back to top
|In the reading that I have done today (instead of working for my boss), I have started to see much of what Tom and Indy have been talking about. Lincoln points out that ALL other issues seem to take a back seat to the issue of slavery. But the point that Calhoun was making is that slavery was indeed a right granted by the constitution and that there were provisions therein that states did not have the right to set aside. The danger to the Southern perspective was when enough territories had been admitted without slavery, then the free states could dictate to the South their will. That seems to be very indicative of sectionalism or regionalism. Some say that the souther 4 colonies maybe 5 would not have ratified the constitution if the slavery provisions had not been made. Fine, then why force them to stay when ready to throw those provisions aside? I am a little dizzied at the moment as to why the Northern states would have been so earnest in courting the slave states if they were so opposed to slavery.
Cool alternate history scenario to think through, "What if the 4 or 5 southern states would have formed their own union seperate from the North in 1787-1789?" hmmm