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

To: Non-Sequitur
In your scenario, the Northern states in 1858 were well within their rights to refuse to enforce the fugitive slave act if their interpretation of the Constitution said that they needn't. I'm not sure I see the advantage of that.

Thanks for helping our side out. In fact, the Northern States did refuse to enforce the fugitive slave laws, the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, and did practice their own version of Nullification -- a fact which isn't taught in school -- until Dred Scott upset their apple-cart.

Fact is, Lincoln was the revolutionary. Lincoln overthrew States' rights, the federal system, and the Constitution's separation of powers between the States and the federal government. Now the South is the toy of the North, States are toys of the Feds and the People their meat and drink. What is so hard about figuring that one out?!

371 posted on 05/12/2002 1:16:39 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus
Well, if you are agreeing with Who Is John Galt then the Dred Scott Decision should make you angry. Imagine, the Supreme Court stepping in and telling the states what to do. Theat never would have happened in the confederacy, would it? Especially since Davis never got around to establishing a supreme court. I imagine one would just have gotten in his way.
373 posted on 05/12/2002 1:33:10 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | 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