make it stop!!

[dogtowner]

Government protection of property ?
Government was seizing property without compensation. Hardly protection.
The abolitionist movement was quite limited. A few well to do biddies. Ordinary New Yorkers rioted to demonstrate how little they wanted to go fight Abes war. The US Navy bombed NYC to stop the riots.
Of course the threat of financial ruin was a big deal in the south. Ruin for something that was legal being illegally seized. I would like to think you too would fight for your property even if a few people hundreds of miles away thought you having a car was terrible since the co2 it emits is an abomination.

Until you can accept that people from an earlier time had different perspectives you will never understand history.
Open your mind Rob.

 

[BigRob]

Government protection of property ? Government was seizing property without compensation. Hardly protection.

Unfortunately for your version of events - the actual timeline differs here. Lincoln did not issue an edict to free the slaves which lead to the secession of the Southern States. The Southern states went into an open rebellion and it was several years before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. You expect the government that you are in open rebellion against to protect your property?

The abolitionist movement was quite limited. A few well to do biddies. Ordinary New Yorkers rioted to demonstrate how little they wanted to go fight Abes war. The US Navy bombed NYC to stop the riots.

Yes - there were anti-draft riots from segments of the population that opposed the war. What does that prove - other than differing opinions on the subject existed?

Of course the threat of financial ruin was a big deal in the south. Ruin for something that was legal being illegally seized. I would like to think you too would fight for your property even if a few people hundreds of miles away thought you having a car was terrible since the co2 it emits is an abomination.

No slaves were "seized" before the south openly rebelled against the United States. Your comparison is not accurate.

Until you can accept that people from an earlier time had different perspectives you will never understand history.
Open your mind Rob.

Yes, I fully understand that people in earlier times had different perspectives - however I also accept that they did not have only one perspective. They had differing opinions on a variety of subjects. I do not claim that everyone in the United States was opposed to slavery at this time - but I readily accept that such a viewpoint was by no means some marginal, extreme way of thinking at the time either.