Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Shooter 2.5
Still don't know why it was underground in the north... a north that would wage a war against the south ... The war between the states was fueled by a lot more than justified outrage over slavery. The moneyed interests in the north needed to protect their interests in cheep raw materials, this was the fuel for the war. Slavery was merely a convenient emotional issue, but not enough of an issue to fire up the Treasury to pay the troops. Wars were fought over money and sometimes religious issues are merely for show. It often pays to follow the money to see what is happening.

I believe todays war in Iraq is an exception to the rule, and is being waged for moral reasons, to free people from the bonds of dictatorship, and set an example for other Arab countries the can prosper under a republic that respects individual rights.

I believe Vietnam was also fought for moral reasons, to stand up to communism, the killing in Cambodia after we walked away, shows the true evil we were against. The money that started / really fired up things in Vietnam was French, with France wanting to reclaim what they thought was theirs to plunder.

14 posted on 07/22/2006 10:20:59 AM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Mark was here
>>
Still don't know why it was underground in the north..
<<

It was underground because of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which not only made it a crime to assist a runaway slave and required captured slaves to be returned to their owners, but it allowed federal marshals to seize local citizens and force them to help in the capture of slaves.

One of the reasons that the Act passed into history was that northern juries would commonly refuse to convict people who were indicted for failing to obey it.

It should be recalled that the war that Lincoln waged against the southern states was not about slavery. Indeed, anyone can read Lincoln's first inaugural address (1861) where he states:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

As can easily be read in the plain text, the issue was the refusal of the South to pay the taxes (commonly called the Tariff of Abomination) the federal government imposed on it. Indeed, Lincoln in the following, says if the South will pay what it owes, there will be no invasion:

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Towards the end of the war, Lincoln freed slaves, but only in the States that had seceded.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Certainly, slavery was a hotly debated social policy issue at the time of this war, but no more so that to claim that the 1992 Los Angeles riots (when Rodney King was injured) were about abortion.
15 posted on 07/22/2006 8:02:10 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson