[BroJoeK]

gandalftb: "I never said that my family committed violence against slavers, read my post.
I said that my family broke federal law because of their faith."

Actually you did imply violence, and that's what I responded to.
Your post #74:

"When religiously driven abolitionists, like my family, chose their faith over the rule of law, the resistance and eventual fighting over slavery began."

Your post #80:

"Well, my family, two branches, started shooting."

"eventual fighting" and "started shooting" sounds like Jayhawkers in Kansas, which we now know your ancestors were not.
And yet you're here hand-wringing over your family's contributions to the Civil War, and I'm here to tell you: knock it off, that's ridiculous.
If you think you can positively influence, say, DiogenesLamp, or others by self-flagilation, you can't.
They will simply use whatever supports their own narratives and disregard the rest.

So I'll ask you again to consider the following question: why were your ancestors allowed help the Underground Railroad?
Answer: obviously, because law enforcement was weak.
Why was Democrat-run Federal law enforcement so weak?
Answer: four things come to mind:

1. The numbers of Fugitives were relatively insignificant in a slave population of 4,000,000.
2. The original sources of most escaping slaves were Border States like Missouri & Maryland where by 1860 slavery was marginal at best, arguably even dying out, so did not threaten slavery's center of gravity.
3. Allowing a small number of discontented slaves to escape was arguably more likely to prevent mass slave-revolts.
4. Finally, and I think most importantly, Southern Democrats in Washington, DC, needed something they could point to as a "material breech" of the Constitution to legally justify declarations of secession, and Northern opposition to Fugitive Slave laws served that purpose nicely.
   In short: they didn't want to stop it entirely because they needed the issue to justify secession.

gandalftb: "“anti-slavery Border State areas (i.e., Missouri, Maryland)” ???
Better check your facts, those were slave states that didn’t secede."

Right, and there's a key point here that everyone needs to wrap their minds around.
By 1860 both of the following statements are true:

• Slavery had never been more profitable, slave prices were never higher and slaves were never more in demand, in the Deep South.
• Partly because of that, slavery was dying-out in Border States like Maryland & Missouri.
  Another reason was huge immigrations of anti-slavery Northerners & Europeans to Border States thus potentially tipping the balance of political power in favor of freedom.

Missouri was one state where anti-slavery immigrants greatly outnumbered slaveocrats, they are why it remained loyal to the Union.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think i've figured out a way in which you can actually be useful. I seem to recall you having posted a map about Southern cotton production and exports from various ports in the South.

If you still have that, It would be appreciated if you could post it again.

[gandalftb]

I try to speak directly, you misunderstood, my family took up arms after the Civil War began, not before.

There was no violence when we broke the law helping fugitive slaves.

No hand-wringing or self-flagellation, real simple, I try to be completely honest and open. Both sides have their points.

You ask: “why were your ancestors allowed help the Underground Railroad?”

My family acted on their own initiative, based on common decency and faith. Law enforcement efforts were largely irrelevant.

Remember, the Constitution guarantees justice. Fighting slavery was a simple recognition that slaves were people and deserve to be treated as such, not property.

You say “Allowing a small number of discontented slaves to escape”. Who did this allowing? Slaves were worth an average of about $1,000 (1860 dollars). Property owners would not have allowed such valuable property to be lost.