Posted on 06/23/2020 6:41:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
From its inception, humane history is replete with glory, great achievements, and courageous acts of mass decency. It is also full of deceit, crime, mass murder, racism, cruelty, greed, and error. And LOTS of Willful Ignorance. The BLM cult members need to take off the blinders.
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
That’s Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Confederate constitution.
.
.
.
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping 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 service or labor may be due."
Article IV, section 2 of the United States Constitution.
Less explicit, but essentially says the same thing.
Or do you believe that someone can be just a little bit pregnant?
Thanks for posting. “Left’s Corrupt View”???
Anti-American socialists, marxists, mohammedans, collectivists, globalists, criminals, propagandists information domination.
And Maoists. In other words, anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collectives and collectivists.
Civilization
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
Ayn Rand
No, I get it. I said the reason the Civil War erupted. It wasn’t Slavery, it was the Succession movement. Slavery was only part of the equation.
Remember, Lincoln wanted the Blacks sent back to Africa after the War.
The North benefitted financially from the Agriculture Economy of the South, which means they benefitted from the Slave Labor used in the South.
The issue of Slavery was not the reason the Civil War started. It evolved as the reason in our History Books, but it was not the spark.
That doesn’t uphold the notion that the Civil War was not about the institution of slavery and the abolition thereof, or not “sparked” thereby. The confederate constitution making it “more explicit” (in a number of other clauses beside the one I cited) highlights this matter, as does the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. The notion of a “fugitive slave clause” was absent from the Articles of Confederation to boot.
What was the secession movement about?
Well we know the civil war was not about slavery for a couple of reasons.
1. Slavery would have continued unabated and indefinitely if the Southern states had remained in the Union.
2. Abraham Lincoln supported the Corwin amendment which would have greatly strengthened the protection for slavery in the United States.
With both sides agreeing on slavery, it can hardly be claimed to be the cause of the war.
The confederate constitution making it “more explicit” (in a number of other clauses beside the one I cited) highlights this matter,
Again, the USA recognized legal slavery. So you are telling me the CSA really, really, really, recognized legal slavery?
Again, isn't this like being a "little bit pregnant" as opposed to being really really pregnant?
You either had legal slavery or you didn't. There were no graduations of it. It was "yes" or "no."
The notion of a “fugitive slave clause” was absent from the Articles of Confederation to boot.
So was the bill of rights and a lot of other subsequent necessities.
I will also point out that in 1776, every single state had legal slavery. Why would they need to write anything protecting it when everyone was already in agreement on all the essential points, such as "fugitive slaves"?
More than most people understand. Imports have to be paid for by exports, and the South produced 73% of the total export value for the United States.
All the taxes came from tariffs on imports, which essentially meant they were paid for by exports produced mainly from the South.
The North was hardly getting taxed at all. With 5 times the South's population, it was paying a little over 1/4th of the tax burden the South was paying.
Money.
The Southern states would be better off financially with low tariffs that enabled their foreign customers to buy more of their goods. They would also be better off paying lower prices for the manufactured goods they did not produce.
There were other reasons such as them not liking centralized power and never having liked New England and feeling as though they were being taken advantage of, but the real issue at the heart of it all was money. They’d keep more if they were independent.
The reverse was true for the Northern states.
this is a brilliant observation
Apparently you believe the Succession Movement was ONLY about Slavery, it was not.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. A primary reason is not the “only reason” by definition.
My apologies. It is what I derived from your previous Posts.
Me bad...
No trouble.
Certainly no lib would acknowledge the other reasons.
.
Academic Leftists have ALWAYS avoided the Truth about what MASS MURDER their ideology has always brought. Propaganda by Omission
Let THAT be the Watchword.
Suffer Not The Commie In Your House - He is Poison ....
.
.
AMERICA NEEDS TO VOMIT OUT THIS LEFTIST POISON
AND SHALL.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.