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.
No they didn't. They simply had not passed it yet...Another assumption on your part. You don't know they never would have passed the amendment.
You're the one who is assuming it would have been ratified. I'm reporting what did happen, which that even with secession and a possible civil war, and even with the same amount of time as the five states who did ratify it, they didn't. Those are the facts, no assumptions on my part are needed.
Anybody who cares about the facts. His quote is inconvenient for you.
The only fact you presented here is that a Democrat slave owner said it wasn't about slavery. By now we have established that the Democrats knew how the institution of slavery looked to other western nations and were trying to distance themselves from it. No one was fooled then, and no one today is gullible enough to believe that bull...oh wait.
This tells me all I need to know about Northerners' intentions:
First, these are op-eds, not official statements of policy.
Of course, as a leftist you posted snippets of the op-eds rather than links to the sources themselves. Having done the work myself, I can see why. Let's take a look at the op-eds in their entirety.
Manchester Union Democrat, February 19, 1861 "Let Them Go"
This was an op-ed which started out with "Some of our Republican friends affect to be very indifferent to the secession of the Southern states. "Let them go—we can get along very well without them."" That in itself refutes the point you're trying to make, at least with this op-ed. The rest was the author's opinion of why that was wrong.
New York Evening Post, March 12, 1861 "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?"
The author suggested treating products coming from ports in the South as contraband unless the duties were paid. Nothing in this called for a civil war to force the South to rejoin the Union.
I couldn't find any reference to your last op-ed from The Philadelphia Press, 18 March 1861, so I'll leave it to you to prove its authenticity.
FLT-Bird, having utterly crushed my argument claiming the Confederacy's Constitution was written to protect slavery...
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.
Waste of bandwidth repeat snipped.
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.
It's amazing that you're admitting I'm right even as you deny it. Yes, they carried over everything, including protections for slavery. They could have left the explicit protections for slavery out, which would not have forced them to abolish slavery but would have given them that option. They didn't because their intention was to protect slavery.
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.
Once again you evade my point, which is that they could have abolished slavery to impress the nations they were trying to get aid from. What did they have to lose besides their slave labor which if we're to believe you they were willing to give up anyway?
I know the other nations did not agree. Why should they, when they had the reading comprehension to understand the Democrats' own statements and documents?
Another waste of bandwidth repeat snipped.
The Northern states were against returning escaped slaves. That does not mean they were pro abolitionist.
All but a few had abolished slavery altogether.
They were not as the repeated poor showings of real abolitionists in election after election showed.
1858, 1860 (according to the Democrats), 1864.
and I'd like to believe you're honest enough to admit the truth, but I guess not.
The truth is the North refused to enforce the fugitive slave laws, as even the Declarations of Secession pointed out.
Except neither secession nor the war were about slavery.
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?"
Would I believe the Founding Fathers if they said preserving slavery was never their intention? Yes.
I would if they had followed through, but they didn't. Just like everything else you've built your case on.
And they also said this:
Why do I need to care what a bunch of lying, slave owning Democrats said?
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.
Lincoln was assassinated before he had the chance.
The Southern states did not.
False! From Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War, "In the fall of 1861, Colonel Douglas H. Cooper, commanding the department of Indian operations under authority from the Confederate Government, made several ineffectual efforts to have a conference with the old chief of for the purpose of effecting a peaceful settlement of the difficulties that were dividing the nation into two hostile camps. Finding Hopoeithleyhola unwavering in his loyalty to the United States, Colonel Cooper determined to force him into submission, destroy his power, or drive him out of the country, and at once commenced collecting forces, composed mostly of white troops, to attack him. In November and December, 1861, the battles of Chusto Talasah and Chustenhlah were fought, and the loyal Indians finally were defeated and forced to retire to Kansas in midwinter."
Also from this article, "In the spring of 1862 the United States Government sent an expedition of five thousand men under Colonel William Weer, 10th Kansas Infantry, into the Indian Territory to drive out the Confederate forces of Pike and Cooper, and to restore the refugee Indians to their homes."
OBTW, the southern states as part of the US did participate, before and after the CW. They couldn't during the CW for obvious reasons. If they had the chance, we can read what plans they had for the territories they would have taken in their own constitution here
I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, since searching for the truth isn't high on your list of priorities anyway.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
And although the Confederacy did not expand for obvious reason during the war, the land they were defending was also stolen from the native tribes, so they were every bit as guilty as the North would be.
You could read this https://www.amazon.com/38-Nooses-Lincoln-Beginning-Frontiers/dp/0307389138
I have better things to do than to invest time in works from writers who say what you want to hear, but I found this snippet interesting.
"In August 1862, after suffering decades of hardship, broken treaties, and relentless encroachment on their land, the Dakota leader Little Crow reluctantly agreed that his people must go to war. After six weeks of fighting, the uprising was smashed, thousands of Indians were taken prisoner by the US army, and 303 Dakotas were sentenced to death. President Lincoln, embroiled in the most devastating period of the Civil War, personally intervened to save the lives of 265 of the condemned men, but in the end, 38 Dakota men would be hanged in the largest government-sanctioned execution in U.S. history."
After decades. The Republican party only existed for four years, but which party was around for all of this?
or you could watch this https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1848q3
I could but for what? To hear what someone who says what you want to hear has to say about what Lincoln would have done if he hadn't been assassinated? Why not just tell me what point is being made before I invest an hour into watching this?
Not that I need to. The link I posted above destroys your narrative anyway.
And learn how to post links dude.:)
No he didn't....
Lincoln was assassinated before he could see it through, but not before he and the Republicans passed abolition and sent it to the states for ratification.
Boothe cleaned out his ears with a lead Q-tip first.
Another Confederate sympathizer who was triggered by the idea of blacks having the same rights as whites.
Because the original seceding states turned down nothing.
Nah. What's been exposed is your dishonest PC Revisionist dogma.
Rachel Dolezal is black, Rachel Levine is a woman, and the Democrats weren't the party of slavery. That's dishonest PC Revisionist dogma.
Pro tip. I'm never going to stop.
I know. Even after I gave you the last word twice you wouldn't stop. You leftists are going to try to tie your slaveholding past to the right for as long as you can.
You claimed there were none.
Nope. Here are my first two posts on that point.
I haven't changed from this.
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.
You substantiated less than 6,000. If we gave all of your numbers the benefit of the doubt you still didn't make it to 15,000.
Even with that number, that's a fraction of the slaves that escaped to join the Union's forces. OBTW, that's also a fraction of the whites who left the South to join the Union's forces.
Its a contemporaneous quote from one of the leaders involved at the time. He had no reason to lie about his motives...
He had every reason to lie. The Democrats knew how their views on slavery looked to the rest of the western world, as shown by their "offer" to abolish slavery in return for military aid. They knew they had to make it about something other than 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 Democrats saying lying about how it was not about preserving slavery.
FIFY.
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.
Thank you for admitting that slavery included breeding slaves to be worked or sold as animals. I know it's hard for you to admit that since it was the Democrats who did it, which makes your confession even more impressive.
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.
From you, "When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil War." This is clearly an attack on conservatives that has nothing to do with pinning slavery on the Democrats.
And calling the South the heart of the modern Conservative move is more divisive than anything. There are a lot of red areas in the North that are unfortunately decided by over populated cities and voter fraud. They might be on your side if secession happened again, but you just want to write them off.
But then again, as a leftist, your goal is to split Conservatives up, isn't it? Hammering a 160 year old wedge between us would do just that, wouldn't it?
They could have fled. They made no attempt to do so. Instead they just murdered a bunch of people including a bunch of kids.
I'm not sure where you get that. Nat Turner and his band tried to hide but were caught. Denmark Vesey's rebellion was found out and put own before it started.
Repeats snipped.
Different subject but I happen to think indiscriminately bombing entire cities is awful.
It is awful, but these nations were a threat to the world and had to be defeated. It was those nations, not the Allied bombers, that killed those children. In that respect it wasn't a different subject.
the real moral degenerates believe in collective guilt...
No one is promoting collective guilt. As I have said several times, the only thing tying the modern South with the Confederacy is by your choice.
and try to excuse deliberately murdering innocent children.
How many children died as a direct result of slavery, or lived their entire lives in slavery?
I know you'll reply with "but some Northern states had slavery too". Very true and I won't excuse them, but in the end they abolished slavery, while the Democrats running the South held on to them until forced to give them up, and the Democrats in the North tried to prevent abolition.
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.....
Except the Union was against abolition or something, according to you. You can't have it both ways.
Nothing in that was incriminating.
You mean this?
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.
Lincoln was not an abolitionist and made perfectly clear he did not start the war to abolish slavery.
FIFY.
Read up on the Union Leagues during the Occupation.
That was interesting reading, and I thank you for suggesting it.
I'm not sure what you hoped to get out of that, though. As I said, the KKK wasted no time attacking Republicans and blacks. They were unwilling to share political power and resorted to intimidation and violence to keep blacks from the polls.