View single post by ole
 Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 03:41 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Been a while since we've heard from you DocC. Will hope you've just been busy.

- the founding fathers failure to address the problem of native americans, slavery, the rights of women;


At the time, these were not considered problems. They failed at a number of things, to be sure, but their aim was to form a nation -- not diddle with such minor things as Indians, slavery and the ERA. Just a thought.

I usually figure that their primary focus was to get a consensus of almost any kind they could devise. The agreement and coalition was the focus. If they had to give up some of what they personally wanted in order to get that next state -- so be it. The union was the focus. All in all, they did a pretty good job.
In my opinion, states rights and slavery are intimately joined together and like siamese twins cannot be separated. Would welcome comments on this intriquing subject.
I don't see it the same way you've indicated. "State's rights" were loudly claimed, and the feds had no right to interfere in the state's right to keep the practice, but....

Only the Abolitionists and quieter citizens condemned slavery. None of them claimed that a state had no right to permit slavery. They pressed on moral grounds in that there were precious few legal grounds to pursue.

The way I see it, no state's rights were or were likely to be threatened. Lincoln's power was limited to the spoils of election: appointments. Lincoln-appointed postmasters and judges might have upset the applecart. No. It was simply a fear of what might be that gave rise to secession sentiments.

Short observation: State's rights had nothing to do with anything.

ole



 

 

 Close Window