The North's oppositon to Slavery in the Territories.....
In any case, do not confuse Why the North opposed slavery in the territories with the process of How that opposition was manifested.
If, one was opposed to slavery in the territories, for whatever reason, then restricting it in the territories was the logical, first step.
Federal control of slavery in the territories had always been the case, until Southern dominated administrations and Southern Supreme Court Justices, decided that the southern 'right' to own slaves extended, not only in the territories, but also the states.
The expansion of slave power was visible and obvious for All its opponents to see.
When you consider that the North *made money off of slavery (cotton mills, shipping, &etc), *voted for a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery (March 1861), *allowed "freed" slaves (that came under their charge during the war) to perish by tens of thousands due to neglect, *operated a legal slave trade ("coolies") during the war, and *did little to stop the illegal African slave trade operating out of their own ports...
...you come to the conclusion that their opposition...had little to do with morality.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
The North's opposition to Slavery in the Territories ......
The north opposed slavery in the Territories, because it was the first step in establishing an ongoing process for abolishing slavery.
Morality comes into the question only in so far as morality is ever present in a political process. In other words, it is as present in the process as any other reason.
The North's opposition to Slavery in the Territories.....
and why exactly, was the south so anxious to get the Kansas Territory into the Union as a slave state?
It was southern political ambitions that began the controversy of slavery in the territories in the first place.
Cash, ya'll have been sold a bill of goods, man. It ain't true. Neo-abolitionist modern day reconstructionists push this bull-hockey on US in order to perpetuate their lies and keep US from finding out the truth. They want US to think that the American Civil War was all about freeing the black man because it plays well to the sheeple. It sounds good. It makes Lincoln and his Blue Horde out to be heros. It's Bull-Hockey. They didn't care two hoots about the black man. They didn't care about the poor white trash they were killin' either. Slave Wages! Centralized Control in Washington. A Continental Empire based on Northern interests. That's what it was about Pard. That's what it is STILL about. Don't kid yourself, its STILL goin' on today.
Se Hablo Espaniole Amigo!
Sorry, OIJ, but you don't know what you're talking about when you say I've been sold a bill of goods. You're making a strawman argument against a position that I haven't taken.
The rest of your post is BS. It contains more of the same strawman argument against positions that haven't been taken, plus it contains false historical claims.
When you consider that the North *made money off of slavery (cotton mills, shipping, &etc), *voted for a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery (March 1861), *allowed "freed" slaves (that came under their charge during the war) to perish by tens of thousands due to neglect, *operated a legal slave trade ("coolies") during the war, and *did little to stop the illegal African slave trade operating out of their own ports...
...you come to the conclusion that their opposition...had little to do with morality.
I forgot a few-
*did not free the slaves under their control
*used slave labor throughout the war
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Sorry, OIJ, but you don't know what you're talking about when you say I've been sold a bill of goods. You're making a strawman argument against a position that I haven't taken.
I probably can't see things from your perspective Cash. I ain't stupid, but I ain't got that kind of view on things. Likewise, you probably can't see things from my perspective either. We're too different.
That don't mean we can't be friends but .......
Dang it Cash, I ain't the enemy. I ain't the bad guy you wanta make me out to be. I'm sick and tired of rollin' over. I'm pushed to my limit and I won't be run down no more.
You all twist and turn and lie on us all the time. Lie, cheat and steal. Deal drugs to our kids. Tax us into oblivioian. Borrow-Borrow-Borrow & Spend-Spend-Spend.
Stop it! Me and a whole bunch of folks like me are gonna stand up and say enough is enough someday.
You all may want to bury your heads in the sand, but I ain't gonna do it. I will not go quietly into the night. I will resist. I will rebel. I will fight. I will raise Hell.
*did not free the slaves under their control
*used slave labor throughout the war
Wrong as always. "The North" freed all the slaves under their control with the exception of 18 slaves in New Jersey who were left over from the state's gradual emancipation. The slave states that remained in the Union were southern states, not Northern states.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
sheeple 
, I like it, seriously no sarcasm, can't wait to use it)
Linear Mode
