Indiana has officially passed the religious objections bill that allows businesses to not serve people if it opposes their religious beliefs

Oh great, you already solidified my argument what kind of a human being you really are. Kinda like how Hitler excused the Holocaust right? That he felt it was right to kill off the Jews based on who they were? Like you're excusing that the South had a right to keep slavery (an act condemned by the civilized world), as LONG it benefits your region? As long it benefits your own agenda? You said slavery is horrible, but you say that the South didn't get what it wanted because they wanted to keep slavery? This is still saying "I think slavery is horrible, but it was necessary", meaning you don't think slavery was such as big deal in the South. How is that a true American? You call the North "authoritarian" just because they actually stand up for human rights, in which the South failed to recognize over the years? Whether it benefits your economy or not, slavery is 100% wrong, no matter how much you like it period. That's a moral issue here, that slaves were being unjustly treated like property, which goes against the idea of "all men were created equal" enshrined in the Declaration of Independence when we went to war against the British Empire. This is quite clear that it doesn't just includes whites, but also to every male human being, even if he or she is black. But the South decided blacks were not human beings and hence decided to treat them as property. They hide behind the BS state rights but had no problem pushing their throats down to others, as long it suits their purposes, hence making your argument moot. You said that the North refused to compromise, well, here shows far more that the South refused to compromise as well, to respect the rights northern states to keep their freed slaves.

*Slaveholders had the right to travel with their slaves through free states regardless of the wishes of the local population.

*Free states were compelled to surrender Blacks who may or may not have been fugitive slaves to federal authorities.

*A gag rule denied US representatives from free states the right to introduce petitions opposing slavery.

*Because the people of Kansas (most of them from the North) voted to ban slavery in their territory, pro-slavery legislators blocked Kansas' admission to the Union until after the Civil War broke out.

*Anti-slavery periodicals were banned from the US mails limiting the rights of residents of free states to express their First Amendment rights.

*After the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency, eleven Southern states seceded from the Union and created the Confederate States of America. Here's the key point. The Confederate Constitution denied to its states the right to abolish slavery. In other words, slavery was more important to the Confederate States than states.

The main issue we are talking about is slavery, period. It's quite clear in the beginning, the South fought for slavery and were willing to do anything to keep the institution of slavery using whatever necessary means, even if it means the intrusion of state rights. Your argument is clearly said that the South should be free to do what they want, hence it's the same meaning as arguing for state rights. Clearly, the links you provided does not show in any way that the North was equal to the South in any way whatsoever. I already know it all, but regardless of its faults, the North had fought for the establishment of abolishing slavery, not the South. That's the damn reason why escaped slaves went to the North since there was no slavery there and can be treated as human beings rather than property. Yes, public segregation in some Northern States was established but the Blacks there had a fair education (and were just as well-literate) and wouldn't have to worry about being whipped by slave masters like how it was widely prevalent in the South. If they went to the North, then that must mean that the North was vastly superior to those of the South. I have not denied the fact the North had its own share of racism, but nothing can be as big as it was in the South, and nothing you have shown so far that the North was just as equal to that of the South, period.

You're completely morally bankrupt to see that treating a human being as property is 100% wrong and you made willy-lily attempt to say the South should do what they had to do, even if you think slavery is wrong. It's just a bunch of horse-wash to downplay the South's fault in this issue.

/r/news Thread Parent Link -