[archy]

The difference is.

1. The Constitution did not recognize slavery, except by omission. The Southern States, and Connecticut did recognize human servitude, but that was not put in place by the Federal Government.

You are presumably unfamiliar with the text of the original Thirteenth Amendment passed but not yet ratified, and which has never been withdrawn. It remains valid, and could technically still be passed today, though I would expect the chances of that happening are pretty small. But there it is:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

This was passed in the 36th Congress.

-archy-/-

[donmeaker]

And your point? It didn't pass. Was that because it was intended to assure the south that their particular institution would not be touched, but not permitted to be extended to the Territories?

I think that slavery has to be seen in context of Cotton. Before the cotton gin, slavery was on its way out, partly because it made poor use of a scarce commodity: human brains. For a brief time, slavery was the path to a LOT of money via cotton, but supporting reasons were the cotton gin to remove seeds, and steam looms. As cultivation of Cotton moved to India and Egypt, the southern planters sought to reduce the costs of production yet further.

Slavery was doomed, thank goodness. The Union made, and makes sense. As a person born in OK, raised in NY, educated in MO, and AZ and working in CA, my freedom depends on Union. We Freepers need the Freepers from other states to prevent the loss of liberties to local despots.

[Publius6961]

You are presumably unfamiliar with the text of the original Thirteenth Amendment passed but not yet ratified,...

You are presumably (but demostrably) unfamiliar with the term straw man.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

The difference is.

1. The Constitution did not recognize slavery, except by omission. The Southern States, and Connecticut did recognize human servitude, but that was not put in place by the Federal Government.

You are presumably unfamiliar with the text of the original Thirteenth Amendment passed but not yet ratified, and which has never been withdrawn. It remains valid, and could technically still be passed today, though I would expect the chances of that happening are pretty small. But there it is:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

This was passed in the 36th Congress.

Whoa! You're displaying a disdain for logic sufficient to qualify as 'Rat operative. An unratified proposed amendment to the Constitution is not a Constitutional Amendment. And any proposal that has been accumulating dust for a century and a half is anything but valid. I believe your lame argument merely substantiates the gentleman's point. Your ancestors lost their war of dishonor, reb--deal with it.