Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: lentulusgracchus
That is, yes, the Texans are arguing that the Northern States' congressional representatives, in denying the military appropriation, made it clear that their reason for doing so, was that Texas was a slave State.

Then I assume you won't have any trouble pointing to some of those Northern States' congressional representatives making that clear, right?

The fact is that about a full 25% of the Army was on the Texas frontier in the decade before secession, vastly larger, proportionately, than the percentage of the armed forces in Iraq at the height of the surge.

Douglas had been a viable future presidential candidate when he helped engineer the 1850 Compromise, but his political career was utterly destroyed by the slavery issue and Kansas-Nebraska. Kansas-Nebraska was his effort to straddle and finesse the slavery issue being pushed by Free Soilers and Northern Whigs. Lincoln not only unhorsed Douglas but wrecked his party with the slavery issue.

You are aware, right, that Lincoln lost to Douglas in the 1858 senate race, four years after you say his political career was "utterly destroyed" by the Kansas-Nebraska Act?

75 posted on 01/11/2011 10:21:57 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Bubba Ho-Tep

The Republican Party was founded as a direct response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Lincoln re-entered politics after many years in private life as another direct response.

So Douglass’ attempt to suck up to the slaveocrats created his own nemesis.


79 posted on 01/11/2011 10:26:59 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson