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

To: Jack Black

What rules exactly did the North “violate”? Lincoln wasn’t even sworn in yet when the southern states started to succeed. They made it clear that they would if he won even before the election.

As for the much vaunted southern love of states rights, ever heard of Dred Scott? They had no concern for the rights of free states not to have to participate in a system of slavery they considered immoral when they made them treat escaped slaves as property to be returned. And in doing so they made ending slavery a moral issue for the north.


39 posted on 07/16/2014 3:20:34 AM PDT by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Hugin
Secession was totally legal. So simply deciding not to be part of a voluntary association was no reason for a war. Read up on secession, it was common theme in early America.

Yes, I have heard of Dred Scott.

Most of the rest of the world managed to abolish slavery without war. Lincoln was a tyrant.

40 posted on 07/16/2014 3:25:58 AM PDT by Jack Black ( Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin
Secession in the Unite States"

By most reasonable accounts, a right of the states. But to "statists" MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Lincoln had might, so the civil war is viewed as a moral wrong.

44 posted on 07/16/2014 3:35:55 AM PDT by Jack Black ( Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | 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