I Would Like to Talk (Civilly) About the Generalization of "White People"

[Belsnickel]

(09-29-2016, 05:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery. 

Also, they didn't have to outright abolish it, but they could have began to decrease it. Instead, the Constitution was written to protect slavery. The South was rewarded with extra representation for slaves, despite them not being citizens, at the cost of slightly higher taxes. Three states forced the other 10 to allow slave trade for another 20 years. They added into the Constitution that runaway slaves had to be returned. 

These few elites were given so much power that, before Lincoln, 10 of the 15 Presidents were slaveholders. None of the 5 who were not got reelected. Those slave holding Presidents sat in office for 50 of the 72 years prior to Lincoln's inauguration. 

Not only did we not allow for slavery to slowly be curbed, we protected it and gave slave owning states more power. 

The Civil War is always a revisionists wet dream. The slave states seceded to protect the institution of slavery. Period. The war was fought to bring the slave states back into the union, not to end slavery. Yet both sides like to revise the whole fiasco to suit their viewpoint.

The Constitution had the fugitive slave clause in the beginning. Subsequent statutory laws were passed to tighten down on free states seeking to undermine the Constitution on that regard. I get what you're saying on this part, I'm just getting into technicalities.

As to the bold, I don't know if you are giving the framers enough credit. The compromises that went into the Constitution gave the free states an edge, albeit a slight one. The problem was with how the country grew afterwards from there.