They had secession and a possible civil war pushing them to pass this amendment, and they had as much time as the five states that did ratify it. With all of this, they didn't ratify it. They said no.
You certainly don't know if they would have said no had the original 7 seceding states agreed to the North's slavery forever constitutional Amendment.
Another "could have" and "maybe" that doesn't prove anything.
Democrat slave owning Senator Robert Toombs said...
Who cares?
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
That tells me all I need to know about the Democrats' intentions.
FLT-Bird, unable to answer my point about how the Confederacy's Constitution was written to protect slavery, said You mean the constitution that did not differ from the US Constitution in that respect was ratified? Yes it was. That doesn't prove your point though. The CSA Constitution was the same as the US constitution on most matters.
Oh but it does prove my point. They could have written it without explicit protections for slavery, which would have left them the option of abolishing slavery later. They didn't, because protecting slavery was their often stated intention. That is my point.
Repeats snipped.
They did expressly authorize their ambassador with plenipotentiary power. They took a concrete step to do so.
They did nothing but offer. They never made good on their so called offer to impress the countries they were trying to get aid from, even as desperate as their situation had become.
Funny how you fail to notice that it was the Northern states which violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. But trying to make strawman arguments is a standard leftist tactic.
Funny that you can't see that you are admitting the North was anti slavery and freeing slaves even as you claim they weren't. Since you have admitted (again) that they did, I guess that means we won't be reading any more posts from you about how the North was against freeing slaves.
The Republicans didn't make any serious move to abolish slavery until after the war.
Nope. I would like to believe you're smart enough to see the contradiction, but I guess not.
1864.
Repeats snipped.
I hate to break this to you but the overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers of America were slave owners.
And if they said preserving slavery was never their intention, would you believe them?
A real conservative would know that.
Everybody knows that. As I have admitted to you, I know this country has a lot to apologize for. As I have also said to you, these leaders, imperfect as they were, did lay the groundwork for a system that would ultimately abolish slavery. Too bad the Democrats wouldn't let it happen without dragging us into a civil war.
They also said this:
I would say lying about their intentions falls within "the last extremity".
Lincoln committed ethnic cleansing and genocide of native people - specifically the Santee Sioux and the nearby Winnebago. Members of his administration snapped up real estate that was formerly part of their reservation at knock down prices and immediately flipped that land for huge profits.
No one denies what this country did to the native tribes. The Confederacy reserved the same right to take land and make them slave holding states. Everyone who chooses to live in this country and take advantage of its freedoms benefits from that. If that sounds horrible, then I made my point.
That said, more on this please?
Except Lincoln not only did not try to abolish slavery on a national level
That's right. He didn't try. He succeeded.
but he orchestrated passage of nothing.
He also promised to strengthen fugitive slave laws, but never did.
So your little fantasy that Lincoln was some kind of abolitionist has been exposed. He was perfectly willing to protect slavery.
The only thing that has been exposed is your inability to understand the environment Lincoln and the Republicans had to deal with. Frederick Douglas understood it.
800+ pages into it I'd say you're quite accomplished at playing childish games.
I learned from a pro. You.
The chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission, Dr. Lewis Steiner, reported that he saw about 3,000
Nice try, but repeating one of the same numbers you posted last time doesn't add to the total you gave last time, which is still short of 15,000.
I overwhelmingly listed union sources and we're well beyond 10,000. My point that there were tens of thousands of Black Confederates is proven.
Are you kidding? I gave all of your sources the benefit of the doubt, and you didn't even make it to 15,000. If we discounted the 9,000 which we could rightfully do since it only said they "talked of having 9,000 men" and only said "but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes", you didn't even make it to 6,000.
And if we throw in this from your own sources, "the thousand Negroes who...marched a procession of several hundred colored men carrying shovels, axes, and blankets", this sounds more the the points made in "Black Confederates: Truth and Legend" than in any point you're trying to make.
irrelevant.
OK, since you only think what was said during the CW is relevant, "Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas, a Democrat who supported the right to own slaves"
Now tell me again why we should believe a Democrat slave owner.
No they (the Confederacy) didn't say it was about slavery.
I'm going to give FR's servers a break. The readers can see my last post for many of the occurrences of Democrats saying it was about preserving slavery.
You claimed there was a specific breeding program - not merely slavery.
When slaves are bred within a closed environment and sold as animals, that is a breeding program. The fact that it's part of slavery instead of a stand alone policy doesn't change that.
He's a PC Revisionist. He's on YOUR side on this one - not mine.
You were the one who originally used him for a reference, and you're the one who keeps bringing him up. The fact that he ended up proving my point about the leftists trying to tie the slavery in Democrat run states to the right, just as they're doing now with gun violence, isn't my problem.
You're trying to judge people who lived in the 17th-19th century with a moral understanding that nobody in the world had when slavery started in the 13 colonies and which only some of the West had by the 1860s. Obviously nobody in the West is going to approve of slavery today but times were very different then. Thus I'm far less quick to judge the people of that time by modern moral standards.
I'm not excusing anyone who owned slaves, but by the 1860s slavery was being abolished in the North and in much of the western world. The Democrats saw this and deliberately wrote their constitution to protect it.
I know you'll come back with "but JD gave his delegates plenty of power to abolish slavery", but even with nothing to lose they never did make good on it. Wouldn't that have been a good move, to impress the countries they were trying to get help from?
Except he wasn't "fighting for his freedom". He and his followers didn't flee and only fight back against those pursuing/attacking them.
Their rebellion was put down before they could.
They Allies went out and murdered bombed a whole bunch of civilians including a LOT of little kids who had not done anything to them and who were no threat to them.
That's what happens when you try to enslave people. A lot of innocent people die. The question is who do you blame. In both cases I blame the slave holders.
I know you'll circle back to ""but some states in the Union also had slavery". Yes, we all know that. Lincoln had to work with them to keep the Union together. Frederick Douglas understood this, even as he became frustrated with the lack of progress on abolition.
And then you'll circle back with "but the North wasn't for abolition". Nope, it just accidentally occurred in 1865, after the Republicans had accidentally voted for it in 1864 but were deliberately blocked by the Democrats.
Only a moral degenerate would try to make excuses for this.
The real moral degenerates were the ones who pushed them into this by enslaving them, and those who defend them.
About as much of the following was written by modern leftists:
Once again, you flood FR with a bunch of slave owning Democrats about how the war wasn't about slavery, as if anyone had any reason to believe them.
From Texas:
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State
If this is your defense of the the Democrats, then no attacks from me are needed.
Show me one (modern leftist source)in the text I just posted.
None. They incriminated themselves without any help from modern leftists.
"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . . 'I think Sumner [abolitionist Charles Sumner] and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way,' he told the Radicals. . . . 'We didn't go into this war to put down slavery . . . and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith.' Vindication of the president's view came a few weeks later, when the Massachusetts state Republican convention--perhaps the most Radical party organization in the North--defeated a resolution endorsing Fremont's proclamation." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76, emphasis added)
We've been over this, but here we go again.
As Frederick Douglas said, "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
Try to grasp that the KKK has had multiple incarnations and that they were not all the same. Initially they were a resistance movement that arose to fight Northern tyranny and terrorism. That organization died out. The KKK you are thinking of is the post Birth of a Nation version whose driving motivation was to be anti Black. That was a different animal.
They wasted no time attacking Republicans and blacks. What did that have to do with fighting terrorism?
Oh, that's right, you labeled slaves fighting for their freedom as terrorists too.
No they didn't. They simply had not passed it yet.
Another "could have" and "maybe" that doesn't prove anything.
Another assumption on your part. You don't know they never would have passed the amendment. Its just convenient for you to assume that so you assume it.
Senator Robert Toombs said... Who cares?
Anybody who cares about the facts. His quote is inconvenient for you.
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit: repeat snipped That tells me all I need to know about the Democrats' intentions.
This tells me all I need to know about Northerners' intentions:
The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched." New York Times March 30, 1861 "The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go." The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861
That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports." New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article "What Shall be Done for a Revenue?"
[demanding a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not] "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls." The Philadelphia Press 18 March 1861
FLT-Bird, having utterly crushed my argument claiming the Confederacy's Constitution was written to protect slavery, said You mean the constitution that did not differ from the US Constitution in that respect was ratified? Yes it was. That doesn't prove your point though. The CSA Constitution was the same as the US constitution on most matters.
Oh but it does prove my point. They could have written it without explicit protections for slavery, which would have left them the option of abolishing slavery later. They didn't, because protecting slavery was their often stated intention. That is my point.
Oh but it wasn't. They carried over the US Constitution entirely except for more clearly checking the power of the central government and setting a maximum tariff of 10%. This shows their focus was on limiting the power of the federal government - not on slavery which remained unchanged.
They did nothing but offer. They never made good on their so called offer to impress the countries they were trying to get aid from, even as desperate as their situation had become.
You mean other countries did not agree. That's true they did not agree. But the Confederate government did take concrete steps that would have ended slavery had those other countries agreed.
Funny that you can't see that you are admitting the North was anti slavery and freeing slaves even as you claim they weren't. Since you have admitted (again) that they did, I guess that means we won't be reading any more posts from you about how the North was against freeing slaves.
The Northern states were against returning escaped slaves. That does not mean they were pro abolitionist. They were not as the repeated poor showings of real abolitionists in election after election showed.
Nope. I would like to believe you're smart enough to see the contradiction, but I guess not.
and I'd like to believe you're honest enough to admit the truth, but I guess not.
And if they said preserving slavery was never their intention, would you believe them?
Would I believe the Founding Fathers if they said preserving slavery was never their intention? Yes.
Everybody knows that. As I have admitted to you, I know this country has a lot to apologize for. As I have also said to you, these leaders, imperfect as they were, did lay the groundwork for a system that would ultimately abolish slavery. Too bad the Democrats wouldn't let it happen without dragging us into a civil war.
Except neither secession nor the war were about slavery.
They also said this: repeats snipped
And they also said this:
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects.
Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
Texas'
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
South Carolina
The State adopted the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the father of secession" and sent it out attached to its declaration of secession. It provides in pertinent part:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
No one denies what this country did to the native tribes. The Confederacy reserved the same right to take land and make them slave holding states. Everyone who chooses to live in this country and take advantage of its freedoms benefits from that. If that sounds horrible, then I made my point.
Ah so now you try to shift it from the North and Lincoln to "this country". Then you try to make some lame excuse about how the South reserved the same right to do that. The fact is that Lincoln and the North did do that. The Southern states did not.
That said, more on this please?
You could read this https://www.amazon.com/38-Nooses-Lincoln-Beginning-Frontiers/dp/0307389138
or you could watch this https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1848q3
That's right. He didn't try. He succeeded.
No he didn't....Boothe cleaned out his ears with a lead Q-tip first.
He also promised to strengthen fugitive slave laws, but never did.
Because the original seceding states turned down his slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
The only thing that has been exposed is your inability to understand the environment Lincoln and the Republicans had to deal with. Frederick Douglas understood it.
Nah. What's been exposed is your dishonest PC Revisionist dogma.
I learned from a pro. You.,/P>
Pro tip. I'm never going to stop.
Nice try, but repeating one of the same numbers you posted last time doesn't add to the total you gave last time, which is still short of 15,000.
I gave numerous union army eyewitness accounts that amounted to many thousands.
Are you kidding? I gave all of your sources the benefit of the doubt, and you didn't even make it to 15,000. If we discounted the 9,000 which we could rightfully do since it only said they "talked of having 9,000 men" and only said "but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes", you didn't even make it to 6,000.
And if we throw in this from your own sources, "the thousand Negroes who...marched a procession of several hundred colored men carrying shovels, axes, and blankets", this sounds more the the points made in "Black Confederates: Truth and Legend" than in any point you're trying to make.
You claimed there were none. I pointed out even the Union Army's own records show there were many thousands. Did many serve in support roles? Yes. So did they in the union army. So what? Some fought and many served in things like logistics. That's still part of the army.
OK, since you only think what was said during the CW is relevant, "Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas," Now tell me again why we should believe a Democrat slave owner.
Its a contemporaneous quote from one of the leaders involved at the time. He had no reason to lie about his motives and he's making it clear the economic exploitation of the Southern states by the Northern states was a key grievance Southerners held and their major motivation for secession.
I'm going to give FR's servers a break. The readers can see my last post for many of the occurrences of Democrats saying it was about preserving slavery.
Cool! Then I can give the servers a break and count on the readers to see my last post for the many occurrences of Southerners saying it was not about preserving slavery.
When slaves are bred within a closed environment and sold as animals, that is a breeding program. The fact that it's part of slavery instead of a stand alone policy doesn't change that.
Nope! That's not a breeding program. That's simply slavery. There was no breeding program as any farmer for example would conduct with his livestock.
You were the one who originally used him for a reference, and you're the one who keeps bringing him up. The fact that he ended up proving my point about the leftists trying to tie the slavery in Democrat run states to the right, just as they're doing now with gun violence, isn't my problem.
I cite him because he's on your side and even he is admitting my point. THe fact that he tries to smear the South and by doing so the heart of the modern conservative movement, shows why a Leftist in Academia would be pushing this historical revisionist garbage.
I'm not excusing anyone who owned slaves, but by the 1860s slavery was being abolished in the North and in much of the western world. The Democrats saw this and deliberately wrote their constitution to protect it.
No they didn't. They Largely kept the US Constitution and only changed the parts that really upset them which was usurpations of power by the central government and the corrupt practice of politicians spending public money to line the pockets of special interests.
I know you'll come back with "but JD gave his delegates plenty of power to abolish slavery", but even with nothing to lose they never did make good on it. Wouldn't that have been a good move, to impress the countries they were trying to get help from?
He did do something to show he was willing to abolish slavery as did the Confederate Congress. They empowered their ambassador to agree to a treaty to do so. Britain and France chose not to enter into such a treaty. Why should the Confederates have disrupted their economy in the middle of a war of national survival for nothing? Nobody does that.
Their rebellion was put down before they could.
They could have fled. They made no attempt to do so. Instead they just murdered a bunch of people including a bunch of kids.
They Allies went out and murdered bombed a whole bunch of civilians including a LOT of little kids who had not done anything to them and who were no threat to them.
Different subject but I happen to think indiscriminately bombing entire cities is awful.
That's what happens when you try to enslave people. A lot of innocent people die. The question is who do you blame. In both cases I blame the slave holders.
Again, I would have had sympathy for them had they simply tried to flee and only fought those who were attacking them as they tried to gain their freedom. That's not what they did. They went around and murdered a bunch of innocent people including a whole bunch of kids.
And then you'll circle back with "but the North wasn't for abolition". Nope, it just accidentally occurred in 1865, after the Republicans had accidentally voted for it in 1864 but were deliberately blocked by the Democrats.
They ended up abolishing slavery. That was the only good thing that came out of the war. That's not why either side went to war in the first place.
The real moral degenerates were the ones who pushed them into this by enslaving them, and those who defend them.
the real moral degenerates believe in collective guilt and try to excuse deliberately murdering innocent children.
Once again, you flood FR with a bunch of slave owning Democrats about how the war wasn't about slavery, as if anyone had any reason to believe them.
Once again you ignore any quotes from the people at the time if they are inconvenient for your PC Revisionist dogma.
If this is your defense of the the Democrats, then no attacks from me are needed.
Texas rightly pointed out that they not only violated the constitution, but they also aided and abetted terrorism against the Southern states. But since you think collective guilt is OK I guess you're fine with that and expect people not to react when attacked because they had it coming or something.....
None. They incriminated themselves without any help from modern leftists.
Nothing in that was incriminating.
We've been over this, but here we go again. repeats snipped
Lincoln was not an abolitionist and made perfectly clear he did not start the war to abolish slavery.
They wasted no time attacking Republicans and blacks. What did that have to do with fighting terrorism?
Read up on the Union Leagues during the Occupation.
Oh, that's right, you labeled slaves fighting for their freedom as terrorists too.,/P>
the ones who murdered a whole bunch of people including little kids? Damn right I did.