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

To: teeman8r

That’s true — it was a kneecapping move. Here’s where we could fault the North for not banning it sooner. But embroiled in a war, the North would have found that more difficult than waiting till after the war.


18 posted on 05/03/2019 8:26:33 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (May Jesus Christ be praised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: HiTech RedNeck
“Here’s where we could fault the North for not banning it sooner. But embroiled in a war, the North would have found that more difficult than waiting till after the war.”

If the North had wanted to ban slavery they could have done it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. But at the time, it was not in the North's economic or political best self-interest.

The North could have initiated the peaceful abolition of slavery through a constitutional amendment at anytime prior to 1860. They did not. It was not in their economic and political best self-interest.

After 300,000 southerners had been safely buried the North passed a series of constitutional amendments. It was in their economic and political best self-interest.

1,097 posted on 05/26/2019 11:12:30 AM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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