tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8176732908069622424.post6194172687703647467..comments2023-03-18T06:31:13.168-05:00Comments on Go Sit In The Corner: Beloved - Part IIAGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11241567321225195878noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8176732908069622424.post-37638412579839917802007-03-08T10:45:00.000-06:002007-03-08T10:45:00.000-06:00Welcome axegrinder, and thanks.I don’t want to do ...Welcome axegrinder, and thanks.<BR/><BR/>I don’t want to do a separate post on this, but I will include a few brief examples here that argue against “states’ rights” being a legitimate rallying cry for the South, as violations of states’ rights in the North and territories were considered acceptable and even argued for by Southerners. I wish I could offer more reference materials, but I’m a bit too busy right now to dig through my books, sorry. <BR/><BR/>A great deal of political skirmishing in the first half of the 19th century involved the expansion of slavery into the western territories: the 1820 Missouri Compromise, the wrangling over the annexation of Texas, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Southerners only talked ‘states’ rights’ when it applied to them. And the state right they most wanted to be assured of was their right to slavery. Slaveholder interests won almost all the federal battles. <BR/><BR/>Almost all new territory was to be slave territory, or so the Southern claque argued. They were not in favor of popular sovereignty and allowing settlers in new territories to decide whether or not to allow slavery. No, the expansion of slavery must occur no matter the opposition of those who live there. What is the Missouri Compromise but a decision, favored by Southerners, to NOT ALLOW settlers in territories south of 36°30’ to decide for themselves whether or not to enter the U.S. as a slave state? <BR/><BR/>“We will have old Mexico and Cuba!” became one Southern rallying cry when Southerners, realizing that they probably had reached the western limits of slavery expansion, wanted to acquire yet more territory that would be slave states. This despite the fact that slavery was illegal in Mexico (the defiance of that policy by Americans who had settled in Texas was one of the reasons for the war of independence between Texas and Mexico). Cuba still had slavery and practically made some Southerners salivate at the thought of it becoming part of the U.S. Read DeBow’s Review for more.<BR/><BR/>Southerners also clamored for the federal censorship of abolitionist publications. In 1835, then-President Jackson asked Congress to enact federal legislation prohibiting abolitionists from using the U.S. postal system to circulate pamphlets in the South. Southerners would eventually demand that the federal government ban abolitionist literature entirely in order to avoid secession. Read secessionist editorials. <BR/><BR/>The infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford Case (1857) was a huge decision by the federal government to PROTECT slavery by declaring that blacks were not/could not be citizens, and violated the states’ rights of Northern states that allowed former slaves to be citizens. It was nevertheless highly praised by Southerners. <BR/><BR/>And then there were the Fugitive Slave Laws. Southern lawmakers wanted to EXPAND the powers of the federal government by involving U.S. courts in the return of slaves to them, including penalties against local law enforcement officers who did not co-operate. This was done in clear violation of the states’ rights of Northern states, particularly their right to enact and follow their own personal liberty laws. Irony of all ironies, South Carolina would actually include the personal liberty laws of some Northern states as one of their grievances in their secession document. We Southerners should be allowed to claim states’ rights, but not you Northerners! <BR/><BR/>There’s also the evidence from secession documents that shows the only “state right” they were concerned with was their “right” to slavery. In truth, the South argued for the expansion of federal power (and territory) and violation of the states’ rights of Northern states as long as it was in favor of slaveholders’ interest. The “states’ rights” rallying cry is just smoke. AND they were the ones to attack the North, starting the Civil War.AGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11241567321225195878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8176732908069622424.post-46423642612145993362007-03-08T05:11:00.000-06:002007-03-08T05:11:00.000-06:00AG,I got here via the Sarabite and am enjoying you...AG,<BR/><BR/>I got here via the Sarabite and am enjoying your stuff.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to read your debunking of the states' rights argument, that is, if you are interested in writing up those thoughts on your blog.<BR/><BR/>Jason KranzuschAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com