I said it was not like they had a breeding program. You then claimed they did have a breeding program. You were wrong. They did not.
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.
That's called chattel slavery. It was ever thus. One would think you Leftists would know this given how many millions your fellow Leftists have enslaved.
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.
There you go lying again. They modeled their constitution on the US Constitution. Oh by the way, Republicans could have abolished slavery in the US immediately. They didn't. Don't even try to lie and claim that it was Democrat party opposition in the North which prevented it either. Republicans were not abolitionists and had no intention of abolishing slavery - indeed they were quite willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
That differs from the Republicans, who inherited a constitution that already protected slavery that was written before their party was even formed.
And who did NOTHING to change it to abolish slavery in 1861. In fact, the change they proposed would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Only years later did they change their minds.
repeats snipped
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery I will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
repeats snipped again.
As long as you keep lying by claiming it was designed from the ground up to protect slavery I will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
Repeats snipped
The Republicans made clear from numerous statements, from a congressional resolution and from the Corwin Amendment that they were not fighting to end slavery.
Repeats snipped
They made it very clear they were not going to war over slavery. Both sides did.
Pathetic Godwin's law attempt snipped,/p>
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.
What were Northerners holding their slaves hostage in return for?
Correction, you as a leftist are trying to make it look like conservatives are willing to give a pass to the Confederacy.
Correction, you as a Leftists are trying to make it look like Conservatives are willing to give a pass to the unconstitutional tyrant Lincoln.
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.
Of course they have. They used to favor decentralized power and the rights of the states. They used to favor a non interventionist foreign policy. They used to favor limited government. They used to favor a balanced budget. They used to be supported mostly by Southerners. Now they are the opposite of all of those things are are mostly supported by Yankees and Left Coasters. Hell, JFK would be a Republican today. He certainly couldn't be in the modern Democrat party.
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.,/p>
I would say exactly the same of you.
More PC Revisionist 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.,/'p>
Funny, every time Yankees talked about something being for the good of America what they meant was for the good of themselves and their pockets at the expense of Southerners and their economic interests. Whether it was the navigation acts or corporate subsidies or high tariffs or government subsidies for infrastructure projects, it always overwhelmingly benefitted Northerners and came overwhelmingly at the expense of Southerners.
That resulted in nothing.,/p>
They offered it which shows that obviously it was not "about" slavery. They were perfectly willing to sacrifice slavery in order to achieve independence. In other words, it destroys your propaganda.
After the war was already lost. Even then, there was resistance to the idea.
He'd been urging it for a long time and the Confederate Congress agreed to it.
My exact quote was "When you take children from their parents and sell them as live stock, that in itself is a breeding program." The fact that they didn't formalize it to meet your legal requirements doesn't change that.
That's called chattel slavery. It was ever thus.
Now we're getting somewhere, so let's look at what animal breeding programs include and see if the term fits the Confederacy's model of slavery.
First, the slave owners saw their slaves as animals (except for when they were raping them) so from their point of view the slaves were animals. Check
Second, were the slaves able to have children with who ever they wanted? Yes, as long as they were on the same plantation. This article defines "captive breeding" as "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo.", so check.
Last, did the slave owners see the offspring as property they could sell on the market? The answer as we all know is yes, soooooooo...
Check!
Sounds like they saw it as a breeding program to me.
One would think you Leftists would know this given how many millions your fellow Leftists have enslaved.
The leftists' goal is to associate the Confederacy with the right. I'm sure they're behind you on this.
There you go lying again. They modeled their constitution on the US Constitution.
There you go evading the point, which is they didn't have to model it on the US Constitution when it came to protecting slavery since they were creating an all new constitution.
Oh by the way, Republicans could have abolished slavery in the US immediately. They didn't.
They didn't have enough votes as late as 1864.
Don't even try to lie and claim that it was Democrat party opposition in the North which prevented it either.
Now you're defending the Democrats? How leftist of you. In 1864, the Democrats did prevent abolition from being passed and sent to the states for ratification. Their "reasoning" was that slavery was a states' rights issue.
And who did NOTHING to change it to abolish slavery in 1861. In fact, the change they proposed would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Only years later did they change their minds.
Let's just ignore the FACTS that the majority of Republicans in the House and Senate voted AGAINST the Corbomite Maneuver and it was never ratified by the states, even with secession and the threat of a civil war.
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 will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
No one disputes that. The point you keep ignoring is that the US Constitution was inherited by the Republicans while the Confederacy's Constitution was written by the Confederate leaders of the time. The fact that they modelled the protections for slavery after the US Constitution is moot, because they could have left those protections out if it wasn't about preserving slavery.
Pathetic Godwin's law attempt snipped
You can't answer a simple question, so you hide behind "Godwin's law". Nobody believes Hitler when he said in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939. Why should anyone believe secession wasn't about slavery when JD, the declarations of secession, and the Confederatcy's Constitution all said it was?
What were Northerners holding their slaves hostage in return for?
Electing enough Republicans to pass abolition.
Correction, you as a Leftists are trying to make it look like Conservatives are willing to give a pass to the unconstitutional tyrant Lincoln.
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
Of course they have. They (Democrats) used to favor decentralized power and the rights of the states.
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.
They used to favor a non interventionist foreign policy.
Except when they were begging other nations for military aid.
They used to favor limited government.
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.
They used to favor a balanced budget.
They still would if they didn't have to buy votes with freebies.
They used to be supported mostly by Southerners. Now they are the opposite of all of those things are are mostly supported by Yankees and Left Coasters.
Only in the large cities where their supporters are concentrated. You're writing off a lot of people if you lump them all together.
Hell, JFK would be a Republican today. He certainly couldn't be in the modern Democrat party.
What you missed is that between the CW and JFK, they were also the party of Jim Crow, Bull Conner, and against Civil Rights.
They offered it which shows that obviously it was not "about" slavery. They were perfectly willing to sacrifice slavery in order to achieve independence. In other words, it destroys your propaganda.
Why didn't they? If they had, it would have gone a long way to proving to the nations they were begging for military aid from that they were serious about abolishing slavery.
He'd been urging it for a long time and the Confederate Congress agreed to it.
When did it pass?