I always enjoyed Southerner’s strong defense of State’s Rights when they were simultaneously demanding that Maine and Massachusetts be forced to return their runaway slaves.
It had everything to do about money, and nothing to do with about principle.
The North could not make money from slavery and was against it.
The South could make huge amounts of money from slavery and were for it.
End of discussion.
LOL! I guess we could call this the “End of the Discussion” if I was going to let such a moronic statement stand.
“I always enjoyed Southerner’s strong defense of State’s Rights when they were simultaneously demanding that Maine and Massachusetts be forced to return their runaway slaves.”
So, in your mind, if someone stole my horse or it ran away on its own and it ended up in Maine or Massachusetts, it no longer belonged to me simply because of “state’s rights”? As appalling as slavery is to us today, slaves were property. The horse example is no different from your slave example. The Constitution allowed for all citizens to own property.
Sorry to blow you out of your false comfort zone with facts and logic, but at least I’m saving you from looking stupid in the future.
Au contraire, the North made one hell of a lot of money in the slaving business. Whose bottoms do you think all those slaves came to the New World in? A lot of the ships came from Boston, Salem, Providence, and Fall River.
They had a constitutional right to their property.
The North could not make money from slavery and was against it.
ROTFLMAO!!! The damnyankees made huge fortunes on the slave trade and only turned against slavery when the slave trade was outlawed.
End of discussion.