DiogenesLamp: "Why? No one will like a truthful answer to this question."
The moral roots of abolitionism are the Bible and Northern churches.
The economic roots of abolitionism came from free-men not wanting to compete against "free" slave labor.
The political roots of abolitionism came from Northern politicians not wishing to grant Southern slavocrats more unbalanced political power than they already enjoyed, via the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
Those seem perfectly reasonable to me, so your problem with them is what, exactly?
DiogenesLamp: "But he did. No due process and continued confiscation after the war. Also the intimidation of states to force them to vote for an amendment they did not want."
First, Congress defines "due process" and second, there was no intimidation -- none, zero, nada intimidation -- of lawful voting Southern US citizens after the Civil War.
Of course, that category did not include those who had declared themselves to be non-citizens!
Yeah, but it wasn't the "moral roots" that were driving northern opposition to slavery. It was hatred and fear.
They hated blacks, and they feared they would take away their jobs.
The economic roots of abolitionism came from free-men not wanting to compete against "free" slave labor.
Exactly right, and it was by far the more significant factor in the 1850s-1860s.
The political roots of abolitionism came from Northern politicians not wishing to grant Southern slavocrats more unbalanced political power than they already enjoyed, via the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
This is mostly correct. Every state had two senators, and to this day I resent that Rhode Island has two. There are a lot of itty bitty states in the Northeast that ought to be combined to make a single state. They have more power than they deserve.
Those seem perfectly reasonable to me, so your problem with them is what, exactly?
My problem is that all our lives we have been led to believe that opposition to slavery was only for moral reasons and this has always been a deliberate attempt to misinform the public. I myself didn't realize it was incorrect until a few years ago when I learned the reality in the North was very different from what we had been taught.
The hated black people. They hated the idea of black people living among them. They also hated the idea that black people might take a job away from them.
They weren't moral at all. They were just as nasty and vicious as we have all been led to believe the Southerners were.
My problem is people trying to feed me bullsh*t. Usually when someone is covering up the truth, it's not because they have your best interest at heart.
First, Congress defines "due process"...
The term precedes the congress. Congress can't reach back in time and change the meanings of things already written.
Fifth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
.
.
.
and second, there was no intimidation --
They spent 4 years fighting a war to keep slavery, but just gave it up because they realized the error of their ways? You gonna go with that?
none, zero, nada intimidation -- of lawful voting Southern US citizens after the Civil War.
The assertion that the citizens of the state were "unlawful" citizens is asinine. At this time, the States defined who were their citizens, not the Federal government.
The Federal government appropriating this power is tyranny, and it is unlawful.
But if you believe in depriving people of their rights is correct and proper, then I don't see where we can reach an agreement on this topic.
I will point out that I made mention of the same issue on "Instapundit", and Law Professor Glenn Reynolds responded to my comment saying that Law school Academics find the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments "problematic" because there was no authority to strip citizens of the right to vote.
Here you go Bro! Wisconsin Supreme Court can explain it to you!
“If elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful, and their results are illegitimate.” — Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, writing for the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission