Posted on 01/20/2014 1:42:16 PM PST by mhutcheson
I agree there is a tipping point where our vow to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and Domestic, requires us to take a stand against those that are obviously trying to destroy the Constitution, wherever we may find them. We weren't past this tipping point in April 1861.
Not quite. Libs seek the permanent perpetuation of slavery. Conservatives seek to free all citizens from the authority of government.
"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."
Get that? The Federal Government wasn't doing enough to bully the Northern states into doing what South Carolina wanted to. The South wasn't fighting for State's rights, or freedom from federal control, but just the opposite: the federal government wasn't doing as the South demanded, so the South was taking its blood-soaked ball and going home.
The victors do write the history books, understandably, so it's not that easy to find the truth about how blacks were treated in the Northern states. But it's out there.
Results, and not character nor intentions, you say? I've given them to you----the factual, terrible effects of Northern racism on the lives of black people. You can find even more at Kackikat's link, post 112.
Some might say that the situation in the North was a type of bondage all its own.
Typical liberal mantra. The US is controlled by banks controlled by Jews.
.
Bttt
A quandary people that support Lincoln find themselves in: If Lincoln could not free the slaves of the northern States by degree then why did he believe he could do so to the southern States if they were still in the union?
“And the Union was saved.”
The Union still had the northern States in it so it never was in peril of disappearing.
I believe the war had to do with Lincoln being the major railroad attorney and his railroad buddies needed the north and south combined under the power of Lincoln. His death greatly damaged their plans for economic power for a few years.
“Coming to a White House near us?”
Remember starting in 2009 that Obama compared himself to Lincoln.
You just needlessly (and ignorantly) insulted half of the Freeper community.
But South didn’t did they? Got their butts whipped. The end of it.
“If it had not been for Slavery, the South would have never left the Union in the first place.”
Then you need to study the taxation situation and other issues of the times. Slavery was but one of many economic and power issues of the day. To think that the average southerner that did not hold a single slave looked upon those fields with slave labor and not desire the job themselves is sort sighted.
Sounds like the South’s insistance on Free Trade, instead of putting tariffs on the North, was the problem.
The ones who had the tariff had the wealth, the industry, and infrastructure....costing South the war
Just for the whiner factor alone ;')
For those words alone someone should kick your sorry ass.
So? Was worth 700,000 dead and the devastation of the South to end slavery, and create Federal Empire?
Actually the South was against the tariffs pressed by Northern states on foreign goods. The South was agricultural and depended on foreign markets for their products, while the North was self sufficient in industrial and agri products.
Commerce clause prevents tariffs between states and within USA
Insistence on Free Trade, and not developing domestic industry and infrastructure, hurt the South in the Civil War
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.