Does Ripley's not fact check at all?

The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision was a red herring case to protect the slave brothel cash flow by declaring slavery specifically legal.

Thanks for your interest, Bluekitty, but that thread doesn't contain relevant info. Especially how the Northern big businesses were stealing by racketeering almost of the South's cotton by scams declared illegal later by the Antitrust Laws. The South was going broke from this, and had no choice but to secede for financial reasons. It had been illegal to simply free slaves, especially since the Dred Scott Decision, so it took a while to arrange for the slaves to easily buy their freedom, which had been done by 1861, not because it was the right thing to do, but because Northern crooks were using the "slavery turpitude" as a cover for their own racketeering to steal the cotton, so slavery had to go, and it did. Besides, it was more profitable to hire motivated labor than to feed and house and support entire families of unmotivated personnel. Also, the tales of people often whipping $10,000 slaves (worth 100 times that in today's money), are ridiculous.

In desperation, the South tried to sell it's cotton for a fair price by shipping it to Europe, but a Northern blockade prevented this, putting the Fed of the day in league with the racketeers, who ended up stealing most of the cotton anyway. Possession of cotton on the high seas was declared a crime.

Okay, it gets even more bizarre, in that a President has no authority to issue such Proclamations, especially in defiance of the recent Supreme Court's Dred Scott Ruling. But the remaining states easily passed a Constitutional Amendment covering for Lincoln's desperate "coverup" actions of slave brothels suddenly dotting the Northern landscape, by participating in falsely scapegoating and bankrupt robbing the South. Note that the horrors of phony Reconstruction followed all this, and anyone who spoke the truth was harshly dealt with for being in violation of the Sedition Law.