Imagine a whole nation of human beings at war over whether another group of human beings should be free or not, not criminals but kidnapped human beings that happen to born with more melanin, they didn't want to be there in the first place.
Imagine living in a country, and believing you had moral high ground. When the only reason you have the land under your towns feet was because the indigenous were murdered , enslaved, or gave death sentences
Imagine not know that either no one is indigenous or everyone is. Or imagine not being able to name another country fitting those characteristics and any other country will do. If you want to be mad(you do) be mad at something that matters like megacorporations buying our elections or something relevant to your country which is undoubtedly worse than America ✌❤
@@fastinradfordable you misspelled "conquered", which was exceedingly common at the time, but an uneducated racists like yourself wouldn't understand that
My sister and i visited St. Louis two years ago, and before we had to leave we bitterly regretted not having enough time to visit the original courthouse where this case was heard and other beautiful historical buildings that we just got a glimpse of. We should have bypassed the Arch and gone right to the courthouse.
You will get very few comments on this video this makes a certain group of people very uncomfortable the truth they can't handle the truth I'm glad you're putting all this out there I'm a so-called African American
Not just bullshit, but stupid bullshit "try". It takes a true ignoramus to understand that the democrats were the Conservatives back then & the the Republicans the Liberals. It also takes a total moron to think that only statues can tell history. & it takes a brainless hypocrite to forget that if you;re saying the statues "are Democratic", then the Democrats SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET RID OF THEM IF THEY WANT.
Tawney's personal beliefs were not necessarily a "stark" contrast to his position in the case. Many abolitionists didn't support equal rights for black people.
Yes, if Taney felt that slavery was wrong then it was in that vague, abstract, philosophical sense that was fashionable among many upper-class white southerners at the at time. "Yes, it's an evil, but it will end 'in God's good time' and it would be wrong for us to try to force the hand of God." In other words, pious baloney.
@@Guitcad1 Those people existed, but that is not what I am saying. There were ACTIVE abolitionists who didn't think black people were equal to white people. A little further reading and it seems that Taney was purely pro-slavery, despite releasing his own slaves.
Kind of disingenuous to portray Lincoln as anti-slavery-freeing the enslaved was like pulling his teeth-even the emancipation proclamation didn't free them all, just those in states that rebelled, he literally said that if he could keep the country together without abolishing slavery that is what he would do. great video otherwise though!
But he ended slavery all the same and he was the face the confederacy saw as the head of the antislavery movement because they were fervent in their belief he would end slavery which ironically he did do.
@@takyrica for me it’s more about the intention because slavery was a business not a form of oppression yes people were oppressed but it was a business first Lincoln’s intent was not to end slavery for the purpose of forgoing oppression and saving the oppressed people
enslaving a people is bad, but its far worse to encounter a people who have been decimated by slavery, and instead of helping them, you kick them while they are down and exploit them.
The image commonly associated with Dred Scott is actually not of him but rather of his brother, Peter Blow. Peter Blow was the brother of Dred Scott's original owner, and the image is often used as a representation of the historical context surrounding the Dred Scott case. His skin color likely played a significant role in the selection as the plaintiff. He had mixed-race background (his father was the slave Master and his mother was the slave, that dynamic).. Scott was so light skinned he could pass for "white," coupled with his status as an enslaved individual who had lived in both free and slave states, made his case particularly compelling for challenging the legality of slavery in various jurisdictions. The image commonly associated with Dred Scott's wife, Harriet Scott, is not actually her but rather an unidentified woman.
Interesting theory you presented, the Supreme Court and President Buchanan were so concerned about saving the Union and avoiding a Nationwide conflict, the Dred Scott case being more political than ethical. Ironically (Like you stated), the ruling against Dred Scott did not spare the United States from a violent Civil War to end this terrible institution. President Buchanan like French King Louis XV (on the "Eve" of the French Revolution) , caught between a "rock and hard place". "After me, the deluge".
I don't have a lot of sympathy for Buchannan or other "doughfaces" like him who had pandered to the southern slaveholding establishment for decades. You sup with the devil, you'd better have a *_long_* spoon.
I could see why many felt President Buchanan was "sitting on the sidelines" on the eve of destruction, not wanting a national insurrection on "his watch' and letting the incoming administration deal with it. I find more fault with the Supreme Court, since we are not just a democracy, but a constitutional democracy. The Supreme Court had a chance to make slavery unconstitutional. If the theory in the video is true, the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) should not be so strongly persuaded by the Executive branch (President Buchanan). The sad part of history is that the past cannot be undone.
@@rnklv8281 He allowed War Secretary John B. Floyd to distribute arms to Federal forts in the South prior to secession. The new Confederate state governments snatched them right up and Floyd himself became a Confederate general.
Judicial activism can swing both ways and is why it should not be allowed. Beyond the fact of slavery being an abomination, the decision contained very bad legal reasoning. Parts of it are nothing more than pro-slavery legislation that could not pass Congress. Those slave holding or pro slavery judges saw a chance to bypass the other two branches and have their way.
dred scott spent all those years fighting for freedom, just to get it in 1857, and his prize was a hotel porter job, and he died a year later. so many black men share similar stories. The same for all indigenous men around the world. if you are against reparations, after spending 300 million a day for the last 20 years in Afghanistan. you are evil.
@@KingWill333 you would not say that to native Americans. None of them alive today had their land taken. None of the citizens in Germany paying reparations were nazis. You have no legal argument against reparations pal.
@@Billiepippen I wish people didn't use the word, "liberal" to dehumanize individuals or groups. I notice that whenever someone doesn't like something, or someone, they use words to describe them that take away the individuality of the person, and make them into a faceless entity. It has been a favorite tool of dictators in every era. If they can brand people of being a "thing" not an individual, they can much more easily take away their rights by whipping up fear of whatever it is that the group is supposed to represent, even if it isn't true. I can't believe people still use it and fall for it over and over!
What is your legal argument for reparations? What about reparations for the 160,000 Union soldiers that lost their lives fighting to free the slaves? What about reparations for their families that lost husbands, brothers, uncles and cousins? What about reparations for their children that were never born? What about reparations for those that lost limbs and couldn't work or farm the land they left to fight for freedom of the slaves? What about the BILLIONS of dollars spent since 1964 on welfare for some famlies that have had three generations on welfare? Until you come up with answers for these questions you have absolutely no argument for reparations so STFU.
@@romeovoid7276 you sound like an idiot. Alot of soldiers died in world War 2 fighting nazis as well. Go to tell Israel you think they don't deserve reparations and a Homeland if you really believe the ignorant crap you saying.
Lincoln's Invasion of the South had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery was legal under the Constitution, laws of Congress and under SCOTUS decisions. Therefore, claiming the war was about slavery is claiming the invasion of the South is illegal and unconstitutional. The Union invasion of the South was for the control of Southern cash crops, especially COTTON. The Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) happened at the same time of the US creation and growth, especially textiles. As the US gained land (Louisiana Purchase, war with Mexico, etc.) COTTON and other southern cash crops were enriching the US Treasury. When the South seceded, all that money was now headed to the CS Treasury. With cotton reader on both sides of the Atlantic for the booming, automated textile industry, COTTON was in huge demand and the South was providing 2/3 of the world’s supply. Do any search on 1860 worldwide cotton supply, the economy of the Confederate States, textiles in the 1800s and the proof is evident. NOW, you know the "true meaning" of preserving the Union (Treasury). Even Union General Wm T Sherman knew that the war was really about controlling southern cash crops! This short telegram, from US General William Tecumseh Sherman to Abraham Lincoln, is dated December 22, 1864. “I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and also about 25,000 bales of COTTON,” Sherman wrote.
Didn't the constitution of several southern states mention slavery as integral to the existence of the state? And weren't the southern states in fear the northern abolitionists movement?
Yes, the war was clearly about slavery. Read the Declaration of Causes documents (Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world."). The Southern states rebelled to protect against a perceived threat to slavery posed by the election of Lincoln, and then Lincoln ordered in troops to put down the rebellion. As for the telegram, that was near the end of the war, not the beginning. Of course, they he was happy to report the seizure of Confederate weapons and assets.
The Taney Court - 1857 Dred Scott Case NORTH Roger B. Taney Maryland Benjamin Robins Curtis Massachusetts Samuel Nelson New York John McLean Ohio Robert Cooper Grier Pennsylvania SOUTH James Moore Wayne Georgia Peter Vivian Daniel Virginia John Catron Tennessee John Archibald Campbell Alabama
Maryland was (and is) a southern state. I see no reason why anyone would list it as part of "the north" unless it's because Maryland never actually seceded, and that was largely due to quick action on the part of Lincoln.
@@jaenboston2683 I realize that's the case now, but in 1861, even though that transition was already occurring, it was still predominantly a Southern State. It had slavery. It had a strong pro-Confederate element. It took drastic action on Lincoln's part to prevent Maryland from seceding. I'm glad things have improved there. I wish I could say the same for my own states of Texas and Tennessee.
While I'm sure that you have some really good information here, the fact that you're talking fast and the background music is too loud rock-n-roll is really distracting. I'm gonna have to look up information on this on another channel that is more calm and has nothing distracting.
Well, you know that just might be a wee bit harsh although I do understand the sentiment. Slave owners were heartless, regardless of how the right might like to spin it. However the 2nd part of your statement is just too strong. All of their descendants?
This article is 100% wrong. Taney followed the law, exactly as he was obligated to do. No social revision of the law, no social justice and no judicial activism. This is the way the law ought to work. Don't like the results, change the law.
One little question, wasn't Saline County Illinois a slave county? My understanding is that slavery was legal there mostly because work in the salt processing couldn't get white people to work there? If so, wouldn't Illinois be a slave state, as in,if a person has cancer the entire person is sick? Just asking
Slavery was certainly a huge portion of the civil war bu you have oversimplified WHY the south fought. The NORTH had ribber barons who thrust bills through Congress making it unlikely for farmers especially COTTON farmers to be able to MAKE money without slavery whatever they WANTED to do about slavery, Meanwhile those same jerks stole plans from Britain allowing them to make textiles using machines that used to be made by hand in competition with Britain and France. Both of which would pay top dollar except for those bills. They forbade the south to sell to anyone else not France and not Britain. Didn't you ever wonder WHY there was a blockade against southern ports????? Meanwhile remember those mills up north? The robber barons were paying slave wages to young women from the farms in the Midwest. They recruited by going to their families and PAYING them, promising to send them additionally a monthly stipend from their wages. And promised the young ladies would be safe in their dormitory with a curfew and a night guard. All of which was true. The young ladies were barely permitted to leave the premises, food was also taken out of their wages along with charges for their board. The hours were long they sewed shirts blouses and other clothes. Families were happy to send their daughters because they were not as much help on a farm as sons and perhaps they would marry well in the city. So although not called slavery that form existed well into the 20th century in the garment district. Eventually it became new immigrants who fell pry to it long after the civil war was over. But in the south immigrants became another type of slave on farms, migrant workers we still have them today on the east coast. At least coal miners are not as bad off as in the early 1900s.
Imagine a whole nation of human beings at war over whether another group of human beings should be free or not, not criminals but kidnapped human beings that happen to born with more melanin, they didn't want to be there in the first place.
Imagine living in a country, and believing you had moral high ground.
When the only reason you have the land under your towns feet was because the indigenous were murdered , enslaved, or gave death sentences
Imagine not know that either no one is indigenous or everyone is. Or imagine not being able to name another country fitting those characteristics and any other country will do. If you want to be mad(you do) be mad at something that matters like megacorporations buying our elections or something relevant to your country which is undoubtedly worse than America ✌❤
@@roman111117 What the f has that you to do with the topic of this video, go preach and patronise somewhere else with your cold ass reply.
@@fastinradfordable you misspelled "conquered", which was exceedingly common at the time, but an uneducated racists like yourself wouldn't understand that
thank u for saying enslaved people and not slaves 🙌
My sister and i visited St. Louis two years ago, and before we had to leave we bitterly regretted not having enough time to visit the original courthouse where this case was heard and other beautiful historical buildings that we just got a glimpse of. We should have bypassed the Arch and gone right to the courthouse.
Wonder why I wasn't taught this in school glad my father made me read about it
school is meant to train you to think a certain way
I read about it well b4 ii was taught it in school, but then again I was a book worm
This is why they're fighting CRT tooth and nail. Structural things like this are preferred hidden.
CRT IS VILE.
What? I had to write a term paper on this for ap history!
You will get very few comments on this video this makes a certain group of people very uncomfortable the truth they can't handle the truth I'm glad you're putting all this out there I'm a so-called African American
I agree. History really pisses Democrats off. That's why they want all those statues torn down hoping people will forget who they are.
Not just bullshit, but stupid bullshit "try". It takes a true ignoramus to understand that the democrats were the Conservatives back then & the the Republicans the Liberals. It also takes a total moron to think that only statues can tell history. & it takes a brainless hypocrite to forget that if you;re saying the statues "are Democratic", then the Democrats SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET RID OF THEM IF THEY WANT.
This was very comprehensive thank you
I’m liking grunge’s recent content more & more♥️♥️
Excellent channel 👏
Their getting better
Tawney's personal beliefs were not necessarily a "stark" contrast to his position in the case. Many abolitionists didn't support equal rights for black people.
Yes, if Taney felt that slavery was wrong then it was in that vague, abstract, philosophical sense that was fashionable among many upper-class white southerners at the at time. "Yes, it's an evil, but it will end 'in God's good time' and it would be wrong for us to try to force the hand of God."
In other words, pious baloney.
@@Guitcad1 Those people existed, but that is not what I am saying. There were ACTIVE abolitionists who didn't think black people were equal to white people.
A little further reading and it seems that Taney was purely pro-slavery, despite releasing his own slaves.
@@ltlbuddha That is, sadly, true as well.
What a sad sick planet we live on
150 yrs later the Supreme Court Still gets it wrong. Why is the court relevant??? If the court can be pressed/muscled, what's the point???
The type of Supreme Court they have now they'd probably have the same ruling if the Dred Scott case was heard today.
Kind of disingenuous to portray Lincoln as anti-slavery-freeing the enslaved was like pulling his teeth-even the emancipation proclamation didn't free them all, just those in states that rebelled, he literally said that if he could keep the country together without abolishing slavery that is what he would do.
great video otherwise though!
But he ended slavery all the same and he was the face the confederacy saw as the head of the antislavery movement because they were fervent in their belief he would end slavery which ironically he did do.
@@Argos-xb8ek which still doesn’t make him anti slavery, you definitely provided extra context however kudos to you
@@takyrica for me it’s more about the intention because slavery was a business not a form of oppression yes people were oppressed but it was a business first Lincoln’s intent was not to end slavery for the purpose of forgoing oppression and saving the oppressed people
enslaving a people is bad, but its far worse to encounter a people who have been decimated by slavery, and instead of helping them, you kick them while they are down and exploit them.
@No Country for Ados Men is there a real world example to accompany your original post?
@@stoneymcneal2458 Oh, you know he's going to lie in response to this....
@@SafetySpooon Agreed
@@stoneymcneal2458
Here is an example
Black people in America did not have a right to vote till 1967.
100 years after the civil war
@@stoneymcneal2458 You would only discount whatever facts given to you. You seem like that type. 😁
Thank you for honoring my people.
The image commonly associated with Dred Scott is actually not of him but rather of his brother, Peter Blow. Peter Blow was the brother of Dred Scott's original owner, and the image is often used as a representation of the historical context surrounding the Dred Scott case.
His skin color likely played a significant role in the selection as the plaintiff. He had mixed-race background (his father was the slave Master and his mother was the slave, that dynamic).. Scott was so light skinned he could pass for "white," coupled with his status as an enslaved individual who had lived in both free and slave states, made his case particularly compelling for challenging the legality of slavery in various jurisdictions.
The image commonly associated with Dred Scott's wife, Harriet Scott, is not actually her but rather an unidentified woman.
You are so interesting great Report.
The ending had some misinformation. Native American people werent granted citizenship until after 1924
Anyone thinking them self justified in owning another is lost in blindness of spirit!
Difficult watching your children and Their children still go thru racist ideals....😢 I Praise my Ancestors.🙏🏿
I forgot how important the Dredscot case was and how much it impacts us in America in 2024.
Fantastic info & presentation, except for the background music. (wtf)
Interesting theory you presented, the Supreme Court and President Buchanan were so concerned about saving the Union and avoiding a Nationwide conflict, the Dred Scott case being more political than ethical. Ironically (Like you stated), the ruling against Dred Scott did not spare the United States from a violent Civil War to end this terrible institution. President Buchanan like French King Louis XV (on the "Eve" of the French Revolution) , caught between a "rock and hard place". "After me, the deluge".
I don't have a lot of sympathy for Buchannan or other "doughfaces" like him who had pandered to the southern slaveholding establishment for decades. You sup with the devil, you'd better have a *_long_* spoon.
I could see why many felt President Buchanan was "sitting on the sidelines" on the eve of destruction, not wanting a national insurrection on "his watch' and letting the incoming administration deal with it. I find more fault with the Supreme Court, since we are not just a democracy, but a constitutional democracy. The Supreme Court had a chance to make slavery unconstitutional. If the theory in the video is true, the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) should not be so strongly persuaded by the Executive branch (President Buchanan). The sad part of history is that the past cannot be undone.
@@rnklv8281 He allowed War Secretary John B. Floyd to distribute arms to Federal forts in the South prior to secession. The new Confederate state governments snatched them right up and Floyd himself became a Confederate general.
Judicial activism can swing both ways and is why it should not be allowed. Beyond the fact of slavery being an abomination, the decision contained very bad legal reasoning. Parts of it are nothing more than pro-slavery legislation that could not pass Congress. Those slave holding or pro slavery judges saw a chance to bypass the other two branches and have their way.
The older I get, the more those slaveholders piss me off. I wish we could dig them up, reanimate them, and give them what they deserve.
Wow. Your parents must be proud.
God has given them all they can handle. Truss. Time of the gentiles is almost full
dred scott spent all those years fighting for freedom, just to get it in 1857, and his prize was a hotel porter job, and he died a year later. so many black men share similar stories. The same for all indigenous men around the world. if you are against reparations, after spending 300 million a day for the last 20 years in Afghanistan. you are evil.
Don’t equate freedom and giving someone who did nothing nor experienced it, money. Be liberal with your own shit, not someone else’s.
@@KingWill333 you would not say that to native Americans. None of them alive today had their land taken. None of the citizens in Germany paying reparations were nazis.
You have no legal argument against reparations pal.
@@Billiepippen
I wish people didn't use the word, "liberal" to dehumanize individuals or groups. I notice that whenever someone doesn't like something, or someone, they use words to describe them that take away the individuality of the person, and make them into a faceless entity. It has been a favorite tool of dictators in every era. If they can brand people of being a "thing" not an individual, they can much more easily take away their rights by whipping up fear of whatever it is that the group is supposed to represent, even if it isn't true. I can't believe people still use it and fall for it over and over!
What is your legal argument for reparations? What about reparations for the 160,000 Union soldiers that lost their lives fighting to free the slaves? What about reparations for their families that lost husbands, brothers, uncles and cousins? What about reparations for their children that were never born? What about reparations for those that lost limbs and couldn't work or farm the land they left to fight for freedom of the slaves? What about the BILLIONS of dollars spent since 1964 on welfare for some famlies that have had three generations on welfare? Until you come up with answers for these questions you have absolutely no argument for reparations so STFU.
@@romeovoid7276 you sound like an idiot. Alot of soldiers died in world War 2 fighting nazis as well. Go to tell Israel you think they don't deserve reparations and a Homeland if you really believe the ignorant crap you saying.
Lincoln's Invasion of the South had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery was legal under the Constitution, laws of Congress and under SCOTUS decisions. Therefore, claiming the war was about slavery is claiming the invasion of the South is illegal and unconstitutional.
The Union invasion of the South was for the control of Southern cash crops, especially COTTON. The Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) happened at the same time of the US creation and growth, especially textiles. As the US gained land (Louisiana Purchase, war with Mexico, etc.) COTTON and other southern cash crops were enriching the US Treasury.
When the South seceded, all that money was now headed to the CS Treasury. With cotton reader on both sides of the Atlantic for the booming, automated textile industry, COTTON was in huge demand and the South was providing 2/3 of the world’s supply.
Do any search on 1860 worldwide cotton supply, the economy of the Confederate States, textiles in the 1800s and the proof is evident.
NOW, you know the "true meaning" of preserving the Union (Treasury).
Even Union General Wm T Sherman knew that the war was really about controlling southern cash crops!
This short telegram, from US General William Tecumseh Sherman to Abraham Lincoln, is dated December 22, 1864.
“I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and also about 25,000 bales of COTTON,” Sherman wrote.
Didn't the constitution of several southern states mention slavery as integral to the existence of the state? And weren't the southern states in fear the northern abolitionists movement?
Yes, the war was clearly about slavery. Read the Declaration of Causes documents (Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world."). The Southern states rebelled to protect against a perceived threat to slavery posed by the election of Lincoln, and then Lincoln ordered in troops to put down the rebellion.
As for the telegram, that was near the end of the war, not the beginning. Of course, they he was happy to report the seizure of Confederate weapons and assets.
The Taney Court - 1857 Dred Scott Case
NORTH
Roger B. Taney Maryland
Benjamin Robins Curtis Massachusetts
Samuel Nelson New York
John McLean Ohio
Robert Cooper Grier Pennsylvania
SOUTH
James Moore Wayne Georgia
Peter Vivian Daniel Virginia
John Catron Tennessee
John Archibald Campbell Alabama
Maryland was (and is) a southern state. I see no reason why anyone would list it as part of "the north" unless it's because Maryland never actually seceded, and that was largely due to quick action on the part of Lincoln.
@@Guitcad1 we don't like being considered as part of the south. the south begins in Virginia. we are part of the Mid-Atlantic States.
@@jaenboston2683 I realize that's the case now, but in 1861, even though that transition was already occurring, it was still predominantly a Southern State. It had slavery. It had a strong pro-Confederate element. It took drastic action on Lincoln's part to prevent Maryland from seceding.
I'm glad things have improved there. I wish I could say the same for my own states of Texas and Tennessee.
@@Guitcad1 thanks for the clarification.
i love the Howdy Doody!
He died a free man!!
Very interesting. No need for the annoying dramatic music though,
So you would prefer happy feel-good music instead?
There’s no secret. This whole thing was a disgrace even to the people of the time
My Mandela effect: Charles Sumners was always Charles Summer until recently. Now all of sudden everyone is saying Charles Sumners & not Summer.
While I'm sure that you have some really good information here, the fact that you're talking fast and the background music is too loud rock-n-roll is really distracting. I'm gonna have to look up information on this on another channel that is more calm and has nothing distracting.
Dope!
He as to be changing his voice
Those slave owners were heartless and so are their descendants
Well, you know that just might be a wee bit harsh although I do understand the sentiment. Slave owners were heartless, regardless of how the right might like to spin it. However the 2nd part of your statement is just too strong. All of their descendants?
@Judy Vaughn Should we make you pay for the sins of your father or his father maybe his father after that? Don't be so dramatic.
@@MrPapageorgio we have already paid for the sins of our fathers four 100 years plus you're next
@@judyvaughn761 THE ARBAS WERE THE FIRST TO START SLAVERY SO THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED TO? 🤔🤔
@@judyvaughn761 What sins has your family paid for? Why does that absolve you but condemn me?
Damm
Did Dred Scott had cataracts?
A lot of older black folk develop that blue ring around the iris. Even though they see well.don't know why that happens
@@theloniouscoltrane2082 I never heard of this eye condition. Thanks for telling me.
Dreadful. . .
This article is 100% wrong. Taney followed the law, exactly as he was obligated to do. No social revision of the law, no social justice and no judicial activism. This is the way the law ought to work. Don't like the results, change the law.
StopBeingRacist Stop being stupid. Taney followed the law. I'm not defending racism you moron, I'm defending the law.
One little question, wasn't Saline County Illinois a slave county? My understanding is that slavery was legal there mostly because work in the salt processing couldn't get white people to work there? If so, wouldn't Illinois be a slave state, as in,if a person has cancer the entire person is sick? Just asking
Mr Jones class 🤮
Slavery was certainly a huge portion of the civil war bu you have oversimplified WHY the south fought. The NORTH had ribber barons who thrust bills through Congress making it unlikely for farmers especially COTTON farmers to be able to MAKE money without slavery whatever they WANTED to do about slavery, Meanwhile those same jerks stole plans from Britain allowing them to make textiles using machines that used to be made by hand in competition with Britain and France. Both of which would pay top dollar except for those bills. They forbade the south to sell to anyone else not France and not Britain. Didn't you ever wonder WHY there was a blockade against southern ports????? Meanwhile remember those mills up north? The robber barons were paying slave wages to young women from the farms in the Midwest. They recruited by going to their families and PAYING them, promising to send them additionally a monthly stipend from their wages. And promised the young ladies would be safe in their dormitory with a curfew and a night guard. All of which was true. The young ladies were barely permitted to leave the premises, food was also taken out of their wages along with charges for their board. The hours were long they sewed shirts blouses and other clothes. Families were happy to send their daughters because they were not as much help on a farm as sons and perhaps they would marry well in the city. So although not called slavery that form existed well into the 20th century in the garment district. Eventually it became new immigrants who fell pry to it long after the civil war was over. But in the south immigrants became another type of slave on farms, migrant workers we still have them today on the east coast. At least coal miners are not as bad off as in the early 1900s.
President Buchanan was a doughface.
BLM to God
Nice guns.