I could see making only confederate states not hold slaves while allowing all the neutral states to keep them would be considered unconstitutional. Since it's clearly applied to a political rival and not speak equally through the states
States that were in rebellion, we're in rebellion and could be treated by the federal government differently. Slaves were freed in the rebelling states, as a war measure, to deprive rebels of their "property" as punishment for their rebellion. That's what they get for trying to claim that people were their property.
Yankees were doing the very same thing up until a few years before the war. The fact that the Emancipation Proclamation had so many "exceptions" proves that Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves and just wanted to punish people who dared defy him by trading with England without using Yankee trading companies. Slavery was going to be gone in the South by the 1880s anyway. It was not the real issue.
Doing the very same thing? What are you smoking? Slavery was outlawed in the northern states. They went even further, exercising their states' rights to protect inhabitants within their jurisdiction from being illegally kidnapped and trafficked to the slave states to be enslaved.
There were no "exceptions" in the EP. Some solid sophistry there. The EP only applied to areas in rebellion, because they were in rebellion. Don't want to be punished? Don't engage in unlawful rebellion against the legitimate federal government and Constitution.
Slavery was literally growing exponentially and reached a PEAK in 1860. Slavers spent decades doing everything they could to expand slave territory west, south, and even north (see Lincoln's House Divided speech and the conspiracy he described... that's the real meaning behind how he applied the house divided analogy). Why? Because they needed more fertile land. Why? Because they refused to implement crop rotation but instead damaged their land by only planting cash crops so they could get rich off other counties while trying to avoid export (and import) taxes. It was outsourcing to Europeans because the aristocratic, plantation owning Europhiles would do anything to keep their slaves, keep their luxurous lives, and keep their power (over poor white people too).
Slavery was THE political issue from which every other political issue spawned during the antebellum period in 19th Century America. It literally caused the creation of a new political party whose platform was to prevent the expansion of slavery. Hell, the issue even caused national church bodies to split along geographic lines.
Please step away from the Lost Cause propaganda. That koolaid is a cancer to republican conservatism... yoking yourself to the defenders of an evil institution will only make you look like an ignorant redneck and gives our real enemy ammo.
The Emancipation Proclamation excepted Norfolk, VA and New Orleans, among other places. I have found zero black people who have actually read the document. Also, Lincoln said he wanted to send all the black people back to Africa.
I suppose you're a Yankee. The export taxes were extra ones only placed on the South. That was the reason for leaving the union. And it was perfectly constitutional.
Typical of leftists to make up a name, Lost Cause, as leftists always resort to name calling.
I deal in facts and what is actually documented to have happened back then. My family was defending their little farms from Yankee invaders who tried to burn, pillage, and rape the entire South. We had no real interest in slavery, as most southerners never owned any slaves.
I know plenty when it comes to American and US history. I know many people are wrong on this. I know there are multiple sides to every story.
The confederate states' stated reason for leaving the union was to self-govern and protect their own interests, which is a reasonable and understandable desire. However, the underlying reason for their decision to secede was their desire to maintain and expand the practice of slavery, which is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
However, the underlying reason for their decision to secede was their desire to maintain and expand the practice of slavery, which is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
There we go, throw out the LIE, so that people think it's a Moral High Ground taken by the Aggressor....
Sounds exactly like something some Clown from ANTIFA would say, IF they were living back then....
the Truth is that Under States Rights, the STATE has the Responsibility to Allow or Make Unlawful certain things, Drugs, Murder, Property Damage, Rape, Slavery, Stealing, etc....
And the southern Slave owners had already seen that they were actually losing money because of the Ownership of Slaves, and because of the New Machines that were being invented, such as the Cotton gin, The Sewing Machine, the Vacuum Milker, so they were looking for ways to get rid of the Slaves, and move in the Machines in order to improve their Plantations and be prosperous....
Slavery was on the way OUT,and the Northern States knew it, so did the Rothschilds in Europe, so they got Busy planning and implementing the destruction of the Southern States....
Incorrect.
The 1856 Democratic Convention illustrates the deep division within the party over the issue of slavery. Both Northern and Southern Democrats supported slavery, but disagreed on how it should be addressed. The Northern Democrats favored allowing individual states to decide on the legality of slavery, while Southern Democrats believed it should be legal in all states. This division within the party, as well as the Northern Democrats' alignment with the 1956 convention, shows that the issue of slavery was not simply a geographical one, but rather a party-wide issue for Democrats. This demonstrates that the Democratic Party, as a whole, supported slavery, rather than it being solely a southern issue.
I could see making only confederate states not hold slaves while allowing all the neutral states to keep them would be considered unconstitutional. Since it's clearly applied to a political rival and not speak equally through the states
States that were in rebellion, we're in rebellion and could be treated by the federal government differently. Slaves were freed in the rebelling states, as a war measure, to deprive rebels of their "property" as punishment for their rebellion. That's what they get for trying to claim that people were their property.
Yankees were doing the very same thing up until a few years before the war. The fact that the Emancipation Proclamation had so many "exceptions" proves that Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves and just wanted to punish people who dared defy him by trading with England without using Yankee trading companies. Slavery was going to be gone in the South by the 1880s anyway. It was not the real issue.
Doing the very same thing? What are you smoking? Slavery was outlawed in the northern states. They went even further, exercising their states' rights to protect inhabitants within their jurisdiction from being illegally kidnapped and trafficked to the slave states to be enslaved.
There were no "exceptions" in the EP. Some solid sophistry there. The EP only applied to areas in rebellion, because they were in rebellion. Don't want to be punished? Don't engage in unlawful rebellion against the legitimate federal government and Constitution.
Slavery was literally growing exponentially and reached a PEAK in 1860. Slavers spent decades doing everything they could to expand slave territory west, south, and even north (see Lincoln's House Divided speech and the conspiracy he described... that's the real meaning behind how he applied the house divided analogy). Why? Because they needed more fertile land. Why? Because they refused to implement crop rotation but instead damaged their land by only planting cash crops so they could get rich off other counties while trying to avoid export (and import) taxes. It was outsourcing to Europeans because the aristocratic, plantation owning Europhiles would do anything to keep their slaves, keep their luxurous lives, and keep their power (over poor white people too).
Slavery was THE political issue from which every other political issue spawned during the antebellum period in 19th Century America. It literally caused the creation of a new political party whose platform was to prevent the expansion of slavery. Hell, the issue even caused national church bodies to split along geographic lines.
Please step away from the Lost Cause propaganda. That koolaid is a cancer to republican conservatism... yoking yourself to the defenders of an evil institution will only make you look like an ignorant redneck and gives our real enemy ammo.
The Emancipation Proclamation excepted Norfolk, VA and New Orleans, among other places. I have found zero black people who have actually read the document. Also, Lincoln said he wanted to send all the black people back to Africa.
I suppose you're a Yankee. The export taxes were extra ones only placed on the South. That was the reason for leaving the union. And it was perfectly constitutional.
Typical of leftists to make up a name, Lost Cause, as leftists always resort to name calling.
I deal in facts and what is actually documented to have happened back then. My family was defending their little farms from Yankee invaders who tried to burn, pillage, and rape the entire South. We had no real interest in slavery, as most southerners never owned any slaves.
Please read this::
The South was right, by S. A. Steel - Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/southwasrightbys00stee
I read that before
I know plenty when it comes to American and US history. I know many people are wrong on this. I know there are multiple sides to every story.
The confederate states' stated reason for leaving the union was to self-govern and protect their own interests, which is a reasonable and understandable desire. However, the underlying reason for their decision to secede was their desire to maintain and expand the practice of slavery, which is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
There we go, throw out the LIE, so that people think it's a Moral High Ground taken by the Aggressor....
Sounds exactly like something some Clown from ANTIFA would say, IF they were living back then....
the Truth is that Under States Rights, the STATE has the Responsibility to Allow or Make Unlawful certain things, Drugs, Murder, Property Damage, Rape, Slavery, Stealing, etc....
And the southern Slave owners had already seen that they were actually losing money because of the Ownership of Slaves, and because of the New Machines that were being invented, such as the Cotton gin, The Sewing Machine, the Vacuum Milker, so they were looking for ways to get rid of the Slaves, and move in the Machines in order to improve their Plantations and be prosperous....
Slavery was on the way OUT,and the Northern States knew it, so did the Rothschilds in Europe, so they got Busy planning and implementing the destruction of the Southern States....
Incorrect. The 1856 Democratic Convention illustrates the deep division within the party over the issue of slavery. Both Northern and Southern Democrats supported slavery, but disagreed on how it should be addressed. The Northern Democrats favored allowing individual states to decide on the legality of slavery, while Southern Democrats believed it should be legal in all states. This division within the party, as well as the Northern Democrats' alignment with the 1956 convention, shows that the issue of slavery was not simply a geographical one, but rather a party-wide issue for Democrats. This demonstrates that the Democratic Party, as a whole, supported slavery, rather than it being solely a southern issue.