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.You say slavery was illegal in the territories. It wasn’t universally illegal in the territories. That’s what the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were all about. You are quoting a party platform that interpreted language that did not explicitly ban something as doing so and then repeating it ad nauseam.
The radical Republicans were the progenitors of today’s progressive Democrats and you just demonstrated why. They have no reverence for actual law or words and twist them to mean whatever they wish them to mean by force of their own moral convictions and THEN insist that EVERYONE else adopt that interpretation. And in so doing, they will eventually resort to killing you if you disagree.
Yes, it was universally illegal in the territories because the Northwest Ordinance made it so. The Missouri Compromise admitted one free and one slave state to the Union and banned slavery in the Louisiana Purchase territories. It was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska act and declared unconstitutional in Dred Scott---a decision that, in its justification of moral and legal positivism, has much in common with the justification of the moral and legal positivism that is the philosophic foundation of the homosexual rights movement. The Republican Party of 1856, who understood the Constitution and Declaration in the same manner as the Founders were not radical; they were sober, just as were the Founders. The radicals were the Democrats who sought to transmute slavery from its original understanding by the Founders as a "necessary evil" into a "positive moral good". R
ecall that the intellectual father of this transmutation was John Calhoun who called the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence "self-evident lies". So who is the radical here?? There is a reason why, when the South seceded they adopted their own Constitution (with explicit protections and approval of slavery) rather than simply adopt the Constitution of 1787; they couldn't because they knew their cause was anti-thetical to the original Constitution as understood by the Founders. In attempting to justify the ownership of other human beings (who have a free will) as if they were chattel (property without a will of any kind) in a nation founded on the proposition that every man has a God-given right to freedom, it was the Democrats who were the radicals, just as they are the radicals today. Did you ever stop to examine the affinity between moral and legal positivism that justifies slavery and the self-same positivism that justifies homosexuality? The parallels are striking. Dinesh D'souza has a number of excellent videos demonstrating why the Democrat Party of today is the same Democrat Party of the ante-bellum and post-bellum south. At its core, the Democrat Part of today embraces legal and moral positivism with the same fervor of the Democrat Party of 1856.
