Posted on 02/17/2003 5:53:30 PM PST by Truthsearcher
Why the sympathy for the South?
Well abe sure didn't agree with you.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.Which begs the question if the original Thirteenth Amendment was backed by him, and had passed the Senate, what was the war over again?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.--abraham lincoln First Inaugural Address
All this self pity and revisionist history written by N.Y and Massachusetts historians has changed all the arguments by giving quoted materials that were just as untrue then as they are now.
But, they still exist as doctrine and history. They are still referred to as the real truth, when in reality, they are old lies.
Geeze, read what South Carolina said itself. You slavery deniers should at least read what the slave holding states were giving as their reasons for secession. Not about slavery? Talk about revisionism run amok.
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right....
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation....
Why would you say such a stupid and pointless thing? Do you think that was clever? How many times do you have to be told that very FEW people in the South owned slaves? You apparently just like to hurl sarcastic insults without considering the facts of the case.
Libertarians on this forum talk all the time about the WOD and 'invasion of privacy' when the truth is they just want to smoke dope. The Southerners were about to be invaded, and whether you owned slaves or not, the Union was coming. What would you do, huh?
Lincoln was elected.
And, perhaps, some who show up at same in finely pressed blue cotton uniforms.
foreverfree
Very few Germans were Nazis and very few worked for the extermination camps. Even fewer Japanese were related to Hirohito. But we blew a lot of them away with the A-bomb, now didn't we.
To any German or Japanese who says those were "the good old days" I say f''' you.
Sorry but if you fight on the side of evil you become an enabler of evil. Actions have consequences.
If and when the southern states try to seriously stop the importation of slave labor of illegal aliens,the northern states will again protest the loss of cheap labor,and refuse to pay the actual costs of food and supplies to their cities, once again."
Whoa! This is an astute observation. Thank you for something more to ponder.
This narrow interpretation of the War fails to account for political issues, economic factors, regional/cultural differences, taxation, constitutional rights, etc. Yours is an abolitionist view. The tendancy to simply the cause of the War is an injustice.
All I ask is that you look at it from their view. It is easy to wear 2003 goggles and diss those from the past because you are not there.
Let's look at a situation from the present day. A European can claim that same point of view expressed above to any "right" you hold dear. They can poo-poo talk you have of "rights" because your government is so barbaric that it kills -- flat out kills -- those poor wretched souls to whom life has been difficult and who have simply committed some crime that in enlightened Europe they would be placed in prison for. So much for yor "rights." I guess it would be justified if Europe invaded to set this injustice right. Too bad if your family dies, too bad if your possessions are destroyed, it's just too bad -- because the ends justify the means. No one in Europe gets teary eyed over a people climing "rights" when they kill minorities in the name of the state.
Or another one. During the cold war, the Soviet Union thought it cruel that fat cat industrialists were exploiting the labor of the working man in the US. Fat cat CEOs were living large while poor working men were worked to early graves to satify the opulent lifestyle of the rich and famous. They had the power to destroy the United States for that crime. In 1962 they almost did. In your world they would be justifed. Would it have been acceptable for the Soviets to have nuked us? After all no one in the Soviet Union got teary eyed when fat cat industrialists "rights" were on the line.
You know, in the Jacksonian world honor is important. The southern states joined the union under the proviso that the federal government would not interfere in slavery as that was to be wholly a decision of the individual states who would eliminate it under a schedule of their choosing. When it became apparent that this was not the case, the southern states viewed their honorable agreement as being broken, therefore action had to be taken. They chose secession because they were honorable men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.