Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: K-Stater
No, it was about defending it.

Slavery wasn't the only issue discussed in those secession conventions, not by a long shot. Since the North wasn't fighting to end slavery and since the South could have maintained their peculiar institution by remaining in the Union...you know what that means, right?

129 posted on 04/11/2011 7:59:13 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: southernsunshine
Slavery wasn't the only issue discussed in those secession conventions, not by a long shot.

It was by far the single most important reason for the Southern rebellion to the exclusion of almost everything else.

Since the North wasn't fighting to end slavery and since the South could have maintained their peculiar institution by remaining in the Union...you know what that means, right?

It means your ignoring history. The South was not interested in remaining in a Union that wanted to limit the expansion of slavery. Safeguarding slavery were it existed was only part of the loaf, the South wanted the right to take their slaves into every state and every territory as Taney ruled in Dred Scott. They ensured that right was protected in their own Constitution.

175 posted on 04/12/2011 4:06:00 AM PDT by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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