Replies

[S]outhern states were only too happy to invoke federal authority on behalf of . . .

On behalf of State's rights. Even though it was wrong, it was - at that time - still a State's right to determine if people were property, and if so, then the federal authority to regulate interstate commerce and provide law enforcement for criminals crossing state lines were both valid (per the Constitution) federal powers. It would be the same - in that obviously evil system - as expecting federal law enforcement aid to combat cattle rustlers who crossed state lines. The alternative would be to have the state from which the property was taken institute their own 'posse' function crossing state lines.

I'm a Constitutionalist, and I will support any federal function that is in accordance with the Constitution - while being against any that are not. At that time, slavery (in some states) was allowed for in the Constitution so the Southern states were right to demand the federal government help to enforce their rights in interstate disputes.

None of this says that slavery was good. It was and is despicable. But the solution to moral problems is not always to concentrate power in the federal government.

I still maintain that for the South, the right to determine if slavery was acceptable was one of many state's rights that the federal government was usurping. The overall topic of state's rights was the cause - from their perspective - for rebelling. It's also true that the adversaries in a war do not necessarily - and in fact often do not in fact - have the same motivations. Lincoln's reason for fighting was to preserve the Union, and (as he said) he used ending slavery as a motivation to enlist support for his true objective. Most of those who marched off to war on the Union side were fighting to end slavery, because by that time that rationale had gained widespread acceptance - so Lincoln's strategy worked. But to demand (not you personally, but as a general observation) that both sides have the same - though mirror imaged - motivation misreads human history.

Yet when the Northern states passed personal liberty laws withdrawing all support for the Fugitive Slave Act Southern states complained they were forced to secede over the North getting away with this illegal nullification epitomized by the rise of Lincoln and the Republicans. You just need to look at the Confederate Constitution which was an exact copy of the US Constitution except when it came to slavery it gave more power to the federal government. Slaveholders only became friends of centralized power only when a question arose of extending or protecting slavery. Slavery was clearly the issue that caused the argument over states rights to escalate to war.

Re: 112 - good post.

Of course, Federal assistance and requirements to return fugitive slaves ramped up even more slaves being given assistance to go to Canada, being hidden, and some states making return of fugitive skates as time consuming as possible.

That’s not to say that slaves should not have tried to escape, or rebel, or States should not have fought the return of fugitive slaves. Those did occur, were encouraged and should have been.