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

To: IncPen
Unfortunately for your argument, 'State's Rights' included the use of human beings as slaves. They're inseparable.

State's rights--the idea that states wield the preponderance of political power within a union presided over by a federal government with limited powers--is inseparable with the use of humans as slaves? That's an interesting concept.

47 posted on 11/01/2012 6:37:06 AM PDT by Fiji Hill (Deo Vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Fiji Hill

States’s rights would have permitted a State to ban slavery within its borders. That was what the Dred Scott decision forbade.

Previous decisions had removed the necessity of state officials to support slave catchers, making the kidnapping of accused former slaves a federal responsibility only. States had their personal liberty laws overturned, which extended even to accused escaped slaves the rights to trial and security in their persons until proven guilty.

The Civil War was not about States Rights. It was about the Slave Powers demand to run not only their only affairs, but also the affairs of their neighbors. They expected the Northern states to cave, as they had so many times previously.


76 posted on 11/01/2012 10:10:41 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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