Replies

The Constitution , as first drafted in 1781 said nothing on the subject of slavery t the national level, leaving it to the individual states.

You Rebs enshrined it in The Confederate Constitution
Lincoln wanted to end slavery , and he did.

His utmost imperative was to preserve the Union. Your side LOST Reb and you just can't admit that.

“The Constitution , as first drafted in 1781 said nothing on the subject of slavery t the national level, leaving it to the individual states.”

That is an interesting comment.

May we see your data on that?

The Constitution , as first drafted in 1781 said nothing on the subject of slavery t the national level, leaving it to the individual states.

Three things wrong here. The Constitution was drafted in 1787, not 1781, and secondly the Constitution prohibits congress from passing a law to abolish the slave trade until 1808.

If the constitution specifically bars congress from passing a law to stop the slave trade until 1808, it demonstrates that slavery was inherently legal on the national level.

Thirdly, Article IV, Section 2 is the "fugitive slave clause" of the US Constitution. It specifies that slaves must be returned to their masters.

So yeah, the US Constitution has slavery incorporated right into it, though they go to great lengths in avoiding the usage of the word "slave."

“The Constitution , as first drafted in 1781 said nothing on the subject of slavery t the national level, leaving it to the individual states.”(sic)

Somewhat surprised to see you invoking the first confederacy - the aspirational perpetual union that failed when states began leaving without unanimous consent and without sanction. Set that aside for a moment.

Your claim that it was left entirely to the states to determine what to do with slaves within a state is not supported by the national policy enunciated in the Articles of Confederation.

Article IV contains this: “provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant . . .”

At the time this was adopted northern states considered slaves to be property - and the southern states did too I suppose.

In short, the AOC was an interstate agreement that provided specific protection to prevent slave owners from losing their property.

I'm not sure why you are dragging the Articles of Confederation into this unless you are laying the groundwork for a defense of Dred Scott decision.

The Articles of Confederation certainly does nothing to support your contention that Lincoln was correct when he took up arms to levy war against the states for the purpose of “freeing the slaves.”