I don't care what else the Democrats running the Confederacy said the war was about, because they came right out and said it was about preserving slavery.
So go ahead and keep posting your Democrat generated propaganda about how they said it wasn't about slavery, because they themselves said it was and their actions prove it. Why should anyone believe them when they said it was and they would go to any lengths to preserve it?
So?
JD made those comments before the Republican party was even formed. I know you'll reply "But the North blah blah blah..." but I never said everyone in the North was the good guys. On the contrary, I have acknowledged that the North had slavery in a few states, and abolition was blocked by Democrats in the North before they were replaced with enough Republicans to abolish slavery.
None of that obligates anyone to believe JD when he said secession wasn't about slavery, when he and the declarations of secession said they were.
That's exactly what you've been doing with the same handful of quotes and exactly how I've responded to you - but with vastly more quotes from more sources.
You've done nothing but regurgitate the same Democrat propaganda for the past year. The Democrats tried to distance themselves from slavery then just as they're trying to do now, and you've done nothing but help them.
I couldn't care less how many quotes you post or how many times you regurgitate them, because they are all lies. The Democrats came out and said "That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.", and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't lie in addition to waging war for that cause.
There were a lot of farmers around back then. They knew all about how to breed livestock. Is that what they did? No. Generally, Blacks got married. Females were not tied down waiting to be impregnated by designated studs in order to sell the offspring for profit. That's a breeding program. That's how livestock are handled. It wasn't like that at all.
The definition is "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo".
Were the slaves considered another species, IOW animals, by their masters? Yes, except for when their daughters were being raped.
Were they in a closed environment, meaning the couldn't marry and have families outside of their plantation? Yes.
Were their children sold like animals to other slave owners? In many cases, yes.
Will FLT-bird regurgitate the same denials he/she/it has been posting? Well see.
They mostly carried over what they inherited - just as the Founding Fathers did when they wrote the Constitution. They did not as you claimed design the Confederate Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery. That was just more of your typical BS. They simply carried over most of the constitution they inherited.
You're admitting I'm right and you can't even see it. The writers of the Confederacy's Constitution were under no obligation to add the protections for slavery. They could have left the protections out without forcing abolition, which would have given them the flexibility in the future to abolish as you keep saying they offered. It was their intention to ensure the right to slave labor was protected, so they, the Democrat leaders of the Confederacy who wrote the constitution, added these protections:
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.
Many of them made it abundantly clear from the start that they were not fighting for abolition. The greatest desertion crisis in the Union army was after the EP precisely because many said this had converted the cause from nationalism to one of abolitionism which they did not support.
Absolute nonsense. Many abandoned because of the incompetence of the early Union generals, and the desertion rate was a larger problem in the Confederacy although more Union soldiers deserted overall.
I found the reasons for desertion in the Confederacy interesting. I'll let you read and validate the source for yourself.
American Civil War Desertions in the Union and Confederate Armies
Hardly. Its an apt comparison. The Loyalists fought for the existing order. So did those Southerners who headed north. That hardly "proves" they were fighting for abolitionism which was not supported by very many at all North or South prior to the war.
Let's just ignore that most states in the Union had abolished slavery at the state level, or that you just admitted to the large numbers of Southerners left to join Union forces. The loyalists were already here, while the Southerners had to leave their homes to fight for the Union.
I didn't say you called me a Nazi.
From post 760, "All you have is the standard 3rd grader argument "everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi"."
I said you made numerous fatuous claims trying to compare the Confederacy to the Nazis. They were not remotely comparable.
I only compared certain actions, such as Hitler in 1945 denying he wanted war in 1939 and Germany accusing the Allies of war crimes for the Dresden bombings. You can't answer that, so you hide behind "You called me a Nazi".
That was a standard practice in war at the time. The Axis side had indiscriminately bombed population centers first. And the bombing of civilian population centers did have military objectives - to destroy industrial capacity. Oh, and finally they were uniformed soldiers at war following the orders of their officers.
I agree. It was the Germans who called this a war crime, much like the slave holding states branded abolitionists as terrorists.
I know you're going to fall back to calling on me to give examples even though I already have, so I'll post them again.
Oh, and the Confederates killed black soldiers at a higher rate than white soldiers.
John Brown was a terrorist who set out to murder at a time of peace. Pitiful attempt at analogy.
The Germans saw Dresden as a war crime, and the slave holders saw abolitionists as terrorists. As shown above, the Confederacy saw other abolitionists as terrorists.
The bad guys always deny what they're doing....like Lincoln starting an unconstitutional war for money and empire?
What a stupid argument. How much profit did he make for freeing the slaves. On the contrary, it cost him his life at the hands of a southerner who hated him for freeing the slaves.
I know you'll regurgitate your "he did it over the meanness of Lincoln", so here's the reference again.
Who Assassinated Abraham Lincoln?
Repeat snipped.
They did not secede over slavery.
When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned down that offer.
That's because they were never offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. They were offered an amendment that all but five Union states rejected.
"As ordered by their masters". Hardly. These were thousands and thousands of armed men. They obviously were not serving against their will. Given that they had arms and in some cases horses, they could easily have deserted or gone over to the other side. Yet they fought for the CSA.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
There's more below.
Well gosh....Free Blacks served in the Confederate Army.
And over 100,000 Southerners left the Confederacy to join Union forces.
And the desertion rate among the Condeferacy was higher than that of the Union.
Slaves were promised emancipation for themselves and their families for their service in the Confederate Army...
Confederate Law Authorizing the Enlistment of Black Soldiers, as Promulgated in a Military Order
"IV. The enlistment of colored persons under this act will be made upon printed forms, to be furnished for the purpose, similar to those established for the regular service. They will be executed in duplicate, one copy to be returned to this office for file. No slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman, and which will be filed with the superintendent."
and the Confederate government empowered their ambassador to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery. Seems that based on the undeniable facts, were perfectly willing to get rid of slavery to gain their independence.
And even more bandwidth wasted on a policy that never came close to ratification.
It was simple enough just to cite the facts - they refute your PC Revisionist claims.
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
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?"
Do you identify with the Constitution? It was mostly written by a slave owner. How about the Declaration of Independence? Another slave owner...
I was ready to write that off as a rant, but those were good questions. Yes I know many of them had slaves. I can accept the good that came without absolving the bad that came with it. I can accept the legacy of freedom, justice, and opportunity for all while condemning the times they were denied.
The difference is that while the Union was guilty of many of these crimes, they also led in abolishing them. The Confederacy never abolished slavery and fought to preserve it, so that is their only legacy.
And notice I said the Confederacy, and not the South. Many in South opposed slavery, and many others left the South to fight against the Confederacy.
You've long since run out of new quotes about the South and have long ago resorted to regurgitating the same few.
How many do I need? The Democrats said secession was about preserving slavery, and they backed it with their actions. The fact that they managed to pour out propaganda to the contrary doesn't refute this.
You've cited him in the past. I merely pointed out that A) he was powerless and B) his view was directly contradicted by several others including President Davis. But hey, if you want to cite him, then we also have to note what he said about the North - ie that they were fighting for money and to centralize power.
Absolute nonsense. He may have correctly stated that secession was about slavery as did JD in 1858 and the declarations of secession, but that doesn't obligate me to accept his accusations against the North.
Hardly. The facts refute your main point. The North did not even attempt to abolish slavery and abolition did not have any significant political support until very late in the war. That's just the historical reality.
There you go with "the North" again. I know everyone in the North wasn't on the right side on this issue. The Democrats in particular blocked abolition for as long as they had the votes to do it, but that ended in 1865. The Republicans passed abolition as soon as they had the votes they needed.
Nope! That's not why they wanted decentralized power and limited government and balanced budgets. They wanted that long before slavery became a contentious political issue. They and their descendants have wanted that long after slavery had long since been abolished. They obviously want these things for their own sake.
Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery.
That's because it's a lie. JD never came close to abolishing slavery, even if he had "offered" it in return for military aid.
In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232).
No dispute there. As I've said numerous times, not everyone in the South supported slavery.
So? States have not always ratified a constitutional amendment as soon as they possibly could. In fact I can think of hardly any instance in American history when they did. Some states take longer. The fact that they did not ratify an amendment on day 1 is not proof that they never would have as you are trying to claim. FACT.
The whole problem with your argument is that the Corbomite Maneuver was a desperate attempt to prevent secession and the CW, and there was enough time for five states to ratify it. That proves the rest of the states had the time, if they had intended to ratify it. They didn't even though they could have and even though it meant secession and a possible CW. FACTS.
It would never become law because the original 7 seceding Southern states rejected it. It was a primarily Republican effort. FACT
False. It was never ratified, and it was passed by a majority of Democrats, while a majority of Republicans opposed it. I know you'll reply "but Lincoln and Corwin", but the big difference between this and all of the other policies you keep posting again and again and again is that they were never made law while abolition was. FACT.
You have zero evidence for this claim. There is nothing to support the idea that this is not what the Republicans supported at the time. There are no secret closed door quotes or diary entries or anything else supporting the idea that they were only saying they did not support abolition publicly when they really did secretly support it privately. Every indication is that they did not support abolition until very late in the war.
1864 when they almost had enough votes, and 1865 when they finally had enough votes. And they had spoken about abolition publicly, but they had to deal with parts of the population that wanted to hear the opposite. You insist on judging the situation by today's standards, but abolition was a radical idea to many back then, and the Republicans had to walk the line between the abolitionists who were growing frustrated with the lack of action, and the Democrats who wanted to preserve slavery. Frederick Douglas acknowledged this, even after he was one of those expressing frustration.
Posts like this are why I question your intelligence or honesty. You make false claims about what I've said while at the same time trying to advance the PC Revisionist anti Southern argument. The PC Revisionists are of course dyed in the wool Leftists.
If you're going to accuse me of this, at least include the comments you are accusing me of. I don't post "repeat snipped" and reply without posting what I'm replying to.
I've made the case by citing the undeniable historical evidence that there were many thousands of Blacks who fought in the Confederate army - much of it from Union sources so you couldn't claim it was just Southerners trying to invent the evidence. You can't refute the overwhelming evidence.
The evidence is anecdotal and most certainly deniable.
The Great Migration did not start until that time. You're entitled to your own opinions.
I said quote "the migration", not "the great migration".
You are not entitled to your own facts.
And you're not entitled to your own interpretation of the English Language. Who do you think you are, Lia Thomas?
I've already posted them. I even posted a direct quote from the Sec. of the Treasuring lamenting the fact that so many of the federal agents he sent to the Southern states were just crooks.
I meant from sources other than those that have the Confederacy Amen Corner's seal of approval, so I can review the entire context rather than cherry picked excerpts.
They didn't write anything as it pertains to slavery. They merely carried over what was in the US Constitution on that issue. They therefore did not "write it from the ground up to protect slavery" as you falsely claim. The US of course had the original US Constitution and they did nothing to abolish slavery even though they easily could have until very late in the war.....yet you're not troubled in the least by that.
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.
While it may have been founded by abolitionists, the vast vast majority of Republican politicians and voters were not abolitionists as they went to great pains to make clear.
They "made that clear" to audiences who wanted to hear that. When they got the votes they needed to pass abolition, they did.
Lincoln himself orchestrated the Corwin Amendment and publicly said he would strengthen fugitive slave laws.
More wasted bandwidth on policies that were never ratified, unlike abolition which was ratified. In fact, just about your entire case is built on policies that were never ratified. The Corbomite Naneuver, strengthening fugitive slave laws, and abolishing slavery in return for military aid were never ratified. On the other hand the only policy that was ratified, abolition, is the policy you keep trying to avoid.
The Republicans were of course referring to the Western Territory which was not at that time organized into states.
"Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction"
All persons. This was the context for the word territory, not territories as you keep trying to force.
They did not propose to abolish slavery where it existed. I could post dozens of quotes from Lincoln saying exactly this. All the other prominent Republicans said the same. You are clinging to a myth here.
You can post clips of comments made to audiences that wanted to hear those comments. I never denied that. But eight years after the Republican party was formed, they voted to abolish slavery in all states, but were blocked by Democrats who saw slavery as a states' rights issue. They following year, they had the numbers and voted to abolish slavery.
So go ahead and regurgitate all of your quotes. I'll give you the same response.
More Democrat lies about how secession wasn't about slavery snipped.
I don't care what they said, how many times they said it, or how many times you post it. What they said is not evidence, any more than what Hitler said in 1945 not wanting war in 1939. The evidence is in what they did. They seceded and went to war to preserve slavery as they said, and never abolished it until after they were defeated.
I know you'll reply with "but Lincoln and the Republicans said nasty things like blah blah blah", but they had to deal with parts of the Union that wanted to hear that, in addition to the impatient abolitionists. They did, and when they got the votes they needed, they passed abolition. Those are the only facts that matter.
repeats snipped
I don't care what else the Democrats running the Confederacy said the war was about, because they came right out and said it was about preserving slavery.
So go ahead and keep posting your Democrat generated propaganda about how they said it wasn't about slavery, because they themselves said it was and their actions prove it. Why should anyone believe them when they said it was and they would go to any lengths to preserve it?
As has already been explained to you at least 50 times, of the original 7 seceding states only 4 issued declarations of causes. Of those 4, all of them listed the Northern states violation of the constitution in refusing to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. 3 of them listed things that were not unconstitutional - namely exploitative tariffs and unequal federal expenditures. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and strengthened fugitive slave laws, they turned it down. Their actions plainly demonstrate they did not secede over and were not fighting over, slavery.
and that was just the lower South. The Upper South did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war for money and empire to impose a government upon the original 7 seceding states that they did not consent to.
JD made those comments before the Republican party was even formed. I know you'll reply "But the North blah blah blah..." but I never said everyone in the North was the good guys. On the contrary, I have acknowledged that the North had slavery in a few states, and abolition was blocked by Democrats in the North before they were replaced with enough Republicans to abolish slavery.
No. Abolition was never even brought up by Republicans in the North until very late in the war. Its not that Democrats blocked it. Its that Republicans weren't interested - as they openly said many many times.
You've done nothing but regurgitate the same Democrat propaganda for the past year. The Democrats tried to distance themselves from slavery then just as they're trying to do now, and you've done nothing but help them.
False as usual. I have brought in facts, quotes and sources for which you have no answer. So you keep spamming the board with the same 3 quotes/links no matter how irrelevant they are to whatever specific point is being discussed.
I couldn't care less how many quotes you post or how many times you regurgitate them, because they are all lies. The Democrats came out and said "repeats snipped", and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't lie in addition to waging war for that cause.
I don't care how many times you cite the language of the 4 declarations of causes which pointed out how the Northern states had violated the constitution by their refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution. It was clear from their actions, from the words of the leading newspapers as well as from Jefferson Davis and numerous other leading Southerners that they were seceding over the partisan sectional economic legislation of the federal government which screwed them over. Then they refused slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Case closed.
The definition is "reproduction of rare species controlled by humans in a closed environment, such as a zoo".
No, the definition is: "A breeding program is the planned breeding of a group of animals or plants, usually involving at least several individuals and extending over several generations."
Were the slaves considered another species, IOW animals, by their masters? Yes, except for when their daughters were being raped.
LOL! Everybody knew they were not a different species. Otherwise they could not have interbred with Whites.
Was there PLANNED breeding...as in the owner selects which ones, extending over several generations? No, clearly there was not.
YOU.
WERE.
WRONG.
Will FLT-bird prove me wrong again? Well see.
FIFY. Why yes. Yes I have.
You're admitting I'm right and you can't even see it. The writers of the Confederacy's Constitution were under no obligation to add the protections for slavery. They could have left the protections out without forcing abolition, which would have given them the flexibility in the future to abolish as you keep saying they offered. It was their intention to ensure the right to slave labor was protected, so they, the Democrat leaders of the Confederacy who wrote the constitution, added these protections: (repeats snipped)
Nope! You have proven me right but don't want to admit it. They no more designed the Confederate Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery than the US Constitution was designed from the ground up to protect slavery. They simply adopted what had come before with a few modifications in the areas of protecting state's rights more explicitly and limiting the power of the central government to spend money. Those were the only areas they changed much because those were their real concerns.
Absolute nonsense. Many abandoned because of the incompetence of the early Union generals, and the desertion rate was a larger problem in the Confederacy although more Union soldiers deserted overall.
Wrong. It was true. Union army desertion rates went up after the EP. Desertion was an ongoing problem in both armies. It did not go up significantly in the Confederate Army until late in the war due to the Confederate army not being adequately fed and due to soldiers wanting to go home to protect their families from attack by union army thieves, rapists, etc.
Let's just ignore that most states in the Union had abolished slavery at the state level, or that you just admitted to the large numbers of Southerners left to join Union forces. The loyalists were already here, while the Southerners had to leave their homes to fight for the Union.
"Large numbers" is of course open for debate. The point is you claimed Southerners who fought for the Union did so out of a commitment to abolitionism. I find that claim extremely dubious and without any support.
From post 760, "All you have is the standard 3rd grader argument "everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi"."
Yes. I stand by that. That is your standard fallback. Look how many times you have desperately tried to compare Jefferson Davis to Hitler or the CSA to the Nazi regime.
I only compared certain actions, such as Hitler in 1945 denying he wanted war in 1939 and Germany accusing the Allies of war crimes for the Dresden bombings. You can't answer that, so you hide behind "You called me a Nazi".,/P>
Answer what? Your ridiculous failed Nazi/Hitler analogies? The leaders and governments were not remotely analogous. There's your answer.
I agree. It was the Germans who called this a war crime, much like the slave holding states branded abolitionists as terrorists.
Well, given people like John Brown who were terrorists by any definition......
I know you're going to fall back to calling on me to give examples even though I already have, so I'll post them again. Oh, and the Confederates killed black soldiers at a higher rate than white soldiers.
Nat Turner was a terrorist and a murderer by any definition. Vesey was found to be after an investigation as well.
The Germans saw Dresden as a war crime, and the slave holders saw abolitionists as terrorists. As shown above, the Confederacy saw other abolitionists as terrorists.
1) yet another absolutely pitiful Hitler/Nazi analogy attempt that fails miserably. 2) No, it was not that every abolitionist was a terrorist. It was that abolitionist terrorists and murderers like John Brown or Nat Turner were terrorists. They were. Their actions leave no room for debate.
What a stupid argument. How much profit did he make for freeing the slaves. On the contrary, it cost him his life at the hands of a southerner who hated him for freeing the slaves.
How much profit did Northern political supporters of Lincoln/the Republicans make from keeping the Southern states as cash cows? Quite a lot! I've already posted numerous quotes and editorials from leading Northern papers saying exactly that.
repeats snipped
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
That's because they were never offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. They were offered an amendment that all but five Union states rejected.
That's a lie. They were offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. That amendment had already passed in several Union states and Lincoln would have seen to it that it passed in enough others to be ratified had they accepted it. Instead they rejected it.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend There's more below.
The chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission, Dr. Lewis Steiner, reported that he saw about 3,000 well-armed black Confederate soldiers in Stonewall Jackson’s army in Frederick, Maryland, and that those soldiers were "manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Said Steiner, “Wednesday, September 10--At four o'clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o'clock P.M., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. (Report of Lewis H. Steiner, New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1862, pp. 10-11)
* Union colonel Peter Allabach, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 131st Pennsylvania Infantry, reported that his forces encountered black Confederate soldiers during the battle of Chancellorsville:
Under this disposition of my command, I lay until 11 o'clock, when I received orders from you to throw the two left regiments perpendicular to the road, and to advance in line of battle, with skirmishers in front, as far as to the edge of the wood bordering near the Chancellor house. This movement was explained to me as intended to hold the enemy in check long enough for the corps of Major-Generals Couch and Sickles to get into another position, and not to bring on an action if it could be avoided; and, should the enemy advance in force, to fall back slowly until I arrived on the edge of the wood, there to mass in column and double-quick to the rear, that the artillery might fire in this wood. I was instructed that I was to consider myself under the command of Major-General Couch.
In obedience to these orders, at about 11 o'clock I advanced with these two regiments forward through the wood, under a severe fire of shell, grape, and canister. I encountered their skirmishers when near the farther edge of the wood. Allow me to state that the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes. (Report of Col. Peter H. Allabach, 131st Pennsylvania Infantry, commanding Second Brigade, in Official Records, Volume XXV, in Two Parts, 1889, Chap. 37, Part I – Reports, p. 555, emphasis added)
None other than African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass complained that there were “many” blacks in the Confederate army who were armed and “ready to shoot down” Union soldiers. He added that this was "pretty well established":
It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may. . . . (Douglass' Monthly, September 1861, online copy available at http://radicaljournal.com/essays/fighting_rebels.html)
In 1895 a former black Union soldier, Christian A. Fleetwood, who had been a sergeant-major in the 4th U.S. Colored Troops, acknowledged that the South began using blacks as soldiers before the Union did:
It seems a little singular that in the tremendous struggle between the States in 1861-1S65, the south should have been the first to take steps toward the enlistment of Negroes. Yet such is the fact. Two weeks after the fall of Fort Sumter, the Charleston Mercury records the passing through Augusta of several companies of the 3rd and 4th Georgia Regt. and of sixteen well-drilled companies and one Negro company from Nashville, Tenn. The Memphis Avalanche and The Memphis Appeal of May 9, 10, and 11, 1861, give notice of the appointment by the "Committee of Safety" of a committee of three persons "to organize a volunteer company composed of our patriotic freemen of color of the city of Memphis, for the service of our common defense."
A telegram from New Orleans dated November 23, 1S61, notes the review by Gov. Moore of over 28,000 troops, and that one regiment comprised "1,400 colored men." The New Orleans Picayune, referring to a review held February 9, 1862, says: "We must also pay a deserved compliment to the companies of free colored men, all very well drilled and comfortably equipped." (Christian A. Fleetwood, The Negro as a Soldier, Washington, D.C.: Howard University Print, 1895, pp. 5-6, emphasis added)
In a Union army battle report, General David Stuart complained about the deadly effectiveness of the black Confederate soldiers whom his troops had encountered. The “armed negroes,” he said, did “serious execution upon our men”:
Col. Giles Smith commanded the First Brigade and Col. T. Kilby Smith, Fifty-fourth Ohio, the Fourth. I communicated to these officers General Sherman’s orders and charged Colonel Smith, Fifty-fourth Ohio, specially with the duty of clearing away the road to the crossing and getting it into the best condition for effecting our crossing that he possibly could. The work was vigorously pressed under his immediate supervision and orders, and he devoted himself to it with as much energy and activity as any living man could employ. It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy’s sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men. The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. STUART, Brigadier-General, Commanding. (Report of Brig. Gen. David Stuart, U. S. Army, commanding Fourth Brigade and Second Division, of operations December 26, 1862 - January 3, 1863, in Official Records, Volume XVII, in Two Parts. 1886/1887, Chap. 29, Part I - Reports, pp. 635-636, emphasis added)
In a letter published in the Indianapolis Star in December 1861, a Union soldier stated that his unit was attacked by black Confederate soldiers:
A body of seven hundred [Confederate] Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed a new feature in the war. We have heard of a regiment of [Confederate] Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, and still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near home and attacked our men. (Indianapolis Star, December 23, 1861)
Union soldier James G. Bates wrote a letter to his father that was reprinted in an Indiana newspaper in May 1863. In the letter Bates assured his father that there were black Confederate soldiers:
I can assure you [his father,] of a certainty, that the rebels have Negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters and the boldest of them all here is a Negro. He dug himself a rifle pit last night [16 April 1863] just across the river and has been annoying our pickets opposite him very much to-day. You can see him plain enough with the naked eye, occasionally, to make sure that he is a "wooly-head," and with a spy-glass there is no mistaking him. (Winchester Journal, May 1, 1863)
A few months before the war ended, a Union soldier named James Miles of the 185th N.Y.V.I. wrote in his diary, “Saw several Negros fighting for those rebels" (Diary entry, January 8, 1865).
A Union lieutenant colonel named Parkhurst, who served in the Ninth Michigan Infantry, reported that black Confederate soldiers participated in an attack on his camp:
The forces attacking my camp were the First Regiment Texas Rangers, a battalion of the First Georgia Rangers . . . and quite a number of Negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day. (Lieutenant Colonel Parkhurst’s Report, Ninth Michigan Infantry, on General Forrest’s Attack at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, July 13, 1862, in Official Records, Series 1, Volume XVI, Part 1, p. 805)
In late June 1861, the Illinois Daily State Journal, a staunchly Republican newspaper, reported that the Confederate army was arming some slaves and that in some cases slaves were being organized into military units. Interestingly, the newspaper also said that the North was not fighting to abolish slavery, and that the South was not fighting to protect slavery:
Our mighty armies are gathering for no purpose of abolition. Our enemies are not in arms to protect the peculiar institution [slavery]. . . .
They [the Confederates] are using their Slave property as an instrument of warfare against the Union. Their slaves dig trenches, erect fortifications, and bear arms. Slaves, in some instances, are organized into military companies to fight against the Government. (“Slaves Contraband of War,” Illinois Daily State Journal, June 21, 1861)
After the battle of Gettysburg, Union forces took seven black Confederate soldiers as prisoners, as was noted in a Northern newspaper at the time, which said,
. . . reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers. (New York Herald, July 11, 1863)
During the battle of Gettysburg, two black Confederate soldiers took part in Pickett’s charge: Color Corporal George B. Powell (14th Tennessee) went down during the advance. Boney Smith, a Black man attached to the regiment, took the colors and carried them forward. . . . The colors of the 14th Tennessee got within fifty feet of the east wall before Boney Smith hit the dirt ---wounded. Jabbing the flagstaff in the ground, he momentarily urged the regiment forward until the intense pressure forced the men to lie down to save their lives. (John Michael Priest, Into the Fight: Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, White Mane Books, 1998, pp. 128, 130-131)
During the battle of Chickamauga, slaves serving Confederate soldiers armed themselves and asked permission to join the fight—and when they received that permission they fought commendably. Their commander, Captain J. B. Briggs, later noted that these men “filled a portion of the line of advance as well as any company of the regiment” (J. H. Segars and Charles Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, Atlanta, GA: Southern Lion Books, 2001, p. 141)
One of the last Confederate charges of the day included the Fourth Tennessee Calvary, which participated dismounted in the assault. Among the troopers of the regiment were forty African Americans who had been serving as camp servants but who now demanded the right the participate in the last combat of the day. Captain J. B. Briggs gave his permission for them to join his command on the front line. Organized and equipped under Daniel McLemore, the personal servant of the colonel of the regiment, the black troops had collected dropped weapons from battlefields during the regiment’s campaigns. . . . (Steve Cottrell, Civil War in Tennessee, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2001, p. 94)
After the war, hundreds of African Americans received Confederate veterans’ pensions from Southern state governments (Segars and Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, Atlanta, GA: Southern Lion Books, pp. 73-100).
Down in Charleston, free blacks . . . declared that “our allegiance is due to South Carolina and in her defense, we will offer up our lives, and all that is dear to us.” Even slaves routinely expressed loyalty to their homeland, thousands serving the Confederate Army faithfully. (Taking A Stand: Portraits from the Southern Secession Movement, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania: White Mane Books, 2000, p. 112)
In the July 1919 issue of The Journal of Negro History, Charles S. Wesley discussed the issue of blacks in the Confederate army:
The loyalty of the slave in guarding home and family during his master’s absence has long been eloquently orated. The Negroes’ loyalty extended itself even to service in the Confederate army. Believing their land invaded by hostile foes, slaves eagerly offered themselves for service in actual warfare. . . .
At the outbreak of the war, an observer in Charleston noted the war-time preparations and called particular attention to “the thousand Negroes who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees.” In the same city, one of the daily papers stated in early January that 150 free colored men had offered their services to the Confederate Government, and at Memphis a recruiting office was opened. In June 1861 the Legislature of Tennessee authorized Governor Harris to receive into the state military service all male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty and to provide them with eight dollars a month, clothing, and rations. . . . In the same state, under the command of Confederate officers, marched a procession of several hundred colored men carrying shovels, axes, and blankets. The observer adds, “they were brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs.” A paper in Lynchburg, Virginia, commenting on the enlistment of seventy free Negroes to fight for the defense of the State, concluded with “three cheers for the patriotic Negroes of Lynchburg.”
Two weeks after the firing on Fort Sumter, several companies of volunteers of color passed through Augusta, Georgia, on their way to Virginia to engage in actual war. . . . In November of the same year, a military review was held in New Orleans, where twenty-eight thousand troops passed before Governor Moore, General Lowell, and General Ruggles. The line of march extended beyond seven miles and included one regiment comprised of 1,400 free colored men. (In Segars and Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, pp. 2-4)
"Negroes in the Confederate Army," Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesle, Vol. 4, #3, [1919,] 244-245 - "Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia."
"The part of Adams' Brigade that the 42nd Indiana was facing were the 'Louisiana Tigers.' This name was given to Colonel Gibson's 13th Louisiana Infantry, which included five companies of 'Avegno Zouaves' who still were wearing their once dashing traditional blue jackets, red caps and red baggy trousers. These five Zouaves companies were made up of Irish, Dutch, Negroes, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Italians." - Noe, Kenneth W., Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 2001. [page 270]
The 85th Indiana Volunteer Infantry reported to the Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette that on 5 March 1863: "During the fight the [artillery] battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by [*in italics*] two rebel negro regiments. [*end italics*]."
After the action at Missionary Ridge, Commissary Sergeant William F. Ruby forwarded a casualty list written in camp at Ringgold, Georgia about 29 November 1863, to William S. Lingle for publication. Ruby's letter was partially reprinted in the Lafayette Daily Courier for 8 December 1863: "Ruby says among the rebel dead on the [Missionary] Ridge he saw a number of negroes in the Confederate uniform." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805: "There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day." Federal Official Records Series 1, Volume 15, Part 1, Pages 137-138
"Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLIX, Part II, pg. 253
April 6, 1865: "The rebels [Forrest] are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Miss., and the negroes are all enrolled in the State." Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XIV, pg. 24, second paragraph -
In his book, Black Confederates and AfroYankees in Civil War Virginia, Ervin I. Jordan, a black historian, says that in June 1861 Tennessee became the first Confederate State to authorize the use of black soldiers. These soldiers were to be paid $18 a month and be provided with the same rations and clothing as white soldiers. Two regiments, he says, of blacks had appeared by September.
“They – the enemy – talked of having 9,000 men. They had 20 pieces of artillery, among which was the Richmond Howitzer battery manned by Negroes. Their wagons numbered sixty. Such is the information which our scouts gained from the people living on the ground where the enemy encamped. Their numbers are probably overrated, but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes I think the report is probably correct.” Col John W. Phelps 1st Vermont Infantry commanding Aug. 11, 1861. The War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol IV page 569
“We are not likely to use one Negro where the Rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the Rebellion.” Major General Samuel R Curtis 2nd Iowa Infantry Sept 29, 1862 The War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol XIII page 688
Question by the Judge Advocate: “Do you know of any individual of the enemy having been killed or wounded during the siege of Harpers Ferry?”
Answer I have strong reason to believe that there was a negro killed, who had wounded 2 or 3 of my men. I know that an officer took deliberate aim at him and he fell over. He was one of the skirmishers of the enemy and wounded 3 of my men I know there must have been some of the enemy killed.
Question “How do you know the negro was killed?”
Answer “the Officer saw him fall.”
Lt Col Stephen Wheeler Downey (3rd Maryland Infantry Potomac Home Brigade Oct 1862) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol XIX part I page 617
And more recently the Confederate legislature of Tennessee have passed an act forcing into their military service all male free persons of color between the ages of 15 and 50, or such numbers as may be necessary, who may be sound in body and capable of actual service; and they further enacted that in the event a sufficient number of free persons of color to meet the wants of the state shall not tender their services then the Governor is empowered through the sheriffs of different counties to impress such persons until the required number is obtained. Lt Col William H Ludlow (Agent for exchange of prisoners 73rd New York Volunteer Infantry June 1863) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series II, Vol VI page 17
[Excerpt from letter to Abraham Lincoln] “I do and have believed we ought to use the colored people, after the rebels commenced to use them against us.” Thomas H Hicks, Senator, Maryland Sept 1863) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series III, Vol 3 page 768
“We pursued them closely for 7 miles and captured 4 privates of Goldsby’s company and 3 colored men, mounted and armed, with 7 horses and 5 mules with equipments and 20 Austrian rifles.” Brigadier General Alexander Asboth US Army District of West Florida Aug 1864) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 35 page 442
“We have turned up 11 bushwhackers to dry and one rebel negro.” Captain P.L. Powers 47th Missouri Infantry, Company H November 1864) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 41 page 670
“The Rebels are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Mississippi, and the negroes are all enrolled in the state.” Major A.M. Jackson 10th US colored heavy artillery April 1865) War of the Rebellion a compilation of official records of Union and Confederate Armies Series I, Vol 49 page 253
And the desertion rate among the Condeferacy was higher than that of the Union.
See above. That did not happen until late in the war when food supplies were inadequate and people's homes were under attack.
Confederate Law Authorizing the Enlistment of Black Soldiers, as Promulgated in a Military Order "IV. The enlistment of colored persons under this act will be made upon printed forms, to be furnished for the purpose, similar to those established for the regular service. They will be executed in duplicate, one copy to be returned to this office for file. No slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman, and which will be filed with the superintendent."
As has been pointed out to you before, that was the Confederate Congress. Various Confederate states allowed both free Blacks as well as slaves to serve in their forces. What was the Confederate Army composed of? State units. IOW, the Confederate Congress had no power to stop Blacks both slave and free from serving in the Confederate Army and many thousands did exactly that.....as the numerous quotes from union sources above all attest.
and even more bandwidth wasted on a policy that never came close to ratification.
Even more bandwidth well spent refuting your BS and lies.
repeats snipped.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: repeats snipped
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
I was ready to write that off as a rant, but those were good questions. Yes I know many of them had slaves. I can accept the good that came without absolving the bad that came with it. I can accept the legacy of freedom, justice, and opportunity for all while condemning the times they were denied.
That's my point. I accept the bad with the good. They're both part of the American legacy. The fact that people in the past did not live lives that were perfectly in keeping with our current views does not make what they did illegitimate....ie just so many "dead white males" as the Wokeratti would have it. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were laudable. They were amazing affirmations of freedom and the rights of man even if, yes, they were not perfect. Compared to anything else in the world at the time, they were simply amazing.
The difference is that while the Union was guilty of many of these crimes, they also led in abolishing them. The Confederacy never abolished slavery and fought to preserve it, so that is their only legacy.
That's ridiculous. The Confederacy was not fighting to preserve slavery. That's just a lie. As for abolishing slavery or granting women the vote or any of the other changes that have taken place in the last 150 years, the CSA never had the chance to do those things. That's hardly something that is fair or reasonable to blame it for.
And notice I said the Confederacy, and not the South. Many in South opposed slavery, and many others left the South to fight against the Confederacy.
Very few in the South or the North opposed slavery until very late in the war.
How many do I need? The Democrats said secession was about preserving slavery, and they backed it with their actions. The fact that they managed to pour out propaganda to the contrary doesn't refute this.
You keep citing three. I've cited far more than that demonstrating that secession was not about slavery and their actions demonstrate that they were perfectly willing to sacrifice slavery in order to gain their independence. They were fighting for Independence obviously. Your PC Revisionist lies about it being "all about slavery" have been easily refuted multiple times.
Absolute nonsense. He may have correctly stated that secession was about slavery as did JD in 1858 and the declarations of secession, but that doesn't obligate me to accept his accusations against the North.
LOL! So you count him when its convenient for you, but discount him when his views are not convenient for you just as you try to discount the fact that President Davis and others said many many times that secession and the war were not about slavery. Hell, even Lincoln and the US Congress said openly that the war was not about slavery.
There you go with "the North" again. I know everyone in the North wasn't on the right side on this issue. The Democrats in particular blocked abolition for as long as they had the votes to do it, but that ended in 1865. The Republicans passed abolition as soon as they had the votes they needed.
There you go again trying to claim the Democrats had long blocked abolition. No they hadn't. They didn't need to. Hardly anybody was for abolition until very late in the war. The Republicans never even tried to push abolition until them. In fact, they openly denounced it again and again. Its not that "everyone in the North wasn't on the right side of this issue". Its that hardly anybody was until late in the war. No matter how much it clashes with your view of morality, yours was a fringe view until at least 1864.
Repeats snipped
The usual regurgitated quote of the 3 you habitually cling to, in no way refutes that the South has always favored decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets. You obviously don't know how to respond to that so you try falling back on one of the 3 quotes you know. You have nothing else.
That's because it's a lie. JD never came close to abolishing slavery, even if he had "offered" it in return for military aid.
Nope. Its true. Read the quote again. "were prepared to....."
The whole problem with your argument is that the Corbomite Maneuver was a desperate attempt to prevent secession and the CW, and there was enough time for five states to ratify it. That proves the rest of the states had the time, if they had intended to ratify it. They didn't even though they could have and even though it meant secession and a possible CW. FACTS.
The problem with your argument is that it does not matter that the Corwin Amendment was "a desperate attempt to prevent secession". The fact is that Lincoln and the Northern dominated Congress were prepared to support slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The fact that some states did not ratify it as soon as they possibly could have does not mean they never would have. That's a ridiculous claim as any examination of the passage of other constitutional amendments will show. Some states have always taken longer than the first opportunity to pass an amendment. Many many states have passed several amendments later than the first possible opportunity.
False. It was never ratified, and it was passed by a majority of Democrats, while a majority of Republicans opposed it. I know you'll reply "but Lincoln and Corwin", but the big difference between this and all of the other policies you keep posting again and again and again is that they were never made law while abolition was. FACT.
False. REPUBLICANS wrote it and introduced it to both the House and the Senate. Lincoln the de facto leader of the Republican party orchestrated it. The only reason it did not pass was that the original 7 seceding states rejected it. FACT.
1864 when they almost had enough votes, and 1865 when they finally had enough votes. And they had spoken about abolition publicly, but they had to deal with parts of the population that wanted to hear the opposite. You insist on judging the situation by today's standards, but abolition was a radical idea to many back then, and the Republicans had to walk the line between the abolitionists who were growing frustrated with the lack of action, and the Democrats who wanted to preserve slavery. Frederick Douglas acknowledged this, even after he was one of those expressing frustration.
See the date you used? 1864. That's what I've said all along. Republicans did not support abolition until very late in the war.
The evidence is anecdotal and most certainly deniable.
Its deniable? You were there and can refute their eyewitness testimony? Your favorite PC Revisionist professor was there and knows that those union army eyewitnesses should believe their PC Revisionist dogma instead of their lyin' eyes?
And you're not entitled to your own interpretation of the English Language. Who do you think you are, Lia Thomas?
The Great Migration refers to a specific event at a specific time - that was the 1890s when Southern Blacks moved North in large numbers. They did not do so a generation earlier because the Northern states would not allow them to do so a generation earlier.
I meant from sources other than those that have the Confederacy Amen Corner's seal of approval, so I can review the entire context rather than cherry picked excerpts.
Like the eyewitness accounts of Black Confederates from union army sources, I posted numerous statements from Union sources including the carpetbaggers themselves as well as the Secretary of the Treasury.
repeats snipped
See? Standard example. I say the Confederates did not design their constitution from the ground up to protect slavery, they merely carried over those portions of the US Constitution and that the changes they made were in other areas such as more explicitly protecting states' rights and limiting the power of the central government to spend money. You citing the language of the Confederate Constitution as it pertains to slavery (which was the same as the US Constitution) does not refute what I said. You could cite it a million more times and it still would not address that fact. The US Constitution was the same wrt slavery.
They "made that clear" to audiences who wanted to hear that. When they got the votes they needed to pass abolition, they did.
They made it clear because by all accounts, they meant it. There is nothing to support your implication/claim that they were super secretly abolitionists at heart and were just telling the Northern public what it wanted to hear. And in answer to your inevitable response, passing abolition years later does not in any way prove this is what they wanted before. Circumstances and sentiments had obviously changed by late in the war.
More wasted bandwidth on policies that were never ratified, unlike abolition which was ratified. In fact, just about your entire case is built on policies that were never ratified. The Corbomite Naneuver, strengthening fugitive slave laws, and abolishing slavery in return for military aid were never ratified. On the other hand the only policy that was ratified, abolition, is the policy you keep trying to avoid.
more bandwidth well spent because it refutes your PC Revisionist claims. The Corwin Amendment shows both that the North/Republicans were perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever and that the original 7 seceding states rejected it. The offer by the Confederate government to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid once again shows - as President Davis said numerous times - that they were not fighting for slavery. They were fighting for independence. The US passing the 13th amendment years later in no way disproves any of what happened before.
"Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction"
All persons. This was the context for the word territory, not territories as you keep trying to force.
False. If that were so, then one prominent Republican after another including Abraham Lincoln would not have stood up and said repeatedly that they were not abolitionists and did not support abolition. They would not have support slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. They would not have supported a Congressional resolution which said expressly that the union was not fighting to abolish slavery. Yet those things did pass.
You can post clips of comments made to audiences that wanted to hear those comments. I never denied that. But eight years after the Republican party was formed, they voted to abolish slavery in all states, but were blocked by Democrats who saw slavery as a states' rights issue. They following year, they had the numbers and voted to abolish slavery.
You have nothing at all to prove any claim that Republican politicians such as Abraham Lincoln were just telling audiences what they wanted to hear and that those Republicans were really super secret crypto abolitionists. All indications are that Lincoln meant exactly what he said in public and in private that he was not an abolitionist and did not support abolition. The same was true of the other leading Republicans until years later when it was very late in the war.
I don't care what they said, how many times they said it, or how many times you post it. What they said is not evidence, any more than what Hitler said in 1945 not wanting war in 1939. The evidence is in what they did. They seceded and went to war to preserve slavery as they said, and never abolished it until after they were defeated.,/p>
I don't care how many times you try your playground attempts to analogize the South/Jefferson Davis with Hitler and the Nazis. I will always laugh at and dismiss such fatuous attempts at argument. They seceded to gain their independence, not for slavery. They knew perfectly well that they would be far better off if they were independent. They were perfectly willing to abolish slavery in order to gain independence as was clear from their actions.
I know you'll reply with "but Lincoln and the Republicans said nasty things like blah blah blah", but they had to deal with parts of the Union that wanted to hear that, in addition to the impatient abolitionists. They did, and when they got the votes they needed, they passed abolition. Those are the only facts that matter.
I know you'll keep trying to fall back on "anything that suits my argument which any Southerners said was 100% true while anything Republicans/Northerners said which runs contrary to my argument was just said for sake of expediency. They were just politicians and had to get elected. They didn't really mean it." The problem for you is that you have zero evidence to support this ridiculous claim. Their words in public and in private and their actions show that they were perfectly willing to protect slavery in order to keep the Southern states in. The Southern states by contrast were willing to sacrifice slavery in order to leave as was shown by their actions.