Nachricht von Diskussion slavery
Received: by 10.66.89.135 with SMTP id bo7mr600315pab.39.1349279752757;
Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:55:52 -0500
From: Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: slavery
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:55:51 -0400
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
HankC <cla...@missouri.edu> writes:
[ snip ]
> as President, Lincoln would be appointing many Republicans to
> patronage positions: US Marshal, postmaster and customs agents for
> example. They'd be entering a previously Democratic, overwhelmingly
> pro-slavery, civil infrastructure.
> This scared the pro-slave oligarchy tremendously.
> these thoughts are best explained in 'road to disunion' whose author
> slips my memory: Freehling?
That's the author, Wm Freehling.
Add to that Eric Foner, Free Soil Free Laor Free Men. This is an
exposition of the ideological quest of the Republicans and earlier
free-soilers, antislavery types, and so on. They had lots of ideas on
how to put slavery on the road to "ultimate extinction".
Many want to make out the slaveowners as not only wrong on the moral
question, but also irrational to fear for the future of slavery. If one
assumes that there was no threat to slavery, then one may not take
seriously enough Republican ideology and goals.
Then when you add in the unmatched invective of Charles Sumner, with his
devastating speeches excoriating the "slave power".
This brings up a question, how to accommodate the fact that there was
opposition to secession even in the deep south?