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?
They didn't have a breeding program no matter how you try to spin it.
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.
the "Confederacy's model of slavery" was no different from the Union'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.
LOL! They had chattel slavery. What they did not have was a program to crank out offspring at the maximum possible rate ie a breeding program. Your attempts to weasel are as hilarious as they are futile.
The leftists' goal is to associate the Confederacy with the right. I'm sure they're behind you on this.
The Leftists' goal is to discredit the Confederacy and the South which has always been the most conservative region in North America. Your fellow Leftists are behind you on that.
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.
There you go trying to blame them and exclusively them for the existence of an institution which long predated the US Constitution while at the same time excusing the Union for having a constitution that protected slavery every bit as much as the Confederate Constitution.
They didn't have enough votes as late as 1864.
Because they themselves were not abolitionists until 1864 as they said many times.
Now you're defending the Democrats? How leftist of you.
I'm not "defending" the Democrats. I'm saying the Republicans were not for it. Oh by the way, the Democrats of that time were the very opposite of Leftists. Try educating yourself some time.
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.
No, lets ignore the FACTS that Republicans SPONSORED the Corwin Amendment in BOTH the House and Senate and that the de facto party leader, Abe Lincoln ORCHESTRATED the whole thing. It was never ratified by the states BECAUSE THE SOUTHERN STATES REJECTED IT.
Repeats snipped
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.
Why do you expect the Southern states to immediately abolish slavery while trying to get their country up and running, get institutions established etc while at the same time excusing the North for not abolishing slavery despite having everything already in place? Gosh, how strange.
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?
Because President Davis said it wasn't over and over again. Because the Confederacy's Constitution no more said it was "about" slavery than the US Constitution said the US founding was "about" slavery. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of these 3 of them listed economic causes and other causes even though these were not unconstitutional while the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slavery clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional. The 5 states of the Upper South which seceded did so only after Lincoln chose to start a war - obviously they were not seceding over slavery but over Lincoln's unconstitutional war of aggression.
Electing enough Republicans to pass abolition.
But neither the Republicans themselves and certainly not Northern voters favored abolition until very late in the war.
repeats snipped
Lincoln was a centralizer, believed in massive government subsidies and was a tyrant.
Repeats snipped
The Confederate Constitution differed from the US Constitution primarily over recognizing more formally the sovereignty of the states and over the ability of the central government to spend money. It did not differ from the US Constitution over slavery.
Except when they were begging other nations for military aid.
IT WAS A WAR genius. LOL! Any country will seek allies in a war. That has nothing to do with favoring a non interventionist foreign policy. You're really not very good at this are you?
repeats snipped
They used to favor limited government.
They still would if they didn't have to buy votes with freebies.
The Democrat Party was slowly taken over by "Progressives" (ie socialists) starting with Woodrow Wilson.
Only in the large cities where their supporters are concentrated. You're writing off a lot of people if you lump them all together.
I'm accurately pointing out where their support comes from nowadays - overwhelmingly the Acela Corridor and the Left Coast.
What you missed is that between the CW and JFK, they were also the party of Jim Crow, Bull Conner, and against Civil Rights.
I haven't missed any of that. Racism was the norm worldwide until the last couple generations.
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.
because they were in the middle of a war of national survival and had more important things to worry about than pushing through a massive societal change unless it would help them win the war.
When did it pass?
When he gained their assent to send an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power in 1864.