View single post by ole
 Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 05:01 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

Huh?  My mind is boggling.  I can't agree that.  And, even if "It was simply a fear of what might be that gave rise to secession sentiments" the fear was still real, and was based in the reality of state's rights, and of how they could be diminished.  Unless I am misunderstanding what you meant, Ole. 
State rights was a catch-phrase, Joanie, that the secesh used to make more palatable what they were really agitating for.

Will agree that the fear was real in that the handwriting on the wall clearly showed an administration hostile to the peculiar institution.  The ten percent of the population who based their lives on the production of bondpersons couldn't very well say "We want to keep our slaves!" That became an empty state's right sound bite to make it more palatable to the masses.

"Empty" because the feds had no real power to make a telling move against the practice. Lincoln knew it and insisted only on the fed's right to prohibit the practice in federally owned territories. Calmer southerners also knew it. Alexander Stephens among them.

Squalling about state's rights became empty upon insisting on their right to move slaves into states that had anti-slavery laws. Whining about state's rights became empty when they objected to another state's aversion to the Fugitive Slave Acts.

It was all about their right to keep slaves and their fear of losing it. It had nothing to do with the rights of a state existing within the constitution. Just lipstick on the pig.


 Close Window