I admit you were wrong from the start and have been trying to weasel ever since.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. 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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I admit you were wrong from the start and have been trying to weasel ever since.
Sigh! No, just more of the same.
Slavery was still permitted in the Union and was not abolished until after the war.
Yes, when the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification. How many times do I have to say this before you stop posting it as if I was making the opposite point?
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.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
It was not a "breeding program". The birth rate of slaves was not higher than that of the rest of the population...
So what? Women can only have so many babies, and the women who made up the "slave labor" were also needed to do all of their other work.
They were still in a closed environment and their babies were still sold as property. That in itself is the definition of a breeding program, and the fact that they didn't fill out enough paperwork to meet your legal requirements doesn't change that.
and the Confederate Constitution did not differ much at all from the US Constitution on the issue of slavery.
And how many times are you going to keep repeating something we both agree on?
You're of course going to try to ignore that the US Constitution was no different..
It was different in one way, in that its protections for slavery were written generations before the Republican party was even formed and were inherited by the Republicans. OTOH, the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the current leaders of the Confederacy to protect slavery.
OBTW, thanks for admitting the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have. Now that we've cleared that up, I'm sure you won't waste any more bandwidth on it.
and yet somehow try to absolve the Union while damning the Confederacy even though they were not different on the slavery issue.
I never absolved the Union. As I have said several times, Lincoln had to work with all of them including those factions that still supported slavery. Frederick Douglas said it. I've said it. Once again you can't answer any of my points so you resort to strawmen.
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.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Do you have anything else?
I have the truth. What else do I need?
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
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
knowing full well that the South is the heart of the conservative movement.
The left is attacking all Conservatives, not just Southern Conservatives. Trying to stick us with their, the Democrats', history of slavery is their way of doing it. You've done nothing but help them.
It is you who is providing aid and comfort to the enemy here.
If you think the Republicans who passed abolition are the enemies, then yes. As far as I'm concerned, the enemies are the Democrats who want to stick us with their history.
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?
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022
Everything Jeffersonian Democrats were runs directly contrary to Leftism. They favored decentralized power,
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.
limited government
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.
and balanced budgets.
You mean like balancing the budget to pay for fighting a war to do what? Take it away Confederate Generals...
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
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.
You just proved my point for me. Five states ratified it. That proves the rest had the time to ratify it if they had ever intended to, and didn't. Besides, as you have already admitted, the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections that weren't already there.
You damn the South
I don't damn the South in any way shape or form. I only post what the Democrats themselves said, which is that preserving slavery was at least one of their reasons to secession, and that many of their other grievances were about their perceived right to own slaves. I don't associate the modern South with the Confederacy any more than I associate modern Germany and Japan with their past regimes. The only thing that ties you to the Confederacy is that you choose to be. That's assuming you are what you say you are, and not just a leftist plant trying to pin the Confederacy on Conservatives by pretending to be one and accepting it.
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.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022
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.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
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... Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
an(d) 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 illegal slave trade industry for the entire Western Hemisphere for several generations.
FIFY.
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.
In that speech he said secession was the correct action to take if abolitionists took over. Besides that and the fact that this is exactly what they did, how much more do I need?
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.
"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?" FLT-Bird, FR, 2022
There's nothing that looks bad in that. They made the factual case that the Northern states had violated the compact (to return fugitive slaves) - which they did.
How dare they? Who did they think they were, abolitionists?
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?
Now that's funny. You point out that the Confederacy couldn't have abolished slavery overnight, but the fact that slave states didn't secede and join the Confederacy overnight is proof that it wasn't about slavery.
But neither the Republicans themselves and certainly not Northern voters favored abolition until very late in the war...Not(e) he didn't (want to abolish slavery nationally>- not until very late in the war.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
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.
Yes. Having cheap slave labor gave some businesses an advantage in labor costs, just like what's happening with our free trade deals with the Chicoms now. Remember how the free traitors at FR accused us of being "protectionists"?
A tyrant who
ran the country where millions of slaves escaped to, and hundreds of thousands joined the military of.
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.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022. As you said, they could have abolished slavery, but didn't.
The KKK was initially a response to the terrorism of the Union League during the Occupation.
If we accept that you aren't a white supremist, then comments like prove you are a leftist who is posing as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look bad. Conservatives don't defend the KKK any more than we defend Nazis. Got it?
The Democrat created KKK was a terrorist group targeting blacks and Republicans almost from the start of its existance.
Yes, they modeled it based on the "Black Codes" already on the books in Northern states.
Apples and oranges. The Northern "Black Codes" were not passed by Republicans, and they weren't largely enforced anyway, which allowed the black population in the North to grow at a slightly higher rate than the white population. They were abolished long before the Democrats passed theirs, so you're wrong about those laws being "already on the books".
Here's more.
I know you're going to say "but the North blah blah blah". Yes, I'm not defending the injustices committed by the North no matter how hard you try to frame it that way. It is not my intention to say the North didn't have injustices to answer for, but they weren't passed by Republicans.
OTOH, the Southern "Black Codes" were implemented by the Democrats after the CW to keep blacks tied to the plantation after the CW and abolition. They were one reason reconstruction was handled at the Federal level, because it was clear they were going to use every trick in the book at the state level to keep blacks "in chains".
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.
So they couldn't have abolished slavery, even gradually, when they formed their nation if they had intended to, but they could have abolished slavery on the spot to get military aid.