On the record
But the fact that he advocated the protection of slave property in the territories, although opposed to Buchanan's Lecompton policy, was destined to subject him to humiliating defeat.
Source
gutenberg.orgEditor's note · Context
He highlights the contradiction in advocating for slave property protection while opposing a specific policy, leading to political consequences.
Share
More from De Alexander
It is not the bondholder, it is the office holder who sucks the blood of the people.
If Clinton was the Hampden of the colonial period, Robert Yates could well be called its Pym.
And is it not needed when its taking helps us and hurts our enemy?
Why should we now make any concessions to them?
Other voices in this conversation
