“someone who’d use their own family history against slavery to make the Lost Causer argument for them: the Underground Railroad caused secession & war”
I discussed my family history to push back on your name calling that I was some kind of poser.
Your insulting comments calling posts “utter nonsense” is not only inaccurate, but trivialize your own points.
People won’t listen to all-or-nothing responses. This is not an absolute issue, there are obviously points and counter-points.
Speak civilly and you’ll get more thoughtful responses.
Those that name-call and insult are usually looking for attention rather than pushing back with historical analysis.
First, a little googling turned up this piece on slavery in Iowa, which gives a pretty good idea of the situation before 1861.
Second, in the overall scheme of things "poser" is a pretty mild term and easily deflected
But again, my point here is simply, why else would you make a Lost Causer argument for them, especially when it's not even true?
gandalftb: "Your insulting comments calling posts “utter nonsense” is not only inaccurate, but trivialize your own points."
"Utter nonsense" referred to your claim that your ancestors "chose faith over law".
In fact there was no conflict between faith and Iowa state laws, which as early as 1839 had declared slaves in Iowa free, by virtue of living in a free state.
As for Iowa's Governor Grimes, in 1855 he contravened Federal law by insisting an alleged captured Fugitive be given a fair trial, in which he was pronounced innocent and released.
My point is the state of Iowa, in this example, did not vigorously enforce Federal Fugitive laws and that (not the Underground Railroad itself) was the constitutional issue used by secessionists in 1860 & 1861.
Where the law itself is contradictory and/or weakly enforced, the choice is not as simple as "faith over law".
For a current analog, think of Federal vs. some state marijuana laws, or the misnamed "sanctuary cities".
gandalftb: "People won’t listen to all-or-nothing responses.
This is not an absolute issue, there are obviously points and counter-points."
Your claim here would have much merit if both "points and counter-points" were equally true & important.
Sadly, that is infrequently the case.
gandalftb: "Speak civilly and you’ll get more thoughtful responses."
I'm certain that posters here whose entire arguments consist of insults & name-calling are enjoying this little exchange with great guffaws!
gandalftb: "Those that name-call and insult are usually looking for attention rather than pushing back with historical analysis."
Rough guess: for every poster here hoping to do serious historical analysis, there's at least one more interested in name-call & insult.
So far as I've seen you've been treated with kid gloves.