Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: henkster
I have come to the conclusion from studying the flawed compromises that put our original Constitution together that once Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and gave new life to the institution of slavery, the Civil War was inevitable.

Based on my meager studies I agree and would add that allowing establishment of the peculiar institution in the new nation based on the precepts outlined in the Declaration of Independence was a basic factor in the ensuing trouble. The hopes of Lincoln and other supporters of the rule of law who hoped to see slavery die out on its own were defeated by Whitney's invention. I have come to understand that the battle between pro- and anti-slavery parties for control of the destiny of Kansas was fought so desperately because that is where the question would be answered. It would either be the beginning of the end of slavery or slavery would become ineradicable.

186 posted on 11/27/2015 2:03:24 PM PST by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]


To: Homer_J_Simpson

Wait till we get to Dred Scott v. Sanford, the decision that Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney thought would settle the question of slavery once and for all. To the kids in the “We The People” class, I make the point that in America, we tend to look down on violence as a means of promoting social change. Instead, when we have a beef, we go to Court. No other county sues as much as we do, but no other country has less of a history of organized civil violence. I offer as proof the argument that the only time we had a civil war, it was because the legal system failed to avert it in the Dred Scott case.

Maybe it’s a stretch, because the Civil War was inevitable, but it was probably the last chance to avert the Civil War, and instead of averting it, the decision helped bring it about.

So Chief Justice Taney did settle the question of slavery once and for all. But not in the way he intended.

We’ll get into that more later.


187 posted on 11/27/2015 2:28:25 PM PST by henkster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]

To: Homer_J_Simpson; BroJoeK

I want to introduce someone to the thread that I don’t believe has been mentioned.

Having lived in three border counties on the Kansas Missouri state line for 65 years, I am very much aware of the national and local influence of a Missouri Senator, David Rice Aitchison who spent much of this era in Platte County, Missouri.

Atchison had the vision of a split of the two states in Slavery versus non-slave in the Kansas Nebraska Act and got Douglas to introduce the measure. His pro-slavery vision was so prominent that Atchison, Kansas was chartered as a pro-slavery two named for him. The settlers that came to both areas, were predominantly abolitionist and wanted to go to Kansas and not Nebraska.

The “border ruffians” of Missouri people going over to vote in Kansas to tip the balance back and all the related violence were largely promoted by Aitchison to try to put his vision back on track.

As a young man, he worked for and gained prominence getting the Missouri line pushed all the way to the Missouri river. He felt he had a right to say how the area advanced and was the biggest cause of problems in many local historians accounts of the 1850s.


227 posted on 12/07/2015 1:13:40 PM PST by KC Burke (Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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