Anonymous #2 8w

But Missouri was still a Union state and not a Confederate state. And even then, the state was split half and half for how many people supported slavery vs didn’t support it

5

Anonymous #1 8w

Missouri supported slavery, which is why Bleeding Kansas happened. It’s okay if you’re unaware of the history

0

Anonymous #1 8w

Missouri was a border state, so they still as a state overall supported the institution of slavery

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

I never said Missouri wasn’t officially a slave state. I said the opinions towards it being a slave state were split 50/50 even back in the day

3

Comment Deleted

0

Ok buddy

5

Anonymous #1 8w

Calling it “50/50” is gross. You and I both know that it was way more in favor of slavery, hence them being a slave state.

-1

Anonymous #1 8w

You can reframe it all you want to be about the civil war and pretend you didn’t nearly seceed, but we all know it’s actually about bleeding kansas which you won’t acknowledge because you are 1000% in the wrong

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

I mean make that argument all you want and id agree(not from missouri btw, from texas so our record isnt any better) but fundamentally they were not a confederate state

6

Anonymous #2 8w

It clearly wasn’t way more in favor of slavery considering it didn’t secede. Not to mention that Columbia was very pro-union.

3