Eh. I’d argue that’s kind of a narrow interpretation of events. The violence in the territories in the lead up was 100% about slavery. That conflict just kept surging up through more official organizational structures. Lincoln dragged his heels in and was slow to emancipate, but John Brown was in kanasa chopping people up with a broadsword in 1856.
but John Brown was in kanasa chopping people up with a broadsword in 1856.
Yeah. But Kansas isn’t in the South…
That was over new states all being against slavery by default. The slave states wanted some of the new states to also have slaves.
And that comes back full circle to slave states fearing a federal ban on slaves, they wanted to balance slave/free states so they wouldn’t be outnumbered in the House/Senate.
Now, he was a badass tho, and was raiding the South prior to the civil war trying to start a slave revolt… But it didn’t end up well for him.
But I was talking about legal means, not a revolt. Which would have been morally right. But not legal under their laws at the time.
I’d still argue the example of the slave state Missouri organizing raids on kansas speaks more about the issue of slavery than states rights. It was the opening bid to the civil war and it was individuals acting on moral convictions/racial hate fueling it. John Brown is such a mood.
Sorry, this is what I get for trying to respond while hiding my phone at work. I guess I’m not making a delineation between the conflict and the ‘legal’ framework for the war. Yes Lincoln was a bit of a shit but he had abolitionists prodding him the entire time. (Ever read ‘The Zealot and the Emancipator’? You might like it—really calls out Lincoln’s positions and gives color to our boy Brown.)
Eh. I’d argue that’s kind of a narrow interpretation of events. The violence in the territories in the lead up was 100% about slavery. That conflict just kept surging up through more official organizational structures. Lincoln dragged his heels in and was slow to emancipate, but John Brown was in kanasa chopping people up with a broadsword in 1856.
Yeah. But Kansas isn’t in the South…
That was over new states all being against slavery by default. The slave states wanted some of the new states to also have slaves.
And that comes back full circle to slave states fearing a federal ban on slaves, they wanted to balance slave/free states so they wouldn’t be outnumbered in the House/Senate.
Now, he was a badass tho, and was raiding the South prior to the civil war trying to start a slave revolt… But it didn’t end up well for him.
But I was talking about legal means, not a revolt. Which would have been morally right. But not legal under their laws at the time.
I’d still argue the example of the slave state Missouri organizing raids on kansas speaks more about the issue of slavery than states rights. It was the opening bid to the civil war and it was individuals acting on moral convictions/racial hate fueling it. John Brown is such a mood.
I’d agree with you there, but
You just said it was individuals.
They should get the credit for outlawing slavery. Not the people who were 100% fine to let it continue like Lincoln.
People just don’t like it when there’s no “good guys”.
Sorry, this is what I get for trying to respond while hiding my phone at work. I guess I’m not making a delineation between the conflict and the ‘legal’ framework for the war. Yes Lincoln was a bit of a shit but he had abolitionists prodding him the entire time. (Ever read ‘The Zealot and the Emancipator’? You might like it—really calls out Lincoln’s positions and gives color to our boy Brown.)