Re: [tlug] [OT] US Civil War

[Shawn <javajunkie@example.com>]

>   Slavery certainly *became* a blazing issue once Lincoln
> > played the card.

How did he get elected?  Wasn't his position known.  Are you suggesting
it was his economic policies which were the sole factor.

This is what Lincoln said during his campaign.
http://www.kansashistoryonline.org/ksh/ArticlePage.asp?artid=468

“We have a means provided for the expression of our belief in regard to
slavery,” he said. “It is through the ballot box – the peaceful method
provided by the constitution.”

I personally agree with some who state that South should have had the
right to secede.

Gov't gets power though the will of the people.
The South wants to secede (to avoid those miserable taxing Yanks).
-----------------------------
The South should have the right!!!!! 

Except that the underlying assumptions are false. The South !only=
whites (though by the way I understand there were Irish slaves too).


 
> A friend pointed out www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm out to me a

"But there would have been no slavery if the South's protests could have
availed when it was first introduced"

I see.  It's the North's fault there was slavery. 

"I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the
witness stand, every one of them would testify that it was the
preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern
slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. "

The author has no real knowledge of what went on in the communities of
the North.
  

Fact: Abolitionists often used the local newspapers as a way of
expressing their views about the Eliza Winston case. This republican
writer was visiting Minnesota at the time of the escape.


Transcription:

                          SLAVERY IN MINNESOTA

MR. EDITOR:—It has been my fortune to spend the last few weeks in your
beautiful City, and as a Republican I have watched with great interest
the pulse of the party, General opinion of party members. on the great
and absorbing question of Slavery.

On turning to your Constitution I find in Sec. 2 of Article 1, the
following words: "There shall be neither Slavery not involuntary
servitude in the State otherwise than in punishment of crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted." And in the face of this plain
provision Slavery has existed right there in this City, without a
complaint, without a murmur. But within a few days past a great outrage
has been committed, a black woman has been assisted in procuring
Getting. her freedom. How has an outrage been committed? Have the laws
of the State been violated, and if so, who has done it? Is it the man
who attempts, nay, so far as his own acts go, makes this a Slave State,
contrary to law, or the man who assists in enforcing the laws as they
exist?

The Slaveholders themselves know that their chattels Moveable property.
cease to be such the moment they land in our State, they then "have
rights that white men are bound to respect." They are contraband Illegal
property. property, and so far as their owners are concerned, are
confiscated. Taken away.  It is a game of chance and the chances are
against them. The policy of interference on the part of individuals may
be questioned, but the right never.

But say these freedom-lovers, Sarcastic reference to slave oweners.
"What business has any man to interfere, and let the slave know the law,
and its effects? " We would in reply ask when and by what authority was
the mouths of white men padlocked? Has the time come in Minnesota when
you dare not express you own opinion? The expediency Appropriateness.
must be left for men's consciences to decide for themselves.

The most convincing argument appears to be put in this manner, Are they
not spending their money freely among you, and benefitting the whole
community? This is the milk in the coacoa nut; The financial benefit of
having Southerners with slaves vacation in Minnesota. this is the
conclusion of the whole matter. Gold is put in once scale and liberty in
the other. It is a shame, a lasting disgraces, that thinking,
intelligent men are found using the fallacy, Falsehood. for I will not
call it argument. Supposing they do leave a few dollars with your
landlords, your doctors, livery men, merchants, and shoemakers. What of
it? Is that to be compared to a whole lifetime of servitude Entire life
as a slave. of this one Eliza? Tell me not of principle, when you decide
so. Tell me not that you believe "all men are born free and equal." Your
actions give the lie to your profession.

Statement of belief. 

                 "A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty,
                 Is worth a whole eternity of bondage."

There is one question to be answered, and that is this: Was she entitled
to her freedom? If she was, why this whining and cringing? We should
thank God that there is one more human being breathing the pure free air
of liberty. He who rejected the occurrence, and "Bends the supple hinges
of the knee, that thrift may following fawning," is unworthy to be a
freeman, "is unworthy of the blessing of the brave, is base in kind, and
born to be a slave."

We have even heard some strong, active, enthusiastic, intelligent, high
minded Republicans, talk of lynching Execution without trial. those
concerned in procuring the poor woman her freedom. Shame on such
liberty-loving christians. We have been more disgusted with the general
tone of these doughfaces, Northerners who sided with the South on the
issue of slavery. than with the language of the slaveholders themselves.
They come out like men, and say they knew your laws before they came
here, and don't ask you for your sympathy. They know just how far your
sympathy goes—to their pocket, and of course you are not thanked for it.

Pardon me, Mr. Editor, for occupying so much of your space, for this
subject should be thoroughly ventilated, and I hope to see you as an
independent journalist do it.
REPUBLICAN.

http://www.mnhs.org/school/online/communities/milestones/ABOnws1T_transcript.htm

Shawn