From The Coming Fury by Bruce Catton. No question that by 1860 slaverry was at the forefront. Interesting states rights supported the protection of slavery but states rights didn't protect the rights of citizens of free states to oppose slavery. Seeing the same actions today. States limiting abortion have the right under states rights but the right of a free person to travel to another state that allows abortion? Hey, that sounds a lot like the Supreme Court's Dred Scot Decion. AKA a slave is a slave whether he or she is in a free state or a slave state.
"On the day after the speaker election, Senator Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, arose in the Senate to present a series of resolutions on the slavery question. These began by reasserting the state-sovereignty doctrines of John C. Calhoun, declared that it was the Senate's duty "to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property" in the territories, and then flatly stated that there was no power anywhere to limit slavery in the territories. Congress could not do it; its solemn duty was to protect slavery there. Residents of a territory could not do it; they could outlaw slavery only when their territory was admitted to the Union as a state. Meanwhile, all acts of Northern individuals or states which interfered with the return of fugitive slaves were asserted to be "hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution and revolutionary in their effect." A little later, Davis modified the resolutions slightly, but the meaning remained unchanged. 9 In effect, he had presented a straight slave code as a principle for Senatorial adoption. That the Senate would actually adopt any such code was highly improbable, as Davis knew. The real target was the approaching convention of the Democratic party."
And the admission by Stephen Douglas thnt slavery could not survive without the support of the slave owner topedoed his chances of heading a united Democratric ticket in 1860.
No comments:
Post a Comment