This seems to be the best support really. Anne is right that federal laws
enforcing slavery being shoved down the throat of northerners were unjust.
Perhaps if the Federals had allowed the south to secede, then slavery would
have begun its natural death, sped by the simple fact of a place of freedom
in close proximity and the increasing numbers and influence of free blacks
living in southern areas (Richmond, for example). It may have been
achieved, albeit too slowly for the slaves themselves, without an awful,
bloody conflict that still scars the nation's psyche even today. Of course
it's all speculation and who knows what really might have happened.
Not to beat the proverbial "speculative history" dead horse here, but
another concept which ties into this thread that also interests me... in
world history of the past, when a portion of a nation has seceded legally
or through revolt, have they come back together eventually? It would seem
that if the parent nation and the seceding nation shared such common
aspects of their culture such as language, political allies, religion, and
overall way of life... a re-unification would be inevitable. The only
example I can really think of off the top of my head is East and West
Germany. Can anyone cite other examples?
That book about the South African AK-47s sound bizarre. I shall have to
check it out.
David
At 08:55 PM 2/5/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Folks
>
>I'm no historian and far from expert in this, but it seems to me that if
>the south had been allowed to secede, the north would have quickly wiped
>out all the laws forced down their throats to preserve slavery and return
>escaped "slaves" to the south. How long could slavery have persisted if
>those who wanted their freedom had to travel only to the closest northern
>state instead of to Canada? On a tv story about Lincoln's life that I
>listened to the other night as I was reading e-mail, the point was made
>that many Northerners were angered and offended by the federal laws that
>went against their consciences in human rights. Much is said in the south
>about the imposition of tariffs that offended wealthy southerners, but the
>south so easily forgets the impositions they put on their northern
>countrymen to keep those slaves in bondage. Think of the many people of
>conscience who oppose abortion in these times .... Back in "that" time
>there were people of conscience who opposed slavery. They were forbidden by
>federal laws to exercise their conscience, and had to resort to disobeying
>the unjust laws to their own peril.
>
>Consider a comparison of the anti-abortionists of our times to the
>anti-slavery and abolitionists of that time. Anti-abortionists are free by
>law to choose not to abort, but anti-slavers were bound by law to return
>slaves to cruel owners.
>
> Anne
>
>At 01:22 PM 2/5/02 -0500, you wrote:
>>I am hoping that someone can point me to any resources (websites, texts,
>>articles) that postulate the theory that... had the war of secession not
>>occurred and the southern states been allowed to secede OR had won the
>>war... that the practice of slavery would have been (and perhaps already
>>was on its way to being) phased out. I have not really heard too much about
>>this argument, but the idea is intriguing. I would be interested in seeing
>>the evidence that would be cited to support that kind of argument.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>David
>>
>>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>Anne Pemberton
>[log in to unmask]
>
>http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
