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

To: Non-Sequitur
The country had been dominated by the south for most of the prior 80 years and yet the North saw no need for rebellion or 'bloody fratricidal war'.

Seen it, been there, done that. During the 80 years of supposed Southern domination, what were the abuses of the federal government? How many Southerners called for overturning the constitutional guarantees of the North? Undoubtedly, there were abuses of government, but I'm not sure a great deal of them rested on sectional hostility, save those surrounding the war of 1812.

Why did the south see the need for this if not for the purpose of protecting their slavery?

Of course they were leaving to protect their slavery, but it was framed in the much larger picture of objective rule. For years before the war an outright state of hostility existed in Kansas & Mo. Thousands of Northern editorialists, and preachers open mourned the death of the terrorist John Brown. Any victory which returned the country to the Constitutional agreements on slavery - Dred Scott, the FSA, etc was bemoaned throughout the North as an opressive injustice inflicted by Southerners, and now there was an administration and sufficient congressional support to wrest the government from it's constitutional chains (and they made clear their intent to do so).

891 posted on 10/09/2005 3:13:31 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies ]


To: Gianni
During the 80 years of supposed Southern domination, what were the abuses of the federal government? How many Southerners called for overturning the constitutional guarantees of the North?

And the abuses on the part of the North were?

892 posted on 10/09/2005 3:38:10 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies ]

To: Gianni
For years before the war an outright state of hostility existed in Kansas & Mo.

At least be honest and admit that that hostility was present on both sides of the issue, pro-slavery and anti-slavery.

Any victory which returned the country to the Constitutional agreements on slavery - Dred Scott, the FSA, etc was bemoaned throughout the North...

And any suggestion of limits on slavery inflamed the south.

...and now there was an administration and sufficient congressional support to wrest the government from it's constitutional chains (and they made clear their intent to do so).

So you claim, and that was justification for rebellion.

893 posted on 10/09/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies ]

To: Gianni
I never thought that I would hear anybody in the 21st century expressing approval for the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act, two of the most noxious blights on the history of America.

Thank goodness for the Radical Republicans and the armies from the North, which removed by force this wicked system from our land.

899 posted on 10/09/2005 5:29:18 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | 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