Replies

They didn't have a breeding program no matter how you try to spin it.

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?

I'll admit you made a better case for calling it that than I did.

I admit you were wrong from the start and have been trying to weasel ever since.

Slavery was still permitted in the Union and was not abolished until after the war. In fact, abolition was distinctly unpopular before the war and in the early stages of it and none of the national parties endorsed abolition prior to very late in the war.

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.

It was not a "breeding program". The birth rate of slaves was not higher than that of the rest of the population and the Confederate Constitution did not differ much at all from the US Constitution on the issue of slavery.

You're of course going to try to ignore that the US Constitution was no different and yet somehow try to absolve the Union while damning the Confederacy even though they were not different on the slavery issue. Neither Lincoln nor the Republicans favored abolition until very late in the war. Both Lincoln and the rest of the Republicans were overwhelmingly opposed to abolition as was the vast majority of the population of the Northern states until then. Do you have anything else?

The Confederacy doesn't need any help from the leftists. We have their own documents to show us what it was about.<;/P>

Yes we do - which is why Leftists have been trying to revise history to fit their Leftist political objectives starting in the 60s, really coming out of Academia starting in the 80s and becoming quite fashionable in Academia starting in the 90s.

Leftists are trying to claim the CSA and the South were something they were not back then in order to try to smear the South today - knowing full well that the South is the heart of the conservative movement. It is you who is providing aid and comfort to the enemy here.

I never made any such claim, but you can't answer my real point so you have to resort to strawmen.

That is your real point and what you've been trying to do obsessively for months in this thread right from the start.

I'll say it again and maybe you'll understand it if I spell it out. Why should anybody expect Southerners to have imposed even more sudden and wrenching change upon their society while they were already fully occupied trying to get their newly independent country up and running and facing the existential threat of a war of aggression from the tyrant Lincoln?

Hardly. They have always been the party of getting what you're entitled to. The only difference is who they pander to.

Everything Jeffersonian Democrats were runs directly contrary to Leftism. They favored decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets.

No, lets ignore the FACTS that the Corbomite Maneuver went nowhere and did nothing.

Let's ignore the FACT that it was the rejection of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment by the original 7 seceding states which killed the Corwin Amendment AFTER the REPUBLICAN Lincoln orchestrated it, after REPUBLICANS introduced it to both houses of Congress, after it got the necessary 2/3rs majority in each house AFTER the Southern delegation withdrew and after it was ratified by several states already and after Lincoln endorsed it in his first inaugural address.

I will keep repeating the fact that it was not and that it did not differ from the US Constitution wrt slavery.

Because not having the time to abolish it yesterday is not the same thing as explicitly protecting it.

You damn the South for failing to meet your totally unrealistic expectation even while dealing with other major issues and simultaneously excuse the Northern states for not doing the same even though not faced with nearly as much of a challenge. Your ridiculous bias is clear for all to see.

They not only didn't abolish slavery even after the Southern states left, they didn't even try. There was no support for it from the public and no push for it from politicians until very late in the war. Its not the case of "gosh the Republicans wanted to all along but had to wait until they could finally overcome the opposition to it from Democrats. No. They didn't want to and openly said that time and time again until 1864.

Nobody denies that they had gradually abolished slavery in their own states....while making sure to give slave owners plenty of time to sell their slave property out of state thus ensuring they would sustain no financial loss. So what? They didn't favor abolishing slavery nationwide an New England politicians in particular bitterly opposed proposed compensated emancipation schemes to get rid of slavery nationwide.....even though it was New England which had been the epicenter of the slave trade industry for the entire Western Hemisphere for several generations.

Why should we believe him, when he and other in the Confederacy also said on numerous times that it was?

Because he said it wasn't in public and in private many times before, during and after the war. The only thing you can cite is a speech he gave years before secession had even happened. Also because his actions backed up his statements. For example he had long advocated offering emancipation to slaves and their families in exchange for military service before getting the Confederate Congress to agree. He had long advocated sending an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would abolish slavery before getting the Confederate Congress to agree. Those are not the actions of a man trying to preserve 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?

As long as you keep wasting bandwidth trying to blame the South for the very same thing you waive your hand and dismiss when the Northern states do it, I will keep pointing out there was no difference between the two on this issue.

And you accuse me of trying to make the Confederacy look bad. They don't need my help. They have you.,/p>

There's nothing that looks bad in that. They made the factual case that the Northern states had violated the compact - which they did. This is perfectly in keeping with the "train of abuses" portion of the Declaration of Secession......errr, Independence issued in 1776.

How many of them still had slavery?

Relevance? If it were "all about" slavery then why didn't they secede earlier? If it were "all about" slavery then why didn't all the states that still allowed slavery secede?

repeats snipped

But neither the Republicans themselves and certainly not Northern voters favored abolition until very late in the war.

IOW, he wanted to ban slavery at the national level.

Not he didn't - not until very late in the war. What he wanted was Henry Clay's "American Plan" which would erect massive tariff barriers paid for by the South in order to industrialize the North. He wanted massive corporate welfare and for the the federal government to usurp ever more powers it was never granted by the states in the Constitution.

To protect workers and businesses from the unfair advantages of those using slave labor.,/p>

LOL! No. He wanted to have the government pick winners and losers in the market. He wanted Crony Capitalism where corporate fatcats via their lobbyists would get taxpayer subsidies and gain market share at the expense of European companies.

A tyrant whose nation the escaped slaves ran to.,/p>

A tyrant who imprisoned tens of thousands without charge or trial, a tyrant who censored all telegraph traffic and who shut down over 100 opposition newspapers, a tyrant who ordered the only mass execution in American history, a tyrant who started an unconstitutional war of aggression for money and empire, a tyrant who oversaw death camps one of which features the largest mass grave in the entire western hemisphere, a tyrant who ethnically cleansed several Indian tribes from Minnesota, a tyrant who stuffed ballot boxes, jailed congressmen for disagreeing with him, ordered the arrest of the Maryland Legislature, banished a sitting US Senator, etc etc.

We're back to you having ridiculous unrealistic expectations of them turning everything in their society upside down all at once and damning them for failing to do so while studiously ignoring the fact that the North did not do so either even though they were under far less pressure.

repeats snipped

As I said, the Democrats used to favor limited government, balanced budgets, a non interventionist foreign policy, no corporate welfare, etc.

Was that before or after they formed the KKK?

The KKK was initially a response to the terrorism of the Union League during the Occupation.

But the Democrats passed laws enforcing it after their attempts to preserve slavery failed.

Yes, they modeled it based on the "Black Codes" already on the books in Northern states.

They "could" have undertaken that too in addition to trying to set up a new country AND fight a war of national survival but when one is confronted by the latter two, that tends to take precedence over all else. That they were willing to abolish slavery in order to gain independence demonstrates once again that it was independence they were after - not protection of slavery. Their rejection of the Corwin Amendment also makes that point very clear.