View single post by naakke
 Posted: Thu Aug 17th, 2006 07:37 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
naakke
Member


Joined: Mon Jul 17th, 2006
Location: Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I find it fascinating how Abraham Lincoln in his campaign speech in Connecticut and John C. Calhoun in his "Southern Address" both look at the US Constitution and see exact opposite perspectives. 

Calhoun sees therein the right to perpetual preservation of the institution while Lincoln sees the framers intent being that it should be a short run thing and to pass on into history.

I cannot refute anyone who says that slavery was the principal and perhaps singular cause for secession.  But what was behind the antipathy and antagonism?  Why had the North grown to hate it with such passion while the South would defend it and deepen its defense of it?  Does the question predate the Constitution?  It has to be older than 1819 and t he Missouri discussion.

The Republican platform and Lincoln's speeches seek to limit the spread of slavery to the territories.  Lincoln's point was that it does not matter if you like it or hate it, it should not spread to new territory.  Well that was unthinkable to the slaveholding states because of the balance of power in the Senate.

What a tangled web.

 Close Window