Yes, I was clearly laughing at that and not your attempt to weasel by not admitting your claim that they had a breeding program was total BS. Right. Good call there.
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?
They simply took most of the US Constitution and adopted it....much like Madison borrowed entire passages from the Articles of Confederation. They inherited that as much as the Republicans inherited the US Constitution. The things they changed were the things that were important to them - states' rights and limits on the Confederate Government's ability to spend money.
Repeats snipped.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery.
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.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery.
The readers can decide for themselves. I'll post the quote again Repeat Snipped.
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.
They made it very clear they were not going to war over slavery. Both sides did.
Here are some direct quotes. Repeats snipped
Here are some more
"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/
The 5th listed the treatment of slave holding states as a cause.
So?
Like abolitionists being elected.
Like extensive passages about their economic exploitation by the Northern states.
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.
There is no reason to doubt they believed that it was not "about" slavery. They said so many times in public and in private. Also you continue to cling to the ridiculous notion that the parties never change. They obviously do and have quite considerably over time.
We can use what did happen as evidence.
Yeah I did that below. Somehow, I'm guessing you won't like it. LOL!
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, repeat snipped.
and Lee and President Davis and Patrick Cleburne and several other major Confederate generals disagreed and openly advocated for slaves and their families be emancipated in exchange for military service.
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232).
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA
Did they abolish slavery?
Did they send an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to treaties that would abolish slavery?
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.
Davis had long advocated that Slaves and their families be emancipated in exchange for military service. He also had long advocated for permission to empower an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to abolish slavery. He said many many times that secession and the war were not "about" slavery.
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
That isn't what happened, that is just what he said.
He said it. He also empowered his ambassador with plenipotentiary power and he also got the Confederate Congress to agree to allow slaves and their families to be emancipated in exchange for military service.
You're the one who first used the term "breeding program". I only used it once, in the quote I posted in the previous post, and that was in reply to your post which also made reference to the term.
But enough with what the definition of "is" is, which like slvery is something you Democrats pushed. If you don't agree with the term "breeding program", then you tell me what it is when slave owners steal their slaves' children and sell them as slaves to other slave owners never to be seen by their parents again, and we'll go from there.
They simply took most of the US Constitution and adopted it...
The Democrats could have abolished slavery right then and there, since they were drafting a NEW constitution. They didn't have to copy the bad parts of the US Constitution if they didn't intend to. There was nothing stopping them from dropping the protections for slavery, except that they intentionally wrote their constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
That differs from the Republicans, who inherited a constitution that already protected slavery that was written before their party was even formed.
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.
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.
The Republicans made clear via a Congressional Resolution and Lincoln's numerous statements that they were not fighting to end slavery.
"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."
They made it very clear they were not going to war over slavery. Both sides did.
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
Lies from Hitler in 1945 saying that he didn't want war in 1939, I mean from JD saying secession wasn't about slavery snipped.
Did they send an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to treaties that would abolish slavery?
Yes, they held their slaves hostage in return for military aid. You would have no problem seeing that if it happened in the Mideast, but you're willing to give a pass to the Democrats running the Confederacy.
Correction, you as a leftist are trying to make it look like conservatives are willing to give a pass to the Confederacy.
Repeat snipped.
There is no reason to doubt they believed that it was not "about" slavery. They said so many times in public and in private. Also you continue to cling to the ridiculous notion that the parties never change. They obviously do and have quite considerably over time.
The Democrats certainly haven't changed. They're still splitting the country over what they think they're entitled to. The only difference is who they're pandering to.
Yeah I did that below. Somehow, I'm guessing you won't like it. LOL!
What I don't like is that you keep spamming FR with the same quotes, but have offered no evidence on why we need to believe any of them.
More Confederate propaganda snipped.
Quotes about how the North wanted to protect American manufacturing from cheap slave labor is somehow oppression, and how JD was willing to offer the slaves freedom in return for offering themselves as fodder in his war to preserve slavery snipped.
He said it. He also empowered his ambassador with plenipotentiary power...
That resulted in nothing.
and he also got the Confederate Congress to agree to allow slaves and their families to be emancipated in exchange for military service.
After the war was already lost. Even then, there was resistance to the idea.