Posted on 06/22/2020 12:39:05 PM PDT by Borges
Charles Dickens nailed it.
A bon chat, bon rat.
No it wasn't. It wasn't going to expand anywhere within the US. The evidence indicates "expansion" is a made up fake issue.
Said offer being made after the Southern states had seceded and after they adopted a constitution that protected slavery to an extent never dreamed of by Thomas Corwin.
Cause the USA was only a little pregnant. Not whole hog pregnant like the CSA.
Their reasoning was that the Northern states had broken the compact. They were right about that. It wasn’t why they were actually leaving but they were right in saying it.
Some in the Southern states argued slavery was threatened. Others pointed out they would be much better off financially if they were independent.
There is no escaping from the facts that the Northern states were quite willing to protect slavery effectively forever and the original 7 seceding states turned down their offer. Clearly something other than concerns over slavery must have been motivating them.
+2
Having already announced their secession and adopted a constitution that protected slavery to a far greater extent than the Corwin amendment ever would have, do you honestly expect that the southern states would then have called it off?
Clearly something other than concerns over slavery must have been motivating them.
Apparently not, if the writings of the southern leaders of the time is to be believed.
Were they now?
It wasn’t why they were actually leaving but they were right in saying it.
How could it be their reasoning if it wasn't the reason?
And yet there is no escaping from the fact that the Northern states were willing to protect slavery forever in the Constitution itself and the original 7 seceding states turned this offer down.
Clearly they were far more concerned with issues other than slavery. The leaders of those states made it quite clear they had huge concerns about economic issues (ie the tariff and unequal federal government outlays) that would not have been rectified by the Corwin Amendment.
Yes. They were right about that. The Northern states had clearly not enforced the fugitive slave clause of the constitution in good faith.
How could a side in a contract dispute note that the other side had broken the contract even if that was not their motivation for wanting to get out of the contract? It happens all the time. Parties make their best legal argument even if that is not their actual motivation routinely.
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.