Do you think the slaves were owed reparations?

Source that bs. It explicitly says those held to labor or service. Your assertion is ridiculous. In fact that goes even further than slavery and allows indentured servitude as well.

 

Most southerners didn't, because most southerns didn't have enough money to own slaves, but the wealthy plantation owners who ran the government, and made the decision to secede DID go to war to protect slavery. They made this very clear. EVERY confederate state named protection of the institution of slavery as a primary reason for secession in their Articles of Secession.

 

Wow!

You are clearly not interested in facts! That quote is not my opinion nor is it an assertion, it's simply a cut and paste out of Wikipedia.. You have a problem with the way history is written then you make an effort to have these sources contrary to your recollection of that time period and wording of the amendment changed

Pay close attention the

assent

Sooooo, "IF" those states apposed to the Norths existing laws concerning slavery they would have "HAD" to abide by those laws, according to the way lawmakers were wording the amendment!
The south, "Some" wanted slaves to be addresses exclusively as property and not as "all other persons"! The original framers of the amendment would not explicitly use or categorize the southern black plantation workers as slave! And many of the southern states would and didn't fall for the vague language..

 

Patently false. The primary cause in EVERY declaration of secession was the violation of the constitution by the union states and their proxy the federal government. To provide EVIDENCE of this claim they then sourced slavery.

But as I already pointed out, slavery was an easy issue to address. All they had to do was sign the Corwin Amendment and slavery becomes an inalienable constitutional right.

What was not easily addressed was the north’s wonton violation of the constitution, of which they were in breach of contract.

 

Always love how the left pretend that the North did not want slavery and that they really really loved them some negroes up there.

Sigh....

The left

 

That’s why the Corwin Amendment didn’t legalize slavery in the states which banned slavery. It only made it constitutional to those whose states allowed it. Hence the wording.

 

They went to war because Abe the Outlaw president attacked the south. But for his attacks, there was no war.

 

WOW! You are letting your silly ego paint you in a very dim light I believe you to be incapable of understanding the complexity of the time or the wordage of the amendment.

 

It's easy for you because you haven't a clue what it says or means LOLOL

 

That is patently false.

 

Abe the outlaw mounted his invasion in the north side of VA. Check out his first invasion, at a tiny creek called Bull Run which is close to Manassas VA. I have been there and saw it myself.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run

 

This troubles me but I know it was taught to him in school. But history corrects him and approves my comments that Abe invaded VA.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run

 

April 12 comes before July 17, genius. The traitorous 'confederate' dogs fired the first shot and started their immoral, doomed rebellion.

 

The South did not invade Washington nor Maryland first. The South was invaded.
Will you please operate as you might in a normal classroom. Try not to abuse other posters.

Heated language against either side is not helpful.

I call Abe the outlaw for the simple reason it is proven he violated a good many laws.

 

Moving about within your own country is not "invasion." The so-called confederates, worthless dogs that they were - and their apologist today still are, fired the first shots of the war. The whole bloody mess is on their heads alone. Stupid shits should have realized their eventual defeat was inevitable before they started the war.

 

I call the so-called 'confederate' scum worthless dogs because that is what they - and their apologists today - are. For the sake of an evil institution, they caused the deaths of many good men and women on both sides in a quixotic venture that was doomed from the start. Those pieces of **** are rotting in hell where they belong.

 

Bouncing cannon shot off walls is not called starting a war. It would be called damage to Federal property though.

This is the problem with this topic, attracts leftists flame throwers like they sip gasoline.

And even today, try having Federal Troops bring in arms and mount an attack on some city or rural area and see if you think it is not an invasion.

Say Trump had been the president at the time and pulled that stunt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well, I sure picked up the flame thrower crowd on this issue.

 

That's exactly what it's called.

 

Well, you let me know if one of them comes along.

 

I assume this poll relates to the post Civil War era and, yes, it seems pretty straightforward to pay someone for their labor.

The only question is who would have paid the slaves for the work they did because the South was broke at the time and people in the North would have resented paying for labor on Southern land.
Since recently freed slaves were not likely to have been skilled in money management, a cash payout would have been foolish.

 

Even today, try having some evil scumbags try to steal a large part of my country and see how quickly they are turned to hamburger.

 

When I was your age, I might have then agreed with you. Fortunately for me, my learning did not stop at the hateful boundary you set for yourself, but at the actual boundary of history.

 

I have informed you that you are flamethrowing.

 

I am not one bit interested in a discussion with posters who toss bombs. While you may not approve that had Abe never invaded, the lives saved would be around 630,000, I advocate for those.

As to blacks, while slavery is definitely a lousy thing to do to humans, the times then called for slavery.

But if I was wrong, we never would have had 12 presidents among many politicians who owned slaves.

If one notices, the left to prop up George Washington seldom mentions his slaves yet he had over 300 of them. Hardly a man that rejected slavery at all. But Democrats history focuses on his war against England then lauds him for freeing his own slaves. This myth he freed his slaves lives on but he did not free any of them. Dead men do not free anybody.

One thing we all can appreciate are the ladies who in the 1858 purchased the Washington estate to preserve it for history.

https://www.mountvernon.org/preservation/mount-vernon-ladies-association/