Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look Yankee "Nutter" it was legal under YOUR U.S. COznstitution from 1789 until 1865. Absent a law or Constitutional prohibition, then it was legal, and you cannot cite either. Look you opened yourself up to be exposed as a Yankee hypocrite, now deal with that which you are.Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.Those words aren't in the Constitution.No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves. An Amendment was needed for that.
And he signed that Amendment. Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
After 1865, it became unconstitutional.
Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong. All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.Those words aren't in the Constitution.No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves. An Amendment was needed for that.
And he signed that Amendment. Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
After 1865, it became unconstitutional.
No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong. All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.Those words aren't in the Constitution.No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves. An Amendment was needed for that.
And he signed that Amendment. Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
After 1865, it became unconstitutional.
Making it Constitutional.
Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
As I said earlier...Isn't that what, I call the missing 13th and you call the Corwin, amendment did as well?Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.
Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.
Numerous times.
That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.
One remarkable thing the CSA did was also not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.
Not so the the CSA.
When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.
They founded their nation on being a perpetual slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was required to be a slave state..
How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… 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.”
Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.
And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)
Ravi. You're wrong.No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong. All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.Those words aren't in the Constitution.
Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves. An Amendment was needed for that.
And he signed that Amendment. Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
After 1865, it became unconstitutional.
Making it Constitutional.
Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
The Civil War was obviously about slavery. Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
a.) a bit
b.) everything
Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left. The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to the total stock of wealth in the South, other than it would have grown slower. It's no different than if your income taxes were raised. Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less. It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income. Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the stock of wealth in the South.
Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth. IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves. In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected. Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people were ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves. These people had enormous motivation to fight. And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters. None of them support slavery as an institution today. They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms. Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people. People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.
Quick question peachy: After 1787 to the Civil War - how many new states entered the union "slave free" states?The answer was *wrong.*The Northwest Ordinance
American History USA
The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
ha ha. I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!
Amirite?
Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.
You're way out of your league here.
You are the one who asked.
It's your problem if you did not like the answer
You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
Which makes people
Was it not introduced to congress and passed?
The Northwest Ordinance: Our First National Bill of Rights.
ERIC - The Northwest Ordinance Our First National Bill of Rights. 1986-May
Think on it. Real hard.
I take it that's a yes. The missing 13th and the Corwin amendment attempted the same thing (or is one and the same).As I said earlier...Isn't that what, I call the missing 13th and you call the Corwin, amendment did as well?Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.
Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.
Numerous times.
That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.
One remarkable thing the CSA did was also not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.
Not so the the CSA.
When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.
They founded their nation on being a perpetual slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was required to be a slave state..
How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… 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.”
Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.
And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)
All said and done, the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival.
Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage in Congress (admit you were wrong whne you said he Signed it) -- it was passed by the senate in March 1861, most states had already seceded by then. It was a futility, and most all saw it as such.
At that point anyway - the south had already commenced hostilities and committing Acts of War before Lincoln stepped into office. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.
The Southrons made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.
It was the lifeblood (literally) of their economy, and they knew it.
As a Southern Confederate, what I find even more fascinating is how the indoctrination affects the Yankee mind creating a pious attitude of moral superiority. Lets examine this pious Yankees post.....The Civil War was obviously about slavery. Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
a.) a bit
b.) everything
Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left. The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to the total stock of wealth in the South, other than it would have grown slower. It's no different than if your income taxes were raised. Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less. It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income. Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the stock of wealth in the South.
Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth. IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves. In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected. Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people were ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves. These people had enormous motivation to fight. And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters. None of them support slavery as an institution today. They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms. Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people. People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.
what is more fascinating is how the Yankee indoctrination leads him to point to others rather than looking at hisself and his own past, such as the wealth obtained through the slave trade, and those slave ships, and the wealth from the land taken from the Native American Indian, and to obtain that wealth, extermination of them was justified in their minds. It is indeed fascinating to witness the Yankee hypocrisy and attempts to project the Southern Confederate as evil in order to console themselves.The Civil War was obviously about slavery. Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
a.) a bit
b.) everything
Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left. The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to the total stock of wealth in the South, other than it would have grown slower. It's no different than if your income taxes were raised. Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less. It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income. Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the stock of wealth in the South.
Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth. IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves. In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected. Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people were ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves. These people had enormous motivation to fight. And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters. None of them support slavery as an institution today. They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms. Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people. People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.
Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.The north did not attack the south over slavery. The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery. The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery. The fight was over land and control, not slavery. Slavery was the excuse given.Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant? The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
The Corwin amendment is on the table in perpetuity. Its pretty much a disgrace just like the confederate flag.I take it that's a yes. The missing 13th and the Corwin amendment attempted the same thing (or is one and the same).As I said earlier...Isn't that what, I call the missing 13th and you call the Corwin, amendment did as well?Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.
Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.
Numerous times.
That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.
One remarkable thing the CSA did was also not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.
Not so the the CSA.
When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.
They founded their nation on being a perpetual slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was required to be a slave state..
How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… 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.”
Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.
And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)
All said and done, the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival.
Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage in Congress (admit you were wrong whne you said he Signed it) -- it was passed by the senate in March 1861, most states had already seceded by then. It was a futility, and most all saw it as such.
At that point anyway - the south had already commenced hostilities and committing Acts of War before Lincoln stepped into office. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.
The Southrons made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.
It was the lifeblood (literally) of their economy, and they knew it.
If you think I'm wrong about Lincoln signing it, fine. I only know what I read. I was asked for a link and provided one.
lol. Thanks Ms. Google.Quick question peachy: After 1787 to the Civil War - how many new states entered the union "slave free" states?The answer was *wrong.*ha ha. I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!
Amirite?
Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.
You're way out of your league here.
You are the one who asked.
It's your problem if you did not like the answer
You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
Which makes people
Was it not introduced to congress and passed?
The Northwest Ordinance: Our First National Bill of Rights.
ERIC - The Northwest Ordinance Our First National Bill of Rights. 1986-May
Think on it. Real hard.
There was
19 salve free states, 10 were new and slave free.
15 slave states.
At the start of the Civil War, there were 34 states in the United States, 15 of which were slave states. 11 of these slave states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy.
Ravi. You're wrong.No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong. All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.
Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
After 1865, it became unconstitutional.
Making it Constitutional.
Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Ravi. You're wrong.No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong. All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
After 1865, it became unconstitutional.
Making it Constitutional.
Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
You are the one who is wrong.
The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
It left it up to the individual States.
Ravi. You're wrong.No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong. All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
After 1865, it became unconstitutional.
Making it Constitutional.
Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
You are the one who is wrong.
The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
It left it up to the individual States.
As a Southern Confederate, what I find even more fascinating is how the indoctrination affects the Yankee mind creating a pious attitude of moral superiority. Lets examine this pious Yankees post.....The Civil War was obviously about slavery. Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
a.) a bit
b.) everything
Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left. The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to the total stock of wealth in the South, other than it would have grown slower. It's no different than if your income taxes were raised. Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less. It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income. Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the stock of wealth in the South.
Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth. IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves. In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected. Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people were ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves. These people had enormous motivation to fight. And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters. None of them support slavery as an institution today. They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms. Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people. People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.
This Yankee mentions wealth of the Southerner and its connection to Slavery, yet omits the wealth obtained by the Yankee in the Slave trade, the wealth obtained from the very foundation of America through the land taken
what is more fascinating is how the Yankee indoctrination leads him to point to others rather than looking at hisself and his own past, such as the wealth obtained through the slave trade, and those slave ships, and the wealth from the land taken from the Native American Indian, and to obtain that wealth, extermination of them was justified in their minds. It is indeed fascinating to witness the Yankee hypocrisy and attempts to project the Southern Confederate as evil in order to console themselves.The Civil War was obviously about slavery. Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
a.) a bit
b.) everything
Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left. The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to the total stock of wealth in the South, other than it would have grown slower. It's no different than if your income taxes were raised. Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less. It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income. Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the stock of wealth in the South.
Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth. IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves. In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected. Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people were ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves. These people had enormous motivation to fight. And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters. None of them support slavery as an institution today. They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms. Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people. People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.
Ravi. You're wrong.No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong. All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
Making it Constitutional.
Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
You are the one who is wrong.
The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
It left it up to the individual States.
No. You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
Now you yourself listed the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds] passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
No, it is not.
Again, we:
That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.Ravi. You're wrong.No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong. All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.
Making it Constitutional.
Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
You are the one who is wrong.
The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
It left it up to the individual States.
No. You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
Now you yourself listed the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds] passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
No, it is not.
Again, we:
Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.Ravi. You're wrong.No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
You are the one who is wrong.
The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
It left it up to the individual States.
No. You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
Now you yourself listed the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds] passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
No, it is not.
Again, we:
Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
