Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
It was one of the Compromises made at the time. If you think it is pro slavery, why does it have a sunset written into it.
I assume they could have grown those same crops in the South, but for some reason they chose to grow Cotton, Tobacco, Hemp, Indigo, Sugar Cane, etc.
Could it be the profits were better for the crops they grew in the South?
As to the territories, I’d say Kansas, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado, Wyoming, and most areas outside the Desert SW are pretty good areas for crops and livestock as well.
Not for cotton. Not for the sort of crops slaves were used for. I think there was a substantial difference in value between the sort of crops that would grow in the areas you mentioned and what sort of crops they used slaves for.
Otherwise, why didn't they just grow corn and cabbages in the South? If the money is the same, why bother with a difficult plant like cotton?
After all, the first slaves sent across the ocean by the Spanish were worked to death in the gold and silver mines.
Yes they were, and for some reason nobody ever slams the Spanish as much as they did the US plantation farmers who didn't try to work any slaves to death. What the Spanish did was several levels of horrible above anything which ever happened in the US, but they seem to be ignored by all the people infatuated with slavery.
Could it be there is no money in criticizing the far worse Spanish?
But you are kinda ignoring my point. If slaves were good for mining, why didn't they use them?
If your confederates could have used slaves for that work they would have gladly worked them to death doing so.
Well firstly, they are not my confederates. I have no connection to confederates, or the South, for that matter. My Grandfather came from Denmark around 1900, and he married a girl from Indiana, if I remember correctly. He never settled in any Southern state. The whole Civil War thing was over before he arrived.
I've got no ancestor dog in this fight. I have no Southern relatives in this fight. I have no bias to look at the whole event. I just see what I see.
Secondly, I don't think anyone was working slaves to death. The cost of a slave in the 1860s was around $1,000.00 in 1860 dollars, which is about $100,000.00 nowadays.
Nobody was going to work them to death any more than they would work a horse to death. It was bad business to ruin them.
How is it that they came to be getting "free stuff"?
I wonder how much of the story you know?
So Republicans were strong in the areas where Democrats are now?
What was the 1860 Republican philosophy of Government compared to the Modern Democrat philosophy of government? Did they favor activist government, or Laissez faire government?
Odd that the blacks switched from voting straight Republican to voting straight Democrat. How did that happen?
Conclusion
The shift of African American voters from the Republican to the Democratic Party is a story of evolving political landscapes and changing priorities. Initially loyal to the Republicans due to their stance on civil rights post-Civil War, Black voters began to feel neglected as the party’s focus shifted. The New Deal in the 1930s and the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s were pivotal moments that drew African Americans towards the Democrats, who were seen as more supportive of their rights and interests. Over time, the Democratic Party’s commitment to civil rights and social justice solidified this allegiance. Today, while some shifts and criticisms exist, the historical journey of African American voters highlights the importance of addressing the needs and concerns of all communities in the political arena.
So you and I enter into a contract of our own free will. Then later on, I decide I am no longer bound by that contract. I can just walk away because I feel like it and to hell with you. Right? The contract really didn't mean anything. Right? And if you do anything to enforce it on me, you're a tyrant. Right?
Is that how it works?
Not bad, but it leaves out a lot of details.
Presumably you are claiming the contract doesn't allow leaving the contract?
Where is that written in the Contract?
Also, Contracts that violate the law, are null and void at their inception. The law doesn't allow illegal contracts.
Significantly more than you know. The Republicans of 1860 were primarialy an anti slavery party. Many of their leaders were former Whigs who favored “ internal improvements” meaning government support for roads, canals and general civil works to enhance commerce. That Diagenesi, no matter how you think you can spin it is not buying votes with free stuff.
Through the post civil war period the government grew but not like we have seen it in recent decades. They added the agriculture department, interior and commerce department, interstate trade commission.
The period of big growth happened under FDR and the Democrat congresses of the 1930s followed by the amazingly corrupt LBJ and the Democrat congresses of the 60s.
If you want to see exactly what the swamp looks like on paper, go here: https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/ReadLibraryItem.ashx?SFN=sRk63zIObEK7wIKeVf2d6rBVFEZvVdq+YUKmd1/139RBhBFhiCJgA9r4KGhhdxIn&SF=VHhnJrOeEAnGaa/rtk/JOg==
110 pages of mostly Democrat free stuff.
Significantly more than you know. The Republicans of 1860 were primarialy an anti slavery party. Many of their leaders were former Whigs who favored “ internal improvements” meaning government support for roads, canals and general civil works to enhance commerce. That Diagenesi, no matter how you think you can spin it is not buying votes with free stuff.
Through the post civil war period the government grew but not like we have seen it in recent decades. They added the agriculture department, interior and commerce department, interstate trade commission.
The period of big growth happened under FDR and the Democrat congresses of the 1930s followed by the amazingly corrupt LBJ and the Democrat congresses of the 60s.
If you want to see exactly what the swamp looks like on paper, go here: https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/ReadLibraryItem.ashx?SFN=sRk63zIObEK7wIKeVf2d6rBVFEZvVdq+YUKmd1/139RBhBFhiCJgA9r4KGhhdxIn&SF=VHhnJrOeEAnGaa/rtk/JOg==
110 pages of mostly Democrat free stuff.
Significantly more than you know. The Republicans of 1860 were primarialy an anti slavery party. Many of their leaders were former Whigs who favored “ internal improvements” meaning government support for roads, canals and general civil works to enhance commerce. That Diagenesi, no matter how you think you can spin it is not buying votes with free stuff.
Through the post civil war period the government grew but not like we have seen it in recent decades. They added the agriculture department, interior and commerce department, interstate trade commission.
The period of big growth happened under FDR and the Democrat congresses of the 1930s followed by the amazingly corrupt LBJ and the Democrat congresses of the 60s.
If you want to see exactly what the swamp looks like on paper, go here: https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/ReadLibraryItem.ashx?SFN=sRk63zIObEK7wIKeVf2d6rBVFEZvVdq+YUKmd1/139RBhBFhiCJgA9r4KGhhdxIn&SF=VHhnJrOeEAnGaa/rtk/JOg==
110 pages of mostly Democrat free stuff.
Where does it say you can just take you ball and go home. This is serious stuff, not some kids game.
Also, Contracts that violate the law, are null and void at their inception. The law doesn't allow illegal contracts.
So you’re saying the US Constitution violates the law and is null and void?
Man, you got to do some logic acrobatics to get there.
Not bad, but it leaves out a lot of details.
It did not have a date-certain sunset. Section 9 states importation “shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year” 1808.
There was no guarantee importation of slaves (from outside the United States) would ever end; although it did end at the earliest possible date because southerners joined with northerners to make it happen.
Southerners voted to include the possible 20 year phaseout figuring they would be able to import all the labor they needed in two decades and let natural population growth do the rest.
To the extent southerners were sharp businessmen they may have selfishly consulted in 1807 the law of supply and demand - control the supply and supply the demand.
The Constitutional provision allowing the possible end of slave importation (from outside the United States) in 1808 did not hinder obtaining slaves from other U.S. slave states.
The one provision in Section 9 that could be considered "anti-slavery" was the permissive tax up to $10 per person. However, the tax in proportion to the value of the slave was so slight it is hard to argue it was seriously intended to discourage the practice. In reality it was just a little more money into general revenue that benefited all the states.
I condemn slavery in the strongest possible terms.
All that spending of taxpayer's money warms the hearts of certain types of politicians. Hamilton started this stuff.
That Diagenesi, no matter how you think you can spin it is not buying votes with free stuff.
Not so fast. People vote their pocketbooks, and if you are on the receiving end of government spending, you will always vote to continue it. It's a positive feedback loop.
Through the post civil war period the government grew but not like we have seen it in recent decades.
But where was the seed planted? I say Hamilton, but Lincoln watered the hell out of the Government Growth tree.
The period of big growth happened under FDR and the Democrat congresses of the 1930s followed by the amazingly corrupt LBJ and the Democrat congresses of the 60s.
What party had the Roosevelts historically belonged to? Also, why was FDR different?
But you glossed over a very significant and important step between the 1950s and the 1970s. A lot happened in there, and most people don't understand what happened.
Can you give me more details on this period?
Where does it say that? It says that in the Declaration of Independence.
It says it quite clearly and quite plainly, and it cannot be misinterpreted.
Here is the thesis sentence of the Document.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
So you’re saying the US Constitution violates the law and is null and void?
Not the way I understand it, it doesn't. But the way you interpret it, yes it does. It violates "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
Firstly, let me say I admire the hell out of Malcom X. He was brilliant! Love his writing and his thinking.
Secondly, the website left out the details of who was pushing the Civil Rights act of 1964, and also who was pushing the 24th amendment and why.
These are important details, that make it a lot easier to understand what happened subsequently.
Wow. Both of you with the nonresponses.
LOL
Let’s take inventory. I create a long dissertation about abolitionism prior to 1800 and the Founders of the Republic. I ask you about separation between the Civil War and the Revolution.
You give me the Civil War and Trump. haha
The Civil War and Trump is not in relation to abolitionism as it relates to the abolitionist Founding Fathers.
Note: I did see what you did in this comment but I’m choosing to ignore it. For now.
"Because of the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution."
This is actually quite the stunning admission.
I'm beginning to believe you look at those principles like a salad bar. "I'll take these", "a lot of this", "but nope, I do not want any of that one"
Where is the word "all"? Not all of the principles? Why only some of them? Any why not all of the Founders, just the two written documents? What is wrong with the Founders, in your view?
Are the Articles of Confederation just a bunch of nonsense? So you don't need those?
Are the Articles of Association just a bunch of anti-British bigotry? Too connected with the separation?
and
"Let’s read what Frederick Douglass had to say:"
I just wanted to say, when you do take the time to go into the references I used (Kind of wish I had used more) you will find that several of them are books which I worked to transform into audio books.
I do this for efficiency purposes, among many other reasons.
And with respect to Douglass, I have read the speech - right into my microphone. Its one of my better recordings, but I think if someone really wanted to they could knock a homerun with it.
https://librivox.org/short-nonfiction-collection-vol-088-by-various/ - Entry number 1 in this list of recordings
And then I created the Wikipedia page. Very few modifications have been made from my original version.
We have dozens of audio books here https://freerepublic.com/tag/freeperbookclub/index?tab=articles
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.