Why did the southern states think the U.S. could legally end slavery?

12,322 Views | 230 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by BBRex
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:05p, 2/10/26
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
waitwhat?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:10p, 2/10/26
Missed the "House" part and thought you meant ratification
" 'People that read with pictures think that it's simply about a mask' - Dana Loesch" - Ban Cow Gas

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul

Big Tech IS the empire of lies

TEXIT
Reply Quote
1 edit
Maroon Dawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:23p, 2/10/26
AG
I think that people forget this important point:

Lincoln was the first president ever elected without a single electoral vote from the South.

For the South, that was all the evidence they needed that the North was now fully in control of US politics going forward and was going to force abolition on them sooner or later and likely sooner than later.

Reply Quote
35
1 edit
Fireman
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:28p, 2/10/26
AG
The Union army fired the first shots to initiate the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas) on July 21, 1861. Union artillerist Peter Conover Hains fired a 30-pounder Parrott rifle toward the Confederate lines near the Stone Bridge around 5:30 a.m. to begin the engagement, acting on orders to initiate the battle.

Maybe because they were under attack.
Reply Quote
23
pinche gringo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 6:05p, 2/10/26
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?


Maybe because it really wasn't all about slavery…
Reply Quote
99
HoustonAggie11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Maroon Dawn • 6:07p, 2/10/26
Maroon Dawn said:
I think that people forget this important point:

Lincoln was the first president ever elected without a single electoral vote from the South.

For the South, that was all the evidence they needed that the North was now fully in control of US politics going forward and was going to force abolition on them sooner or later and likely sooner than later.


He also suspended parts of the constitution he didn't like, great president.
Reply Quote
26
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoustonAggie11 • 6:20p, 2/10/26
AG
It's why most scholars rank Trump above Lincoln and closer to George (Washington).
Reply Quote
15
APHIS AG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 6:41p, 2/10/26
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?

For the same reason that West Virginia was "added" as a State in 1863.
Reply Quote
13
BonfireNerd04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:05p, 2/10/26
Because the South saw Republican opposition to the expansion of slavery as a long-term threat.

In 1860, there were 18 free states and 15 slave states. The free states had a majority, but not the 2/3 majority needed to approve a constitutional amendment for ratification.

But look at the West. At the time, it consisted of merely three states (Texas, California, and Oregon), 5 organized territories, and 2 unorganized territories. It was clear that the national population was increasing, more people were settling in the west, and so all of that land would eventually become states. The only question was how many, and when.

If no new slave states were omitted after 1860, but 15 new free states were admitted, then the balance of power changes to 33 free states versus 15 slave states. That's would be a 2/3 Senate majority for free states. And only 3 slave states (probably out of the border states of MO, KY, MD, and DE) would need to flip sides in order to enact a constitutional ban on slavery.

The South saw the writing on the wall. Unless they could turn a few of the Western territories into slave states, they would ultimately become hopelessly outnumbered in the Senate (as they already were in the House). Maybe not in the 1860's, but definitely by the 1910's.
Reply Quote
8
4
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pinche gringo • 7:20p, 2/10/26
AG
pinche gringo said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?


Maybe because it really wasn't all about slavery…
Reply Quote
14
4
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoustonAggie11 • 7:23p, 2/10/26
AG
HoustonAggie11 said:
Maroon Dawn said:
I think that people forget this important point:

Lincoln was the first president ever elected without a single electoral vote from the South.

For the South, that was all the evidence they needed that the North was now fully in control of US politics going forward and was going to force abolition on them sooner or later and likely sooner than later.


He also suspended parts of the constitution he didn't like, great president.

Lincoln also didn't give a rat's ass about slavery, and he said so.

The reason he issued the emancipation proclamation was because France was about to enter the war on the side of the south, and he knew if he made the war appear to be about slavery, France couldn't do it politically.
Reply Quote
37
EVA3
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:05p, 2/10/26
AG
Wait until you hear about the Corwin Amendment.
Reply Quote
3
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:25p, 2/10/26
AG
Feels like this thread needs some music.

And folks should know it was about money and power, not slavery. It just happened to be the issue used to divide folks.

Reply Quote
9
Sid Farkas
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4 • 8:34p, 2/10/26
AG
Quote:
Lincoln also didn't give a rat's ass about slavery, and he said so.

the veracity of this statement is in question.
Reply Quote
10
Jarrin Jay
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sid Farkas • 8:54p, 2/10/26
AG
No, it isn't at all, unless you choose not to believe actual quotes from the man himself and newspaper articles of the time.
Reply Quote
19
1 edit
BrazosDog02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sid Farkas • 8:55p, 2/10/26
AG
Sid Farkas said:
Quote:
Lincoln also didn't give a rat's ass about slavery, and he said so.

the veracity of this statement is in question.

I think you are about to find a LOT of sloppy work on this thread.....

We've already seen a great sampling.
Reply Quote
12
Pacifico
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pinche gringo • 9:05p, 2/10/26
AG
pinche gringo said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?


Maybe because it really wasn't all about slavery…


Correct. 150 years of public education ended that debate.
Reply Quote
1
reineraggie09
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pinche gringo • 9:10p, 2/10/26
AG
pinche gringo said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?


Maybe because it really wasn't all about slavery…


Underneath the Lincoln Memorial is a gift shop/restroom. On the wall is a speech from Lincoln. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." It wasn't about Slavery.
Reply Quote
40
Jarrin Jay
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:11p, 2/10/26
AG
The original 13th Amendment, the so-called "Corwin Amendment" would have easily passed and protected slavery in any state that chose to have it. In fact there was hardly ever a time that slavery was more well protected at the national level of politics that late 1850s into 1860.

Many of the plains and western territories becoming states were not so much anti-slavery as much as there anti-African. They did not need an agricultural labor force and just did not want African / blacks in their state, period. A debatably ugly historical fact but a fact nonetheless. Even Lincoln's home state of Illinois had harsh "Black Exclusion Laws".

One can certainly argue the merits of slavery as a leading cause for the South, I think it was A cause but not the cause and not the main cause, and certainly not a cause that could not have been rectified much more easily as it had been (and in the future would be) in other parts of the world. What cannot be argued with a straight face at all is the North / Union fighting to abolish slavery, nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly it was a politically motivated after-action result of the war, but if before the first shot was fired Lincoln and the Union leadership announced they were going to war to abolish slavery the North / Union would not have been able to field an army.
Reply Quote
16
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 10:19p, 2/10/26
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?

Slavery was an important issue but it wasn't THE issue, abolition certainly wasn't the reason with Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri also slave states and New Jersey only banning slavery a few years before. Lincoln also made it clear he was willing to do anything the South wanted to make slavery safe it prevented them from seceding.

The South left because it was tired of fighting with the North and having to cede so much power to people in New York and Boston and so on that they had less and less in common with. They wanted to have their own self determination and be independent. The South never saw the US the same way as we do now, they saw it far more of an alliance of states and most Southerners saw their state as their country. They wanted to leave.

Was slavery an important part of that? Sure, the entire economy of the South was reliant on it not only for farming but it was a huge asset for most families of wealth. Ironically the banning of importing new slaves drove the price of slaves up significantly.which made it harder for them to give them up. With most plantation owners being rich in land but capital poor that would have bankrupted much of the South and make no mistake the banks in the North were also positioned to come in and repossess as much of that property as possible which is essentially what the Carpetbaggers ended up doing after the War. They had good reason to be paranoid. It's also very difficult for anyone today to understand the complexities of slavery in that time in both the North and South yet most people think that everyone in the North were abolitionists while everyone in the South was a slave owning racist dreamed about whipping them at night. The truth is very different, there were some terrible and wonderful people on both sides. For 100 years after the Civil War people understood that and found peace with it but that's long gone now.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
32
OldArmy71
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jarrin Jay • 10:35p, 2/10/26
AG
Jarrin Jay said:
No, it isn't at all, unless you choose not to believe actual quotes from the man himself and newspaper articles of the time.


Are you referring to Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley?

In the letter, Lincoln clearly distinguishes between his official capacity to act as President, and his personal beliefs.

Lincoln believed that his official acts were constrained by the Constitution, which allowed slavery. Thus all of his official actions were (in theory, anyway) devoted to saving the Union rather than to freeing the slaves.

But in the letter, Lincoln makes clear his "oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."



Text of letter
Reply Quote
7
OldArmy71
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fireman • 10:42p, 2/10/26
AG
Fireman said:
The Union army fired the first shots to initiate the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas) on July 21, 1861. Union artillerist Peter Conover Hains fired a 30-pounder Parrott rifle toward the Confederate lines near the Stone Bridge around 5:30 a.m. to begin the engagement, acting on orders to initiate the battle.

Maybe because they were under attack.

Are you forgetting that South Carolina fired on a ship attempting to resupply Fort Sumter?

That was on January 9, 1861.

South Carolina troops fired on Fort Sumter again on April 12-13, forcing the fort to surrender.

Now....who fired first?
Reply Quote
11
EVA3
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to OldArmy71 • 10:44p, 2/10/26
AG
OldArmy71 said:
Jarrin Jay said:
No, it isn't at all, unless you choose not to believe actual quotes from the man himself and newspaper articles of the time.


Are you referring to Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley?

In the letter, Lincoln clearly distinguishes between his official capacity to act as President, and his personal beliefs.

Lincoln believed that his official acts were constrained by the Constitution, which allowed slavery. Thus all of his official actions were (in theory, anyway) devoted to saving the Union rather than to freeing the slaves.

But in the letter, Lincoln makes clear his "oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."



Text of letter




This must have been before he spent his entire term pissing all over the Constitution.
Reply Quote
13
Broseph
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:46p, 2/10/26
AG
So what happens if the Democrats take house, senate and president and end the filibuster and pass a bunch of crazy laws?
Reply Quote
3
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BonfireNerd04 • 8:15a, 2/11/26
BonfireNerd04 said:
Because the South saw Republican opposition to the expansion of slavery as a long-term threat.

In 1860, there were 18 free states and 15 slave states. The free states had a majority, but not the 2/3 majority needed to approve a constitutional amendment for ratification.

But look at the West. At the time, it consisted of merely three states (Texas, California, and Oregon), 5 organized territories, and 2 unorganized territories. It was clear that the national population was increasing, more people were settling in the west, and so all of that land would eventually become states. The only question was how many, and when.

If no new slave states were omitted after 1860, but 15 new free states were admitted, then the balance of power changes to 33 free states versus 15 slave states. That's would be a 2/3 Senate majority for free states. And only 3 slave states (probably out of the border states of MO, KY, MD, and DE) would need to flip sides in order to enact a constitutional ban on slavery.

The South saw the writing on the wall. Unless they could turn a few of the Western territories into slave states, they would ultimately become hopelessly outnumbered in the Senate (as they already were in the House). Maybe not in the 1860's, but definitely by the 1910's.

So why not wait until slavery is actually constitutionally banned? Leaving the union accelerates that process.
Reply Quote
1
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reineraggie09 • 9:20a, 2/11/26
AG
reineraggie09 said:
pinche gringo said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?


Maybe because it really wasn't all about slavery…


Underneath the Lincoln Memorial is a gift shop/restroom. On the wall is a speech from Lincoln. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." It wasn't about Slavery.

To Lincoln, saving the unity of the Republic was more important than the issue of slavery. That is not in question.

But, the motivations of the Southern States to succeed had everything to do about slavery. The South wanted to succeed because of slavery. Lincoln wanted to preserve the republic, regardless of why the South wanted to succeed.

Saying the war had nothing to do with slavery is incorrect.
Reply Quote
14
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:28a, 2/11/26
AG
One thing that is often lost in this discussion is the fact that, regardless of why the Civil war started, slavery was the most evil thing that this nation ever participated in, and the existence of slavery in a nation that was founded by a document that says that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of HappinessThat to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We can talk about motivations all day long, and much of that talk is speculation, because it requires you to read someone's mind that has been long-since dead.

But,
1) The Civil war ended slavery
2) Slavery was bad
3) The U.S. is better without slavery
4) The Civil war was also bad
5) At least Lincoln wasn't protecting evil doctors that are cutting the genitals off of 14 year old children suffering from mental illness. In 150 years, our descendants are going to look at our complicity in this with as much disgust as we currently do to slave owners.
Reply Quote
29
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:38a, 2/11/26
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?

Arkansas (a southern state) ratified the 13th Amendment on April 14, 1865
Reply Quote
1
No Spin Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 9:46a, 2/11/26
BusterAg said:
One thing that is often lost in this discussion is the fact that, regardless of why the Civil war started, slavery was the most evil thing that this nation ever participated in, and the existence of slavery in a nation that was founded by a document that says that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of HappinessThat to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We can talk about motivations all day long, and much of that talk is speculation, because it requires you to read someone's mind that has been long-since dead.

But,
1) The Civil war ended slavery
2) Slavery was bad
3) The U.S. is better without slavery
4) The Civil war was also bad
5) At least Lincoln wasn't protecting evil doctors that are cutting the genitals off of 14 year old children suffering from mental illness. In 150 years, our descendants are going to look at our complicity in this with as much disgust as we currently do to slave owners.


You had me at the South losing the Civil War ended slavery.

I'm sure everyone in this country agrees that slavery was bad. And those that don't can, well, whatever words would get me banned.

The U.S. is better off without slavery. Again, only someone who needs to have happen to them (whatever words....) would think slavery was good and should've kept going.

It would've been great had the Civil War not happened, but it did, and we're a better country for it in the long run.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Reply Quote
7
LMCane
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:46a, 2/11/26
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?


the entire issue of the Civil War was NOT that the North would outlaw slavery in southern states!

the ENTIRE issue was the North was going to prohibit NEW STATES from becoming slave states upon admittance to the Union!

Hence bloody Kansas and Missouri!

the entire issue for the Southerners was they needed to keep EXPANDING slavery into the Caribbean, Mexico and across new states.
Reply Quote
3
LMCane
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:48a, 2/11/26
the United States did not even outlaw slavery in UNION states!

Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee were allowed to keep slaves for much of the war.

Maryland had slaves until nearly 1865!
Reply Quote
6
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to No Spin Ag • 9:52a, 2/11/26
AG
No Spin Ag said:
BusterAg said:
One thing that is often lost in this discussion is the fact that, regardless of why the Civil war started, slavery was the most evil thing that this nation ever participated in, and the existence of slavery in a nation that was founded by a document that says that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of HappinessThat to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We can talk about motivations all day long, and much of that talk is speculation, because it requires you to read someone's mind that has been long-since dead.

But,
1) The Civil war ended slavery
2) Slavery was bad
3) The U.S. is better without slavery
4) The Civil war was also bad
5) At least Lincoln wasn't protecting evil doctors that are cutting the genitals off of 14 year old children suffering from mental illness. In 150 years, our descendants are going to look at our complicity in this with as much disgust as we currently do to slave owners.


You had me at the South losing the Civil War ended slavery.

I'm sure everyone in this country agrees that slavery was bad. And those that don't can, well, whatever words would get me banned.

The U.S. is better off without slavery. Again, only someone who needs to have happen to them (whatever words....) would think slavery was good and should've kept going.

It would've been great had the Civil War not happened, but it did, and we're a better country for it in the long run.

We are a better country without slavery.

We would have been an even better country without slavery OR the civil war.

But, the civil war happened, and there is plenty of blame to go around on why it happened. The founding fathers made a devil's bargain by founding the nation without banning slavery, and the civil war was the unfortunate price of that bargain. But, without that bargain, would the US still be a subject of the British crown? Maybe. Probably not, but, maybe.

Too many polemic arguments on this subject from every side, but, that is reality these days.
Reply Quote
4
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 10:23a, 2/11/26
LMCane said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?


the entire issue of the Civil War was NOT that the North would outlaw slavery in southern states!

the ENTIRE issue was the North was going to prohibit NEW STATES from becoming slave states upon admittance to the Union!

Hence bloody Kansas and Missouri!

the entire issue for the Southerners was they needed to keep EXPANDING slavery into the Caribbean, Mexico and across new states.

How was secession going to accomplish that?
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reineraggie09 • 10:32a, 2/11/26
AG
reineraggie09 said:
pinche gringo said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?


Maybe because it really wasn't all about slavery…


Underneath the Lincoln Memorial is a gift shop/restroom. On the wall is a speech from Lincoln. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." It wasn't about Slavery.


Did they finish building it? There is a space underneath there and it is being worked on but I wasn't aware there was anything open prior. The undercroft was forgotten for 50 years then has sat unused until the current project. Perhaps this is reference to some of the graffiti what was down there and place by the original constructors?
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 10:34a, 2/11/26
AG
LMCane said:
the United States did not even outlaw slavery in UNION states!

Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee were allowed to keep slaves for much of the war.

Maryland had slaves until nearly 1865!

People hate when you point out the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the rebellion states. Which literally had no effect in the view of the Confederacy since they had already seceded from that government.
Reply Quote
10
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.