Replies

They did not think each state had a right to govern its own people when they demanded that Northern States return runaway slaves and used the Federal gov't to enforce that law.

Your own reply is inconsistent within itself. The south believed that each state DID have the right to govern itself. They allowed slavery. The slaves were considered property. They wanted their property returned.

That's un-PC, but the fact is, they had a case. The northerners who aided and harbored runaway slaves, according to the legal system of the slave states, were holding stolen property.

They did not think each state had a right to govern its own people when they demanded that Northern States return runaway slaves and used the Federal gov't to enforce that law. Your own reply is inconsistent within itself. The south believed that each state DID have the right to govern itself. They allowed slavery. The slaves were considered property. They wanted their property returned.

Not every state allowed slavery.

That did not stop the slave owners from appealing to the Federal gov't to go into states and force those slaves back into slavery.

So, lets stop the hyprocrisy of the South fighting against a strong central Gov't when they had not qualms about using Federal power for their own interests and did not care what the other States thought about slavery.

That's un-PC, but the fact is, they had a case. The northerners who aided and harbored runaway slaves, according to the legal system of the slave states, were holding stolen property.

Yea, and that 'property' had every right to revolt from the tyranny that was holding it.

That is what the Confederate flag stands for, holding other people as 'property'-how noble.

But, according to the Constitution, the slaves did have to be returned, and Lincoln pledged to uphold that law.

So what was the complaint from the South regarding Lincoln and the Constitution?

He promised to uphold all the laws, even the ones he did not personally like or agree with.

Finally, P.C. has nothing to do with not considering people 'property', that is simply immoral and a contradiction that had to be addressed by eliminating slavery not defending it as a 'right'.

"dumbo" forgets that the NORTH had MANY slave-owners too. MANY were "abolitionist leaders", even AFTER Richmond fell. that's called being a HYPOCRITE!

fwiw, MOST northern slaves were SOLD at a profit, rather than freed by their masters. that's another UNcomfortable FACT that the LEFTIST/REVISIONIST DYs don't want you to KNOW.

free dixie,sw