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

To: Homer_J_Simpson
I think you're right. John Brown lit the match.

It sounds crazy 150 years later, being willing to put the Union asunder just to keep the right own people as property.

7 posted on 12/10/2019 12:27:20 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: colorado tanker
It sounds crazy 150 years later, being willing to put the Union asunder just to keep the right own people as property.

Let me correct this false notion. The Union already recognized the right to own people as property. Remaining Unified, the Union would have continued to recognize the right to own people as property.

Therefore, the right to own people as property was not why the Union was split.

If you doubt this, look up the Corwin Amendment, which passed both the House and Senate with mostly Northern state majorities. This amendment would have made slavery nearly permanent and Lincoln urged it's passage in his first inaugural address.

The dispute was not over slavery, it was over whether the Southern states commerce and taxation would be controlled by Washington DC, or whether they would govern themselves.

30 posted on 12/17/2019 2:49:04 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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