Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: donmeaker

“Their concept of self rule was to deny self rule to US states which did not permit slavery,”

Nonsense.

“to the US government which was a union of the people which preceded the US constitution,”

Utter nonsense.

“and to steal US property and imprison US citizens who did not support slavery.”

Time for meds.

Instead of blabbing, try factual discourse.


861 posted on 04/12/2013 5:09:44 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 857 | View Replies ]


To: Lee'sGhost

Southern states didn’t want US states which did not permit slavery to be able to ban slavery. Personal liberty laws, which delineated the procedures that slave catchers had to use in northern states were held unconstitutional, denying self rule to US states which banned slavery.

Slave catchers would, given their inability to get cooperation by state officials, support in the north, to kidnap poor whites, get false papers, and sell the kidnapped whites as slaves to cooperative slave owners such as R.E. Lee. That was one reason why slaves at Arlington over time became more and more white. The other was of course the raping of slaves by their putative masters.


865 posted on 04/13/2013 11:42:17 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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