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

To: Who is John Galt?

The gist of many secession-defenders, like you, is that the north didn’t care about slavery only using it as a pretext to use freed slaves to fight for them. Then answer me, why didn’t the north allow slavery to be reinstituted at war’s end, huh? Stop the evasive answers and answer that one simple question.


923 posted on 05/02/2011 9:40:03 PM PDT by driftless2 (For long-term happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies ]


To: driftless2
why didn’t the north allow slavery to be reinstituted at war’s end, huh? Stop the evasive answers and answer that one simple question.

Slavery was never legally deinstituted in the first place, so you're question's bogus. But to play along, the abolitionists were afraid the gains they made under Lincoln's war powers would be reversed, so they forced the amendment through without the legal representation (aka "unconstitutionally"). Evasive enough for you?

answer me, why haven't you paid attention to the dozens of times this was already pointed out, cited, etc ad nauseum, huh?
931 posted on 05/03/2011 4:15:36 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies ]

To: driftless2
The gist of many secession-defenders, like you, is that the north didn’t care about slavery only using it as a pretext to use freed slaves to fight for them. Then answer me, why didn’t the north allow slavery to be reinstituted at war’s end, huh? Stop the evasive answers and answer that one simple question.

As I've stated repeatedly, in writing, the critical issue is the constitutionality of State secession - not slavery. If State secession was constitutional, then it would not have mattered if the Southern States seceded to preserve slavery, or donate tax proceeds to the Little Sisters of the Poor - the federal government would not have been justified in opposing it. The most important common issue in the 1830s and the 1860s was the constitutionality of secession, not slavery:

...the people of this State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connexion with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate Government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right to do.

- South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, November 24 1832

Others here prefer to focus on slavery, no doubt because it supposedly lends moral authority to what are by definition legal arguments. In short, I would suggest that your summary in post #921 should be revised: States' rights before the war, no States rights after.

;>)

936 posted on 05/03/2011 5:31:30 AM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives." - Bill Calkins, BLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | 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