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

To: Aurelius
For most people, North and South, the slavery issue was not so much whether to keep it or not, but how to phase it out without causing economic and social disruption and disaster.

I suppose that's why the South was so warm for the extension of slavery to the territories--phasing it out, and all that.

7 posted on 01/07/2004 7:20:08 AM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Agnes Heep
Aaaaaah, nothing like a good old fashoined FR civil war thread. Especially one prompted by a spew rockwell article! Oh, to be young again, posting large paragraphs of content that no one reads, but rather just answers back with their own paragraph of content, ad infinitum!
9 posted on 01/07/2004 7:23:12 AM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Agnes Heep
"After the war Robert E. Lee also wrote, "The best men in the South have long desired to do away with the institution [of slavery], and were quite willing to see it abolished. But with them in relation to this subject is a serious question today. Unless some humane course, based on wisdom and Christian principles, is adopted, you do them great injustice in setting them free."

(Thomas Nelson Page, Robert E. Lee: Man and Soldier [New York, 1911], page 38.) Lee did not own slaves (he freed his in the 1850s), nor did a number of his most trusted lieutenants, including generals A. P. Hill, Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, J. E. Johnston, and J. E. B. Stuart. "
15 posted on 01/07/2004 7:28:53 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Agnes Heep
I suppose that's why the South was so warm for the extension of slavery to the territories--phasing it out, and all that.

That was a political necessity - necessitated by the obvious intent of the northern industrial states to use their majority to dominate and exploit the south.

16 posted on 01/07/2004 7:29:21 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Agnes Heep
At that time, much of the POLITICAL leadership of the South consisted of slave owners. Most of the PEOPLE did not own slaves. Couldn't afford them and didn't want them.

The idea of expanding slavery into the new territories was not directly addressed in the Constitution and slavery was not abolished in the U.S. until December of 1865.

40 posted on 01/07/2004 8:32:12 AM PST by dixierat22 (keeping my powder dry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Agnes Heep
You have violated a sacred law:

"Thou shalt nevereverwhatsoever attempt to insert logic into a discussion of the War Between the States."

For your penance, you must sit through "Cold Mountain" three times, or "Gone with the Wind" twice. Go now and sin no more.

201 posted on 01/08/2004 4:03:46 PM PST by Kenny Bunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Agnes Heep
for the FIVE to SIX PERCENT (5-6%) of southerners who actually owned a slave/slaves, extension of slavery into the west was VERY IMPORTANT. BUT for the other 94 percent who did NOT/could NOT own any slaves, it was NOT important.

TWBTS was a PEASANT REVOLT, against a damnyankee controlled federal government, which had ceased to serve the average southerner.

had we southrons won, the "plantation elites" might well been next on the "list of enemies" after the damnyankee elites, the railroads, the robber barons, etc.

peasants have never been particuliarly fond of their "betters" in any country or time period!

free dixie,sw

248 posted on 01/09/2004 9:51:47 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. ,T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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