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.
I'll admit you made a better case for calling it that than I did.
the "Confederacy's model of slavery" was no different from the Union's model of slavery.
The majority of Union states had outlawed slavery long before then, and it was outlawed nationwide as soon as the Republicans had enough votes to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification.
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.
You can call it free room and board for all I care, they still saw it as "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo", and sold many of the children that were born to them. That is the definition of a breeding program, which the Confederacy's Constitution was designed to protect.
Of course you're going to once again reply "but the US Constitution also blah blah blah", to which I'll reply "yes it did until the Repunblicans got enough votes to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification". Do you have anything else?
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.
The Confederacy doesn't need any help from the leftists. We have their own documents to show us what it was about.
As for the South, the leftists are trying to tie you to the Confederacy for the same reason they're trying to tie all Conservatives everywhere to the Confederacy. I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you've given them.
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.
I never made any such claim, but you can't answer my real point so you have to resort to strawmen.
I'll say it again. Maybe you'll understand if I spell it out. The Democrats wrote a new constitution from the ground up. They could have written it to abolish slavery since it was a new constitution just as they had offered to abolished slavery to get military aid, but they put protections for slavery in instead.
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.
Hardly. They have always been the party of getting what you're entitled to. The only difference is who they pander to.
No, lets ignore the FACTS that the Corbomite Maneuver went nowhere and did nothing.
I will keep repeating that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.
Go ahead. If FR is willing to allow you to waste their bandwidth pointing outright falsehoods on what was in the Confederacy's Constitution on one hand, and repeating what I have already acknowledged on the other, it's their bandwidth so go for it.
Why do you expect the Southern states to immediately abolish slavery while trying to get their country up and running, get institutions established etc...
Because not having the time to abolish it yesterday is not the same thing as explicitly protecting it.
while at the same time excusing the North for not abolishing slavery despite having everything already in place? Gosh, how strange.
I haven't excused the North. I have granted again and again and again and again that until the Republicans had enough votes in Congress to pass abolition the Constitution protected slavery. BTW, before secession and the CW there would not have been enough states willing to ratify abolition at the national level anyway, something you have pointed out.
That doesn't change the fact that all but a few of the Union states had abolished slavery in their states. In fact, as you enjoy pointing out, providing a safe haven for runaway slaves was one the the grievances listed in their declaration of secession.
Because President Davis said it wasn't over and over again.
Why should we believe him, when he and other in the Confederacy also said on numerous times that it was?
Because the Confederacy's Constitution no more said it was "about" slavery than the US Constitution said the US founding was "about" slavery.
Well of course the US Constitution protected slavery. The fact that the Republicans passed abolition meant there had to be slavery to abolish.
And the fact that many Democrats refused to pass abolition because they thought it was a states' rights issue shows there was still slavery to protect.
Do you waste other forums' bandwidth constantly repeating the obvious which your opponents have agreed with?
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.
And you accuse me of trying to make the Confederacy look bad. They don't need my help. They have you.
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.
How many of them still had slavery?
But neither the Republicans themselves and certainly not Northern voters favored abolition until very late in the war.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Lincoln was a centralizer,
IOW, he wanted to ban slavery at the national level.
believed in massive government subsidies
To protect workers and businesses from the unfair advantages of those using slave labor.
and was a tyrant.
A tyrant whose nation the escaped slaves ran to.
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?
If they were so desperate, they could have freed the slaves then and there and shown the nations they were trying to get aid from that they were for real. Of course they couldn't because, as they said themselves, they were fighting to protect their right to slave labor, and they would have had to amend their constitution.
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.
The Democrat Party was slowly taken over by "Progressives" (ie socialists) starting with Woodrow Wilson.
Was that before or after they formed the KKK?
I haven't missed any of that. Racism was the norm worldwide until the last couple generations.
But the Democrats passed laws enforcing it after their attempts to preserve slavery failed.
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.
OK, but then you say...
When he gained their assent to send an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power in 1864.
You need to get your story straight. If they could have abolished slavery then and there, then they could have abolished it at any time including their founding. If they couldn't, then it was an empty offer. Which was it?