Posted on 03/19/2017 9:14:52 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The key words here are “fire eaters”.
They had been around since at least 1850, but were kept under control in 1852 by Franklin Pierce and William King’s people.
Again in 1856 they were stifled by followers of James Buchanan and John Breckenridge.
But in 1860 Fire Eaters ran amuck, out of control, first splitting the Democrat party, then threatening and declaring secession due to Lincoln’s election.
So any scenario which imagines Democrat victory in 1860 must begin with a plan to stiffle tbe Fire Eaters, and that admittedly is a tall order.
I’m only saying they did it in both 1852 and 1856, and so we know it was not impossible — where there’s a will, there can be a way.
Prepare to be piled on by all the neo-Confederate Lincoln-haters.
Of course, that's not what I said.
I did say that, 1) without constitutional amendment, Lincoln had no authority to abolish slavery in loyal Union states, and that 2) legislation for the 13th amendment began around the time of Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation, so Republican motives & actions were consistent.
Jeffersondem: "My belief is that the U.S. should have passed the three amendments in 1861 and that the war and all the killings should have been skipped. "
Of course, that's ridiculous, since in 1861 the Confederacy first provoked war, then started and formally declared war, while waging war against the United States in Union states.
So war was not optional for the Union, but rather a matter of existential necessity.
As for those 13th, 14th & 15th amendments, I don't see how they could have passed even months, much less years, before they did.
Do you?
Yes. See Article V, U.S. Constitution.
So, like others of our pro-Confederate geniuses, defenders of slavery in the South, you now presume to criticize Republicans for not abolishing slavery in the South quickly enough to suit you?
Did you "forget" that slavery was already abolished in the North?
Or is there some genuine, ahem, strategery here?
Is your real complaint, the genuine article of your belief, along with, say John Breckenridge, that the Union should have first declared war on the Confederacy (thus acknowledging its existence), then abolished slavery in Southern Union states (i.e., Kentucky, Maryland), while there was still opportunity for those states to secede & join the Confederacy?
I think I "get" this -- you're fantasizing how the Confederacy might have won their war, if only those dumb*ss Yankees could be bamboozled into more dumb*ass mistakes.
Hey, nice try!
The North voted slavery into the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution - and made themselves wealthy in doing so. I'm talking about New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland. And now, you tell me the North had the moral high ground because only 9 of the original slave states were in the North.
The North had the moral high ground.
“The North had the moral high ground.”
No.
I say that based on what the North did to black people before Lincoln’s war. And based on what the North did to black people during Lincoln’s war. And based on what the North did to black people after Lincoln’s war.
Does your incessant repetition of calling it “Lincoln’s War” make you feel like you personally have the higher moral ground over people who don’t use that provocative terminology?
Exactly so. Well said.
Note to self: HandyDandy understands the reference to “Lincoln's War” but doesn't like it.
The North had the moral high ground. All day, every day and twice on Sunday.
Note to self: jeffersondem understands the question but avoids answering it.
“The North had the moral high ground. All day, every day and twice on Sunday.”
Then they must still have it.
I hope that your family survives the discovery they do not.
Hardly.
By the time of the constitutional convention in 1787 most Northern states had already begun to gradually abolish slavery, the rest would follow soon after.
So, our Founders' vision -- including that of such Southerners as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison -- their vision in 1787 was of gradual, peaceful abolition, lead by the states themselves.
After all, that was in process at the time.
Some Southerners insisted slavery must be acknowledged in the Constitution, as their price for ratification, and so it was done.
Other Southerners like Thomas Jefferson insisted international imports for new slaves could be outlawed, and Jefferson also proposed abolishing slavery in the Northwest Territories, which was done.
So, slavery in 1787 was seen as a dying institution to be slowly restricted by Federal government and in due time abolished by the states.
jeffersondem: "And now, you tell me the North had the moral high ground because only 9 of the original slave states were in the North."
First, by 1787 seven of nine Northern states had already begun to abolish slavery, plus what would become five more states in the Northwest territories -- Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan & Wisconsin.
New York & New Jersey began abolition by early 1800s.
But gradual abolition's "moral high ground" was shared by many in 1787, North and South, including as I mentioned Washington, Jefferson & Madison.
Other Southerners insisted they could not ratify the new Constitution unless it included language on the return of fugitive slaves, and so that was done.
Again, in 1787 slavery was thought to be dying a natural death, and Federal government could be useful in gently pushing it that way, as for example in the Northwest Territories.
“Some Southerners insisted slavery must be acknowledged in the Constitution, as their price for ratification, and so it was done.”
I concede your point: at the time the Constitution was adopted, only 13 of the original 13 states were slave states. And of the 13 slave states, only nine were in the north. And of the nine northern slave states, only nine voted to include slavery in the Constitution.
“Does your incessant repetition of calling it “Lincoln’s War” make you feel like you personally have the higher moral ground over people who don’t use that provocative terminology?”
If that is not a rhetorical question, I will answer it.
Naw, you conceded nothing...
Jeffersondem: "at the time the Constitution was adopted, only 13 of the original 13 states were slave states."
More importantly, seven of nine Northern States had already begun gradual abolition, along with five future States of the Northwest Territories where slavery was outlawed by Congress.
Jeffersondem: "of the nine northern slave states, only nine voted to include slavery in the Constitution."
Only the Southern states insisted on recognizing slavery and even counting their "property" as 3/5 for representation purposes.
Of course in 1787 not all Southerners supported slavery and not all Northerners opposed.
By 1860, views had considerably hardened.
But there was no time before, during or after Jefferson Davis' war (who provoked, started, declared and waged war against the United States in Union states & territories) no time when African Americans were not treated vastly better in Northern States than in the Confederacy.
It is a common and calculated tactic of your ilk to conflate the original British Colonies with the original States of the United States. Slavery was foisted upon the Colonies by the British. The death knell for slavery in those Colonies began precisely with the creation of the US Constitution. The northern States began immediate steps for the eventual abolition of slavery concurrent with the creation of the Constitution. But I think you know that. The eventual ending of any importation of slaves was written into the Constitution.
Please try to be more specific with your broad brush generalizations. For example: "nine of the nine northern slave states voted to include slavery in the Constitution". Now do you understand how silly that sounds? Can you try to be more specific when you say "include slavery". Some people may get the wrong idea when people such as you and your ilk go running around spouting these tired lost cause memes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.