What is the difference between a slave state and a free state in the slave time?
472497
well a slave state owns slaves and slaves are kept and sold there while a free state is a state that doesnt believe in slavery and slaves can go there to become free normally free states are in the north while slave states are in the south
927359
This sounds like a homework question to me. Sorry, I won't help you. I feel you need to read BOTH and you come up with the answer. You need to know these things.\n\nI will tell you this. The North distorted the truth about the Civil War or War between the States.  The war was NOT fought because of slavery. The north had slaves too. They were fighting over textiles, cotton, land, resources it was all economic.
313435
Actually, Abolitionism was a major political force before the Civil War, primarily in the North but some in the South (where it was extremely dangerous because of lynching, etc). And, slave labor in the South was not free, there were huge costs entailed in housing and disciplining the slaves. There was also the huge moral and psychological cost of keeping slaves, as there is always at least some implied violence in the Peculiar Institution. In fact, because at the founding of the country there were so many people in the South who unilaterally freed their slaves, most Southern states placed huge financial disincentives against emancipation.\n\nAnyways, to finally get to the question at hand. Abolitionism got most of its support because it advocated the emancipation of slaves because of religious and moral reasons, and as such they tried to take the moral high ground from the Southern slave holders. People in the South tended to believe the propaganda that blacks could not take care of themselves, could not live in society, and would never be amenable to Christianity if not forced to live as slaves. This attitude from the Abolitionists to portray slavery as an indefensible and amoral evil practice made many people on both sides of the debate feel there was no room for argument. The radical fringe of Abolitionists also wanted to end the idea of governmental emancipation with federal compensation to owners and colonization of the freed slaves either to Haiti (with disastrous results) and Liberia (not much better). With absolutely no common ground from which to seek compromise, the two sides grew farther and farther apart until conflict was almost inevitable. In fact, when the Southern states were discussing secession, the congressional delegations from several Northern states suggested that a compromise could be reached if the Southern states would agree to even a rudimentary hearing to determine if black people seized as Runaway Slaves under the federal act were actually slaves at all, but because of the hard feelings the suggestion that a Southern gentleman could actually be mistaken about who was and was not a slave simply made the Southerners even more angry.\n\nMany people, myself included, see a corollary between Abolitionism and the tactics of the Pro-Life movement, who portray all abortions as indefensible murders of innocent children, thus allowing no meaningful debate on the issue at all.
31922
well one is the independence of Haiti....the slaves there were influenced by the revolutionaries cries of " liberty, equality and fraternity" and they rebelled thus leading to the country's independence in 1791 or so.
489509
Since before recorded history.  There has been evidence of slavery found in the fossil record.
577090
When in time did the state want to be admitted to the Union.  Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state as part of the Compromise of 1820.  As part of the compromise, states north of the Missouri line were free states while state south of the line were slave states. \n\nIn 1848, the US won a war with Mexico and expanded territories West.  California wanted to be admitted to the Union as a slave state at this time.  So Congress constructed the Compromise of 1850 which allowed the annexed territories from Mexico to self-determine their status, except for California which was admitted as a free state.
811236
Not much at that time....that took MANY years.\n\nNT was tried and hung for that.\n\nBut it galvanized the Abolitionists....and later would be the Dread Scott Case...SC decided that slaves were not free even in free states , they could not be citizens and that Congress could not bar slavery from a territory. Though some states had passed laws to abolish slavery...I believe Illinois.
577591
you cannot possess slaves at all in this day and age. leviticus was pre-Jesus. that law does not apply now.
801191
Must slavery be legal in order to be real?  Or would it not be better to have someone not even realize the extent of their servitude?\n\nPay alone does not erase slavery.  Control over one's destiny is the principal thing.
454899
Are you kidding? Republicans did not free the slaves. Check your history... And I know Lincoln was a Republican, but he did not free the slaves. Read a book.
1156986
One is the master and the other is the slave.
106893
The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Therefore, slaves cannot leave an owner or employer without explicit permission, and they will be returned if they escape. Therefore a system of slavery — as opposed to the isolated instances found in any society — requires official, legal recognition of ownership, or widespread tacit arrangements with local authorities, by masters who have some influence because of their social and/or economic status.\n\nThe word slave comes from the Latin term sclavus, which is thought to have originally referred to slavs, people from Eastern Europe, including parts of the Byzantine empire. The current usage of the word serfdom is not usually synonymous with slavery, because serfs are considered to have had some rights. In the strictest sense of the word, "slaves" are people who are not only owned, but who have no rights and are also not paid.\n\nThe International Labour Organization defines "forced labour" as "all work or service which is extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily", albeit with certain exceptions: military service, convicts, emergencies and minor community services. [1]. The ILO asserts that child labour amounts to forced labour in which the child's work is exacted from the family as a whole.\n\nIn some historical contexts, compulsory labour to repay debts by adults has been regarded as slavery, depending upon the rights held by such individuals.\n\nMandatory military service in liberal democracies is a controversial subject: one view is that conscripts are not "slaves", as they have substantial legal rights, and any government which took it upon itself to implement conscription, outside a time of extreme national emergency, would eventually face a backlash at an election. Another view interprets acceptance of conscription as a sign of chauvinist, ultra-nationalist and/or fascist ideologies, justified by philosophies such as the Hegelian notion of nations having rights which supersede those of individuals.\n\nIn United States legal usage, the term involuntary servitude means a condition of labouring for another without one's willful consent. It does not necessarily mean the complete lack of freedom found in chattel slavery.\n\nMany left wing thinkers have discussed the idea of "wage slavery", although it is generally accepted that payment of a wage signifies "free labour", with the quite different disadvantages experienced by such workers.\n\nOrdinary citizens in totalitarian states are not generally considered slaves, as the only real point of comparison is restrictions on movement.
304686
The context of your question is very broad.\n\nSlavery has existed since the beginning of human history and exists to this very day in certain parts of the world.\n\nIn America, slavery (which President Bush observed recently was America's birth defect) was present at the founding of the nation, and unfortunately incorporated into the Constitution.\n\nOfficially, President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed most of the slaves in the Confederate states.  It officially ended at the cessation of hostilities in the Civil War, but technically in 1867 once new legislatures in the newly emancipated South recognized the Federal mandate.\n\nBelow is a reference link to slavery in the 21st century.
567341
The emancipation proclamation freed the SLAVES in the SOUTH during the Civil War as declared by the US President, Abraham Lincoln.\n\nThe 13th amendment to the constitution FORBADE slavery throughout the United States after the war was over (and this was the legal freedom for slaves in the border states and NORTH).
511253
Excuse me, but you are confusing "Freedom" with "Being Free to do what you want".... they are not the same thing. \n\nFreedom in this case is the concept of political freedom  closely allied with the concepts of civil liberties and human rights, and the fundamental idea of positive and negative freedom corresponds with the concept of negative and positive rights. Most democratic societies are characterised by various freedoms which are afforded the legal protection of the state.\n\nYou have these Freedoms in the USA and not all countries allow the same Freedoms:\n\nFreedom of assembly \nFreedom of association \nFreedom from government sanctioned discrimination \nFreedom of education (to get a basic education)\nFreedom of enterprise \nFreedom of movement (or travel) \nFreedom of the press \nFreedom of religion (or belief) \nFreedom of speech \nFreedom of thought (or conscience) \n\nI don't see being a drug using nudist listed above....sorry.
228999
In the South, the economy was based on agriculture, and the chief crop was cotton, which depended heavily on labor to produce it. Slaves were an important source of labor in the farming industries.
86856
Technically, a free country is one that is able to choose its own destiny. It's a condition of being politically free. A free country has the capacity to manage its own affairs, make its own judgments, and provide for itself. It is a state or quality of being independent. In practicallity however, there is no such a thing as free country anymore. In today's global economy, every country depends on one another for subsistence.