"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.
You were the one who first used the term "breeding program". I replied with "When you take children from their parents and sell them as live stock, that in itself is a breeding program." Only a sicko could LOL at that.
It was not different in that respect than the US Constitution.
I already answered how it was different. The Democrats drafted those protections into the Confederacy's Constitution, while the Republicans inherited a Constitution that had those protections before the Republican party was formed. The comparisons aren't between the Constitutions, but between the parties. Got it now?
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up 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.
I'll keep pointing out it was just like the US Constitution in that regard.
I know. You'll completely ignore that the Republicans inherited their Constitution while the Democrats drafted theirs from the ground up to preserve slavery, because you are a leftist.
Frederick Douglas didn't answer anything.
The readers can decide for themselves. I'll post the quote again so they don't have to search for it.
"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."
The Republicans made clear via a Congressional Resolution and Lincoln's numerous statements that they were not fighting to end slavery.
They only did it.
Accurate direct quotes.
Here are some direct quotes.
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
Only 4 states issued declarations of causes.
The 5th listed the treatment of slave holding states as a cause.
Of those 3 explicitly listed reasons other than the Northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.
Like abolitionists being elected.
President Davis and several prominent Southern leaders explicitly said it was not "about" slavery.
And Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
And LBJ lied about his reasons for escalating the Vietnam War.
All Democrats.
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....
We can use what did happen as evidence.
and of course they weren't fighting over slavery.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Convenient assumptions of the kind you like to make are not evidence either.
But what did happen is evidence.
Ah but they DID send an ambassador with plenipotentiary powers. What did happen right?
Did they abolish slavery?
You claim they were PR. You of course have no way of knowing that.
Of course I do. In 1858, JD himself said that secession was justified if abolitionists were elected. Three years later in their declarations of secession, they said secession was about slavery. As late as 1865 Confederates were arguing that allowing blacks to enlist would undermine the institution of slavery.
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.
That isn't what happened, that is just what he said.