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

Skip to comments.

Gov. Pritzker’s wrong to give Confederate Railroad the boot
The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | July 10, 2019 | Editorial Board

Posted on 07/10/2019 4:54:24 PM PDT by PBRCat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: Gunslingr3

Slavery has existed since shortly after The Creation 6,000 years ago. The US was not unusual in that regard.


61 posted on 07/11/2019 3:12:48 PM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
I'd still like to see you quote the 'Fugitive Slave Clause' of the Constitution.

Slavery was dying in the Western world by 1861. Most everyone knew that. In the places where it still survived, it’s days were numbered. The whole “all about slavery” argument was bad federal propaganda put forth in 1863

I agree that slavery wouldn't have lasted, but somehow those rascally Federal propagandists managed to get the seceding States to include their propaganda in their secession documents promulgated in 1860 and 1861. You have to literally close your eyes to the reasons declared by the secessionists to argue they didn't leave because they sensed a Federal threat to slavery after the election of a President from an abolitionist party.

It's downright Orwellian to say they didn't leave because of slavery when they said they left because of slavery.

Again, that's not the reason Lincoln invaded, but it is the reason they left.

62 posted on 07/11/2019 5:56:35 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Lincoln pointed out that the fugitive slave clause of the constitution would not apply to a foreign country. There’s no question that’s correct.

Can you point me to the 'fugitive slave clause of the constitution'?

Article and section will be sufficient.

63 posted on 07/11/2019 6:00:10 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Can you point me to the 'fugitive slave clause of the constitution'? Article and section will be sufficient.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3

64 posted on 07/11/2019 8:07:02 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
I'd still like to see you quote the 'Fugitive Slave Clause' of the Constitution.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires a "person held to service or labor" (usually a slave, apprentice, or indentured servant) who flees to another state to be returned to the owner in the state from which that person escaped.

I agree that slavery wouldn't have lasted, but somehow those rascally Federal propagandists managed to get the seceding States to include their propaganda in their secession documents promulgated in 1860 and 1861. You have to literally close your eyes to the reasons declared by the secessionists to argue they didn't leave because they sensed a Federal threat to slavery after the election of a President from an abolitionist party.

As I've already stated, they could legitimately claim the Northern states had violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution. There's no question that was true. So they had a sound legal argument to make on that basis that it was the Northern states which broke the deal.

Now of course the North offered the Corwin Amendment which would have enshrined slavery in the constitution effectively forever. You have to literally close your eyes to that in order to claim it was "all about slavery". Remember, I'm not arguing slavery was not an issue or that it was not even an important issue dividing the two sides. I'm saying it was not THE issue. Had it been THE issue then surely the Corwin Amendment would have laid any such fears to rest. Yet it did not. Hmmmm.

It's downright Orwellian to say they didn't leave because of slavery when they said they left because of slavery.No its not. You as well as I know people use pretexts all the time. They say they're acting for reason A when in reality everybody knows they acting for reason B. When they still act despite the other side offering a full remedy for reason A (slavery in this case) it strips away any reasonable belief that they really are acting for that reason. The truth MUST lie elsewhere. Otherwise, why not gladly accept the remedy?

Again, that's not the reason Lincoln invaded, but it is the reason they left.

Again, no its not. They left for the same reason Lincoln invaded. MONEY. It was the same thing that sparked the Nullification Crisis a generation earlier. Its what people almost always fight about no matter what they say they're fighting about.

65 posted on 07/11/2019 8:16:55 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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