And the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed territories to determine whether slavery would be legalized in accordance with "popular sovereignty" and thereby nullify the principles of the Missouri Compromise, created a schism within the Democratic Party.
Well there is an issue with that. It sounds nice but the Corwin Amendment would have made that very thing beyond question. You do know of this Amendment don't you? Introduced by a Republican representative from Ohio and by that most worthless Senator Seward from New York
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.--Corwin Amendment
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.--lincoln, First Inaugural Address
But of course, the GOP was founded by abolitionists. Right....I would also refer you to the northern tyrant's impassioned speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories,is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories.
There was a reason a man like that was a manager of the Illinois Colonization Society did not want slavery in the new territory and it had nothing to do with humane concerns
The whole point of this post is that the Republican party was not founded specifically to fight slavery. It is not the 'party of God'. It is nothing more than another political party, one that I might add has forgotten the meaning of the term conservative.
The whole point of this post is that the Republican party was not founded specifically to fight slavery. It is not the 'party of God'. It is nothing more than another political party, one that I might add has forgotten the meaning of the term conservative.