Replies

The more enlightened members of the nation in the North refused to go along and pretend slavery was o.k. Such men as Benjamin Franklin who, in 1790, presented Congress with a proposal to get rid of it. By 1777 Vermont abolished slavery, 1780 Pennsylvania, 1783 Mass. and New Hampshire, 1784 Rhode Island,1827 New York, 1804 gradual emancipation in New Jersey,1808 Slave trade banned by Congress (over the objections of the tools of the Slaveocracy), 1820 Missouri Compromise banned slavery north of Missouri's southern boundry. As early as 1785 Alexander Hamilton and others had founded manumission societies.

All this activity was carried out in the face of terrorist activity against abolitionists by the thugs and criminals of the Slaveocracy which, through murder, arson, beatings, mail robbery, had prevented their message from being heard in the Slaveocracy.

So spare us the lame lies that the "nation" supported the Slaveocracy when you know very well that action on a broader scale was prevented by the Slaveocrat agents within the Congress and the Virginia Junto's takeover of the White House.

The more enlightened members of the nation in the North

Would that be the same enlightened members that went on to prosecute those that would teach blacks to read and write such as Connecticut in 1836? Or force them to pay a fee to live in their state such as lincoln's home state in 1853? Or completely forbid them from living in their state such as Oregon's constitution in 1859? Ohio? Vermont? New Hampshire? All of these had 'black laws' in one form or another years before lincoln went forth to 'save the nation' as you say. And that would be the same lincoln that recommended shipping all the 'slaves and as many free blacks as can be convinced to go' straight to Liberia.

Oh, yes, lincoln was a just right paragon of virtue. More like a deluded idiot that could be kept quiet as the northern manufacturers waged war on the South

"...Slaveocracy..."

Your insistence on calling the South a "slaveocracy" is puzzling. You are obviously one of those Yankees who believe that the ownership of slaves is best left to those in government. You seem to have a problem with the private ownership of slaves, something clearly supported in the U.S. Constitution at the time, but have no problem with the government making slaves of its citizens. This new "slaveocracy" came about in 1865 with the Union victory.

You might also be interested in seeing what the Confederate Constitution had to say about slavery...

Article I, Section IX
1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

The U.S. Constitution was never that explicit on the issue of slavery until the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

"The more enlightened members of the nation in the North refused to go along and pretend slavery was o.k."

Are you including among those "enlightened" states those that maintained slavery throughout the duration of the war? The slaveholding states that remained in the Union were Missouri, Deleware, Kentucky, and Maryland. Were they part of the "Slaveocracy"?

First.... the South,
then.... the rest of the United States,
now.... the world.

The tyrants drive humanity further and further down and you bleatingly chimp at us to:

Just shut up and take it.

No thanks, you may be genetically predisposed to that; --probably bending over, but for the sons and daughters of Scottus NEVER!

Well with all the libraries being under the control of one gov't or the other it would seem that most real Americans would be concerned if any one side of a debate or opposing philosophy were shut out. Judging from your little rant it seems to be okay with you. So you're what ... a specialist in social propaganda?