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.
"Your definition". LOL! Standard Leftist tactic. Losing an argument? Just change the definitions to claim you didn't lose!.
Repeats snipped.
It was not different in that respect than the US Constitution.
How would you know, when you can't even understand the numerous times I've granted the US Constitution protected slavery?
I'll spell it out for ya. As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery, I'll keep pointing out it was just like the US Constitution in that regard.
Frederick Douglas didn't answer anything.
The Republicans made clear via a Congressional Resolution and Lincoln's numerous statements that they were not fighting to end slavery.
Failed PR.
Accurate direct quotes.
They said themselves secession was about protecting their states' rights to slavery.
Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of those 3 explicitly listed reasons other than the Northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. President Davis and several prominent Southern leaders explicitly said it was not "about" slavery.
repeats snipped.
It was based on the US Constitution.
Because they didn't. Rest of rant snipped.
Because something did happen one way does not mean it "had to" happen that way or "could only have" happened that way. We will never know....and of course they weren't fighting over slavery.
There you go with you "would haves" and "could haves" again. "Would haves" and "could haves" are not evidencve. What did happen is.
Convenient assumptions of the kind you like to make are not evidence either.
An offer they never backed and couldn't have without amending their constitution. It's just another "would have" that doesn't prove anything.
Ah but they DID send an ambassador with plenipotentiary powers. What did happen right?
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.
You claim they were PR. You of course have no way of knowing that. What we do know is that Davis said from the start that they were not fighting over slavery. Hey, that's what actually happened so therefore its the only thing that was possible right? Your rules.