Did Lincoln really end slavery when he essentially enslaved the

Yes.

Cry more.

>>3048341
He should have stayed as a sticky desu

>>3048337
>>3048341
>>3050234
I'm not a dixiefag but Lincoln completely disregarded the constitution

First, He went to war without consent of Congress. Next, He created three new states, all without consent of Congress. He installed Martial Law, with out consent of Congress. Extended Habeaus Corpus without consent of Congress and he censored a lot of anti-war protesting. No, not pro-slave, anti-war. He used troops to interfere with northern states to inflate Republican votes and he nationalized A LOT of different things. Also, he was not Anti-Racist, as many would believe.
>>3050492

>>3050504

So much wrong in this post. Where are you getting your info?

>>3050637
Post some sources then

>>3050637
Prove me wrong

>>3048328
Really makes you think.

File: 1499220333693.png (219KB, 481x489px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 481x489px

>>3048328

File: 1474213192289.png (275KB, 700x453px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 700x453px

>>3050826

>>3050826
>Federal protections against a state's right to outlaw slavery

You have a source for this?

>>3050855
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp Article I, Section 9, Line 4:

>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

>>3050863
Uh... You realize article I deals with rights and privileges afforded to Congress, not the States aka the Confederate Congress couldn't end it but it said nothing about the state's ability to end it.

This is basic federalism mate

>>3050922
You can also check Article IV, Section 2:

>The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

And Article IV, Secton 3, Clause 3:

>The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

>>3050960
>And Article IV, Secton 3, Clause 3:

Again, this has nothing to do with State's rights.

>You can also check Article IV, Section 2:

This is the only one that supports your argument, however it's not really as extreme as your meme made it out to be. A state could still outlaw a system of slavery within its borders, they just couldn't take the slaves passing through or sojourning there from other states. This was already going on in the US. Washington took his slaves to the Capitol in Pennsylvania, a free state, when he was president.