Every state gets to make its own decisions. UNLESS, of course it’s a territory that wants to become a state where slavery is legal. Then that schit right there is VERBOTEN. Why? Because we say so in our new and improved interpretation of the Constitution.
But slavery was not legal in the new territories and the new and improved interpretation of the Constitution was the one Democrats advocated and as the Republican Party platform points out, it was contrary to what the Founders intended because they specifically limited slavery to the southern states, knowing full well the nation would expand. Why are you so insistent on defending the right of some human beings to own others as property? That is the ultimate form of socialism. Is it any coincidence that it was the position advocated by Democrats who are today, entirely socialist?
Here it is, in black and white:
That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
