That's one reason why. Not everyone in the South supported slavery, and wouldn't have been on board for going to war to defend it.
It was the same thing in the North where not everyone supported abolition - there, I've admitted it again - and President Lincoln had to talk from both sides of his mouth.
What are you driving at here?
I was clear. If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
They plainly did violate the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. What would I have done had I lived in the mid 19th century? I have no way of knowing that.
That's fair enough, but with your worldview now, would you have returned the slaves to their "owners"?
This should make you appreciate what the abolitionists in the South had to deal with, those whom you say violated the Constitution on returning slaves.
Yes, they had good guys in the South who took great risks to free slaves. I admit that too. Why you'd choose to associate with the confederates over them is beyond me.
Yes, they were against THE SPREAD of slavery to new territories.
prohibiting its existence or extension therein
Do I need to post all the quotes from Lincoln about this? He said it many times. Publicly. So did just about every other Republican who was around then.
I've already answered that with Frederick Douglas's oration here, but if you feel the need to waste more bandwidth at FR, then go ahead.
Correct! Which is why they did not go to war to defend slavery - which....I'll type this slowly....W.A.S. N.O.T. T.H.R.E.A.T.E.N.E.D. What was threatened was ever higher tariffs which would suck even more money out of Southerner's pockets in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods and lower sales of their cash crops abroad.
It was the same thing in the North where not everyone supported abolition - there, I've admitted it again - and President Lincoln had to talk from both sides of his mouth.
There is no reason to believe Lincoln didn't believe exactly what he said when he said over and over again he was not an abolitionist, had no desire to threaten slavery and did not have the power to do so anyway.
I was clear. If you don't believe it was about slavery, then post an affirmation that you agree with every point made in these declarations.
For the last time. You need to be clear about what it is specifically you want me to affirm. I have already made it very clear I think the Northern states did violate the compact. If you want some kind of nebulous blanket endorsement of everything, I'm not going to give that. I'm done playing these games with you.
That's fair enough, but with your worldview now, would you have returned the slaves to their "owners"?
Well of course not but I was born in the late 20th century at a time when every country in the Western world - even all of Asia too - had outlawed slavery. I was taught from birth that it was contrary to human rights etc etc etc. The world was a different place in the mid 19th century. People's views were very different then.
This should make you appreciate what the abolitionists in the South had to deal with, those whom you say violated the Constitution on returning slaves.
No, I said the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. They had. There's no question about it. You may agree with what they did morally with your 21st century views. That's fine. But it is not consistent with the Constitution.
Yes, they had good guys in the South who took great risks to free slaves. I admit that too. Why you'd choose to associate with the confederates over them is beyond me.
Confederate does not equal "pro slavery". These are two different things.
prohibiting its existence or extension therein
ie "the territories"
I've already answered that with Frederick Douglas's oration here, but if you feel the need to waste more bandwidth at FR, then go ahead.
I haven't wasted one tiny bit of bandwidth. I've refuted PC Revisionist falsehoods. Its important that we not allow political dogma to distort history.