Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To get the south to join the union, it was all about slavery too.
The south would have never joined the union in the first place without the 3/5ths Compromise(about slavery). That compromise was not up for discussion, not even if it would give the south more representation in congress. They were going to be there own nation, 70 years prior.
Con them in, then switch the rules and change the deal after you already paid them...
You like that when it happens to you and go back for seconds, then jump for joy.
Nobody switched the rules. The 3/5th rule, which gave the South artificially inflated House numbers remained in effect at the time of the 1860 election.
There was no agreement, tacit or otherwise, that slavery would be extended into new territories indefinitely, that was a particularly antebellum Southern goal in pursuit of their own political ends and in facing the reality of a rapidly growing black population. Even before the Constitutional Convention, the Congress, under the articles of Confederation, outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory.
Nobody switched the rules. The 3/5th rule, which gave the South artificially inflated House numbers remained in effect at the time of the 1860 election.
There was no agreement, tacit or otherwise, that slavery would be extended into new territories indefinitely, that was a particularly antebellum Southern goal in pursuit of their own political ends and in facing the reality of a rapidly growing black population. Even before the Constitutional Convention, the Congress, under the articles of Confederation, outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory.
Just think how inflated the house number would have been in the south's favor, had there not been a 3/5 Compromise and they still joined the union!
A passage of the original Declaration of Independence that had to be stricken before the south agreed to sign on to revolution.
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
The Tariff was the chief political issue of the 1820s and early 1830s. That's neither here or there. 1860 was not 1828, just like 2014 is not 1982. Different times, different situations, different issues. You're skating over the biggest and most important changes to arise over that period: the rise of the abolition movement; the collapse of the Whig Party and the rise of the Republican Party, a Northern party without a Southern wing (unlike the Democrats and the former Whig parties), and the population boom in the free states that made the rise of the GOP and their anti-extension of slavery plank not only possible, but made them into the country's majority party by 1860. Bottom line is, the situation changed.
But lets not forget that the nullification movement that began in 1828 to 1832, was really the foundation for secession in 1860. Effectively, John C. Calhoun is the father of American secession. Calhoun died in 1850.
Secondly, the abolition movement wasn't what many people think it was. The abolition movement was largely just the free-soil movement, and it was almost entirely economic. Northerners didn't as much want to end slavery as they wanted to prevent its expansion. To the extent that they were wanted slavery to end, it was more for practical reasons than because they really cared about blacks. Basically, they wanted to abolish slavery and remove all the black people from the country.
The reason was, white European immigrants didn't want to compete in the labor market with slaves. Northerners wanted to end slavery for the same reason the unions have long been opposed to immigration. Working class people don't like competing against low-wage labor(and what can be more low-wage than slavery?).
There was also a huge debate about what should be done with the land received in the Louisiana purchase. In the early years of America, the land that was annexed into America was sold off or auctioned. Of course, the buyers of this land were usually wealthy investors or "planters"(IE slaveowners). This system continued to enrich the wealthiest men, while leaving much of the working class in relative poverty.
Many southerners were worried about the power disparity created by slavery. Especially of the domination of southern politics and institutions by the "planter aristocracy". Abraham Lincoln's Vice president, Andrew Johnson, was a Southerner who wanted to abolish slavery to break up the economic domination of the south by these wealthy planters. One of the plans to weaken the power of the plantation aristocracy, was to just give away the land in the "West" instead of selling it. These were the "Homestead acts".
There was even a political party formed that didn't argue for abolition, but rather just argued for making sure the West was settled by "free white men". It was called the "Free soil party". In fact, Martin Van Buren, who had been president before. Ran again in 1848 on the free soil ticket.
Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. Abraham Lincoln was really just a free soil'er. In fact, he called himself a free soil'er on many occasions, and declared he was not an abolitionist in the Lincoln/Douglas debates. Lincoln wouldn't have been elected president had he even uttered that he was an abolitionist in jest.
For that matter, for all the talk about how the Northerners wanted to end slavery. For the most part, they didn't really care about slavery as long as it didn't effect them. And they certainly didn't want legal or social equality between whites and blacks. Abraham Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior and should be removed from the country. His Vice President believed that blacks were inferior and should be removed from the country. In fact, Lincoln's primary opponent for the 1860 Republican nomination was William H. Seward. And Seward even proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery where it already existed. It was called the "Corwin Amendment".
I hate the Civil War being framed in this sort of "good guy" vs "bad guy" dichotomy. Both sides were bad guys. At best you can argue that the south was slightly more bad since they wanted to keep slavery, while the north only wanted to kick all the black people out of the country.
How is that a trick? The South had disproportionate power in the House because they had extra representation for their slaves.
Without the 3/5 compromise, that was demanded from the north, because without it the south would have had more representation than the north and ruled the US legislature. The North couldn't say they were not human, and not to be counted, or all the blacks in the north, would not be counted. the 3/5ths Compromise, was what got the south to join the UNION. Without it, the South would have been it's own nation.
Bait & switch.
The south would have never joined the union in the first place without the 3/5ths Compromise(about slavery). That compromise was not up for discussion, not even if it would give the south more representation in congress. They were going to be there own nation, 70 years prior.
Con them in, then switch the rules and change the deal after you already paid them...
You like that when it happens to you and go back for seconds, then jump for joy.
If I believe the south was a bunch of scumbags; Why would I possibly support southern secession?
More importantly, why do so many libertarians defend southern secession? Aren't Libertarians supposed to be the party of liberty? On what basis could a libertarian possibly defend people who wanted to keep enslaving other people?
The people who defend southern secession aren't defending the south. They are defending secession.
The sort of irony of the Civil War. Is that the people who think the south didn't have the right to secede, don't understand that had the south not seceded, Lincoln had no interest in abolishing slavery. In fact, without southern secession, slavery most likely would have continued until the 1880's(when the cotton market "fell out").
If we understand that Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist(at least not in 1861). Then it cannot possibly be true that the north was fighting to end slavery. Therefore, whatever the motivations for southern secession, the Civil War could not have been a war "over slavery". Since had the war ended prior to 1863, it is unlikely that slavery would have even been abolished.
It is certainly true that the south seceded to maintain slavery. One can even say, had there not been slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War(at least not in 1861).
On the other hand, I believe that America was still doomed to a Civil War. The reason was that the secession question hadn't yet been resolved.
At the heart of the debate about secession was the "Compact theory". Which effectively said that the states could nullify federal laws, or even leave the union altogether.
The Compact theory wasn't merely some abstract idea. It was supported by the "Father of the Constitution" himself, James Madison. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was its strongest supporter.
As long as the compact theory was a viable theory, and as long as the Constitution was ambiguous on the topic. The stage had been set for one state, or a group of states to try to secede from the union.
You could see it over and over again throughout early American history. In 1798, Alexander Hamilton had threatened to invade Virginia or any other state who spoke of secession.
In 1832, when John C. Calhoun had threatened to nullify federal laws(the precursor to secession). The president at the time, Andrew Jackson said, “John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body.â€
The truth is, someone was eventually going to secede. And regardless of the issue, the Federal government was going to go to war to prevent it.
The question in my mind is, should the Federal government violently put down secession? Is there a "right" to secession? Did America have a right to secede from Britain? Did the southern states have the right to secede from America? Was Abraham Lincoln a good man for fighting a war to prevent southern secession? Was King George a good man for fighting a war to prevent American secession?
What are the necessary conditions for legitimate secession? Doesn't America readily support secession all over the world when it benefits us, but opposes secession when it doesn't benefit us? Is there any sort of absolute definition on who should and who shouldn't be allowed to secede?
I don't really like dealing with "arbitrary definitions". I would much rather "absolute definitions".
Look at it like this, if you say the south shouldn't have been able to secede in 1861 because they were seceding to protect slavery. Then should they have been able to secede in 1832 when the issue was oppressive taxation? Should Virginia and Kentucky have been able to secede in 1798, when they would have been seceding over free speech and unconstitutional abuses of federal power? Would they have been able to?
The problem with asking the questions in these ways, is that it really just comes down to opinion. And opinions will be biased. What you might think is "bad enough" for secession won't be the same as what I think is "bad enough" for secession. If we agreed, there would be no need for secession to begin with.
I would rather a more absolute definition to the right to secession. In my view, if the government is in obvious violation of its founding document, its Constitution, then you should be able to at minimum nullify that law. And at worst, secede.
I agree with every word in Thomas Jefferson's "Kentucky Resolution". And I believe that any departure from that ideal, is tyranny.
Which is why libertarians tend to support southern secession. Southern secession represents a fight against tyranny. The south lost, the 14th amendment was passed, and we all became slaves to an increasingly centralized federal government.
I think Lord Acton says my position better than anyone...
"Without presuming to decide the purely legal question, on which it seems evident to me from Madison's and Hamilton's papers that the Fathers of the Constitution were not agreed, I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class."
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
"It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist."
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
But lets not forget that the nullification movement that began in 1828 to 1832, was really the foundation for secession in 1860. Effectively, John C. Calhoun is the father of American secession. Calhoun died in 1850.
Secondly, the abolition movement wasn't what many people think it was. The abolition movement was largely just the free-soil movement, and it was almost entirely economic. Northerners didn't as much want to end slavery as they wanted to prevent its expansion. To the extent that they were wanted slavery to end, it was more for practical reasons than because they really cared about blacks. Basically, they wanted to abolish slavery and remove all the black people from the country.
The reason was, white European immigrants didn't want to compete in the labor market with slaves. Northerners wanted to end slavery for the same reason the unions have long been opposed to immigration. Working class people don't like competing against low-wage labor(and what can be more low-wage than slavery?).
There was also a huge debate about what should be done with the land received in the Louisiana purchase. In the early years of America, the land that was annexed into America was sold off or auctioned. Of course, the buyers of this land were usually wealthy investors or "planters"(IE slaveowners). This system continued to enrich the wealthiest men, while leaving much of the working class in relative poverty.
Many southerners were worried about the power disparity created by slavery. Especially of the domination of southern politics and institutions by the "planter aristocracy". Abraham Lincoln's Vice president, Andrew Johnson, was a Southerner who wanted to abolish slavery to break up the economic domination of the south by these wealthy planters. One of the plans to weaken the power of the plantation aristocracy, was to just give away the land in the "West" instead of selling it. These were the "Homestead acts".
There was even a political party formed that didn't argue for abolition, but rather just argued for making sure the West was settled by "free white men". It was called the "Free soil party". In fact, Martin Van Buren, who had been president before. Ran again in 1848 on the free soil ticket.
Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. Abraham Lincoln was really just a free soil'er. In fact, he called himself a free soil'er on many occasions, and declared he was not an abolitionist in the Lincoln/Douglas debates. Lincoln wouldn't have been elected president had he even uttered that he was an abolitionist in jest.
For that matter, for all the talk about how the Northerners wanted to end slavery. For the most part, they didn't really care about slavery as long as it didn't effect them. And they certainly didn't want legal or social equality between whites and blacks. Abraham Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior and should be removed from the country. His Vice President believed that blacks were inferior and should be removed from the country. In fact, Lincoln's primary opponent for the 1860 Republican nomination was William H. Seward. And Seward even proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery where it already existed. It was called the "Corwin Amendment".
I hate the Civil War being framed in this sort of "good guy" vs "bad guy" dichotomy. Both sides were bad guys. At best you can argue that the south was slightly more bad since they wanted to keep slavery, while the north only wanted to kick all the black people out of the country.
In either case, they were all scumbags.
Just more proof that the powers that be use the people like a bunch of pawns to do their dirty work.
Without the 3/5 compromise, that was demanded from the north, because without it the south would have had more representation than the north and ruled the US legislature. The North couldn't say they were not human, and not to be counted, or all the blacks in the north, would not be counted. the 3/5ths Compromise, was what got the south to join the UNION. Without it, the South would have been it's own nation.
Bait & switch.
The south would have never joined the union in the first place without the 3/5ths Compromise(about slavery). That compromise was not up for discussion, not even if it would give the south more representation in congress. They were going to be there own nation, 70 years prior.
Con them in, then switch the rules and change the deal after you already paid them...
You like that when it happens to you and go back for seconds, then jump for joy.
lol
History fail again. Crack a book sometime.
Benjamin Harrison of Virginia (father of the 9th President, great-grandfather of the other President Harrison, and signer of the Declaration of Independence) put forward the counting slaves as 1/2 a person, the New England delegates offered up 3/4 of a person (in case you don't notice, the North was trying to get slaves counted as a whole person--this originally came up under the Articles of Confederation and the population would have been directly connected to how much a state was taxed). This is the basis of the 3/5ths compromise. When the Constitutional Convention met, the issue of representation came up. The South wanted slaves counted as a whole person (to increase their representation in Congress), while at the same time demanding they not be counted at all when it comes to taxation. The North said no way. They decided to simply use the same compromise they had struck 4 years earlier and count it towards both representation and taxation.
If it makes you feel any better, for nearly 100 years after the Civil War, blacks counted as a whole person in the South but weren't allowed to take part in government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
