality intrudes on their ideology.
Repeats Snipped
"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/
My only use of the term "breeding program" was "When you take children from their parents and sell them as live stock, that in itself is a breeding program." Are you saying that didn't happen?
Yet you want to repeat the lie that it was "designed to protect slavery".
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.
No it wasn't. It was designed based on the US Constitution. The principle differences were not over slavery.
How would you know, when you can't even understand the numerous times I've granted the US Constitution protected slavery?
But they weren't fighting to abolish slavery. They said so themselves via a joint resolution of the US Congress and by Lincoln's express declarations many times.
Frederick Douglas answered that when he said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
and what I've posted came straight from President Davis and other key Southern leaders.
Failed PR.
So the US Constitution did not differ.....yet somehow Southerners are to blame for largely copying the US Constitution and only differing in the area of states' rights and limiting the power of the Confederate government to spend money. This "proves" it was "all about" slavery. Natch!
They said themselves secession was about protecting their states' rights to slavery.
Because you keep lying and claiming that the Confederate Constitution was designed from the ground up to protect slavery. It obviously wasn't.
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.
How do you know Southerners were "not going to give up slavery without a fight"?
Because they didn't. Rest of rant snipped.
We've been around this mulberry bush many times already. Just because they didn't pass it in the few months between Congress passing it and Lincoln offering it in his first inaugural address, does not mean they wouldn't have passed it...
There you go with you "would haves" and "could haves" again. "Would haves" and "could haves" are not evidencve. What did happen is.
Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid...
An offer they never backed and couldn't have without amending their constitution. It's just another "would have" that doesn't prove anything.
Too bad you can't see them for the reality that they were...
As you have pointed out, the Confederacy "offered" abolition in return for military aid, so they understood how their institution looked to other nations. Those statements you keep spamming FR with were failed PR, nothing more.