Well, just under half -- endorsed by 68 of 142 Republican senators & Congressmen in the 1860 election.
And at least you here give Republicans credit for abolitionism.
So many pro-Confederates -- DiogenesLamp comes to mind -- try to convince us that it was Confederates who wanted to abolish slavery while Northerners hated blacks too much want them freed.
It's nice to see credit here given where it's due.
Second, Helper's book was written by a North Carolinian for other Southerners.
So any references to "we" or "our purpose" or "we believe" etc., etc., was not to Republicans specifically, but rather to Helper's fellow anti-slavery Southerners!
Of course, Republicans generally liked what Helper wrote and many were happy to endorse his ideas.
Regardless, US political campaigns were always pretty rough & tumble affairs.
Jefferson vs. Adams in 1800 comes to mind, where supporters of each accused the other of amazing crimes.
So Republicans using slavery as a political "wedge-issue" against Democrats seems pretty normal politics to me.
Certainly nothing creating a new condition of constitutional "unhappiness" necessary to justify declarations of secession "for cause".
rustbucket: "And then there was Lincoln saying the 'government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.' "
It was a simple prediction based on the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott ruling which could easily be interpreted to imply that slavery could not be outlawed in the North!
It meant the US was on the path to becoming a 100% slave-nation under Democrats, so the the old "half-slave, half-free" would not long endure.
Philosophical / political musings by a relatively unknown Illinois lawyer can hardly be considered a "material breach" of the Constitution's compact justifying secession "for cause".
rustbucket: "An economic threat against slavery, the main pillar of Southern economy, by the party coming into power in Washington..."
But of course, the Republican party represented no economic threat against slavery, since their platform merely called for Western territories to vote on whether to admit slavery or not.
As many pro-Confederates like to point out, most Northerners were only too happy to benefit from the massive economic profits of Deep Cotton South slavery.
rustbucket: "As I have pointed out on this thread, future Northern tariff revenue was thought by many, including Lincoln, to be in serious trouble because of the two different tariffs."
But tariffs were totally "politics as usual", since they repeatedly rose and fell based on economic and political factors without ever becoming a casus belli.
But more to the point, neither the proposed Morrill tariff nor Confederates 15% rate were even on the radar screen when South Carolina first began to organize for secession in November 1860.
So tariffs are irrelevant to this discussion.
rustbucket: "In 1788-90 states had peaceably, unilaterally and with the approval of their own state conventions withdrawn from Union under the Articles of Confederation.
Where in the Constitution was the right of states to use the power that they had just exercised taken away from them? "
In fact, our Founders twice demonstrated the categories of justified disunion.
The second category, "mutual consent" you mention here, while calling it "unilateral", when in fact it was the exact opposite of "unilateral".
Eventually the old Articles of Confederation were withdrawn by 100% mutual consent, and act of Congress, to be replaced by the newly ratified Constitution.
It was peaceful, lawful, orderly mutual consent of which our Founders totally approved.
But no such mutual consent existed in December 1860.
The other justification for disunion, of which our Founders approved and demonstrated themselves, was independence driven by the absolute necessity of major, material breaches of compact, such as those itemized in their Declaration of Independence.
But no such breaches existed, and therefore no such necessity, in December 1860.
That only leaves the type of disunion our Founders consistently opposed: declarations of secession "at pleasure", meaning unilateral and unapproved secessions without material cause.
rustbucket: "Under the Constitution, secession wasn’t prohibited to the states, and other states and the federal government were not given the power to stop it.
It was therefore a power retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment.
They had it and exercised it while under the Articles; it wasn’t taken away by the Constitution; they still had it after the Constitution was ratified.
It was a peaceful, legal way out of the Union for a state, should the Union not work out well for them. "
Sure, as posted here previously, that was approximately the argument Jefferson Davis made to the US Senate in January 1861.
But no US Founder ever made that argument, and Founders fully understood the differences among "mutual consent", "material breach of compact" and secession "at pleasure".
Founders would consider Deep South declarations of secession as "at pleasure" and not approved.
But most Northerners, including Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln did not believe the Federal Government could or should do anything to stop secessionists, so long as they didn't start a war against the United States.
But once the Confederacy did launch and formally declared war then Northerners felt a necessity for defeating the military power which threatened the United States.
rustbucket quoting New York's ratification statement: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Once again, the key word here is not "happiness", but rather "necessary" and refers to the categories of "necessary" listed in the Declaration of Independence.
But no condition even remotely similar to July 1776 existed in December 1860.
rustbucket: "...that agrees with the interpretation of the book above, IMO.
And it does not require any outside approval for of a state individually to reassume their powers of government."
But it certainly does require necessity which in no way existed in December 1860.
rustbucket quoting Madison Federalist 45: "Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan.
Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."
Certainly using exactly the reasons & methods Founders used to separate first from Britain then from the old Articles.
Founders intimately knowledgeable on such matters were not in the least confused about legitimate versus "at pleasure" secessions.
rustbucket: "How does one judge "public happiness?"
Many Southern states asked their voters directly whether to secede and were given approval to go ahead.
Their publics were not happy remaining in the Union."
It's simple to tell the difference between secession "for cause" and "at pleasure".
First, ask this question: politically & constitutionally speaking, was the nation "happy" on November 5, 1860?
Answer: absolutely, since under then existing conditions of "politics as usual" there were no significant secession movements.
Next ask: politically & constitutionally speaking, what changed regarding "happiness" after November 5, 1860?
Answer: nothing changed, no new laws, no military violence, no material breach of constitutional compact, only a vote happened on November 6.
But the Government itself on November 6 was exactly the same as it had been on November 5.
Since there was no constitutional cause, and no mutual consent, that means Deep South declarations were, by default, "at pleasure" and so not according to Founders Original Intent.
rustbucket a quote alleged from Madison: "If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."
Even that word "dissatisfied" in a constitutional context does not mean somebody woke up one morning on the wrong side of his bed and so decided to declare secession, "at pleasure".
Rather, Madison certainly meant the types of dissatisfaction enumerated in their own Declaration of Independence.
But no such condition even remotely existed in December 1860.
rustbucket referencing his links: "Madison spoke those words on June 16, 1788"
Curiously, it turns out on close reading, that Madison was there quoting someone else, unnamed.
So the words are not necessarily Madison's own opinion when more precisely expressed, such as here.
Bottom line: Madison did not here, or anywhere else, express approval for unilateral declarations of secession, "at pleasure".
rustbucket: "I see that I must speak or post very slowly when posting to you."
Virtually every poster I've read on this subject gets confused and ends up quoting only numbers that support their own opinions, regardless of how appropriate, comparing apples to oranges, etc.
But I'm patient, and you can type as s..l..o..w..l..y as you might wish. ;-)
IMO taney's blatant indulgence in judicial activism did more to precipitate hostilities between the north and south than any other government act. There existed hot-heads on both sides maintaining a "shouting war" but the Dreaded Scott case set us inescapably on the path to war.
Nice try. The 68 Republican members of Congress endorsed the book on March 9, 1859 according to this 1859 New York Herald article [Link]:
On the 27th of October, 1858, William H. Seward made his brutal and bloody speech at Rochester, in this State, laying down the programme of the “irrepressible conflict,” which was to end in converting New Orleans and other Southern cities into marts for the products of free labor only, or else to turn Quincy Market in Boston into a slave pen. On the following 9th of March [That means 1859, BJK.] sixty-eight Republicans signed a secret circular recommending Helper’s revolutionary book, which calls upon the poor-non-slaveholders in the South to make an agrarian revolution and destroy the property of their more wealthy neighbors.
Seward, of course, had also talked about “higher law than the Constitution” to combat slavery.
There were only 112 Republicans in Congress in March of 1859, 20 senators and 92 representatives. 68 is more than half of 112.
But of course, the Republican party represented no economic threat against slavery, since their platform merely called for Western territories to vote on whether to admit slavery or not.
No threat? On November 26, 1859, The New York Herald reprinted the names of the 68 endorsers of Helper’s book along with other supporters including the governor of New York and Thurlow Weed and a list of contributors to the publication and distribution of 100,000 copies of an abridgement of Helper’s book. Subheadings of the Herald article include “Incitement to Treason and Civil War” and “The South to be Throttled and the Negroes Freed.” Here is a [Link] to that paper which contained the following extracts from Helper’s book in the article.
… we appeal to you to join us in our earnest and timely efforts to rescue the generous soil of the South from the usurped and desolating control of those political vampires. Once and forever, at least so far as this country is concerned, the infernal question of slavery must be disposed of; a speedy and absolute abolishment of the whole system is the true policy of the South – and this is the policy we propose to pursue. Will you aid us? will you assist us? will you be freemen? or will you be slaves?
Do not reserve the strength of your arms until you have been rendered powerless to strike; the present is the proper time for action under all the circumstances, apathy or indifference is a crime. First ascertain, as nearly as you can, the precise nature and extent of your duty, and then, without a moment’s delay, perform it in good faith. To facilitate you in determining what considerations of right, justice and humanity require at your hands, is one of the primary objects of this work; and we shall certainly fail in our desire if we do not accomplish our task in a manner acceptable to God and advantageous to man.
REVOLUTION – PEACEABLY IF WE CAN, VIOLENTLY IF WE MUST
The following comments in this paragraph are paraphrased or quoted from “The 1859 Crisis over Hinton Helper’s Book, the Impending Crisis: Free Speech, Slavery, and Some Light on the meaning of the First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment – Symposium on the Law of Slavery: Constitutional Law and Slavery,” by Michael Kent Curtis, 68 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1113 (1992) [Link].
- A grand jury in North Carolina called upon the governor of New York to deliver up the Republican endorsers of the book for indictment and punishment.
- Once Democrats started blaming John Brown’s October 1859 attempt at Harper’s Ferry to incite slaves to revolt on Helper’s Book, a few Republicans “rushed to dissociate themselves from Harper’s Book. … Several recanted their endorsements, pleading ignorance, and repudiated the book.”
- “Southern nationalists used Helper, Seward, and Harper’s Ferry to show why secession was imperative if a ‘Black Republican” were elected President; …”
- “A Republican victory, Sherman [insert by rustbucket: General W. T. Sherman’s younger brother, a failed candidate for Speaker of the House because he had endorsed Helper’s Book] insisted, would encourage emancipation by the Southern states themselves. In this sense the Southern fear of an attack on the South was well founded.
But more to the point, neither the proposed Morrill tariff nor Confederates 15% rate were even on the radar screen when South Carolina first began to organize for secession in November 1860.
So tariffs are irrelevant to this discussion.
The Morrill Tariff had passed the House in the spring of 1860, IIRC. All that was needed was the Senate approval. A vote count of the new Senate elected in November 1860 showed that showed that the Morrill Tariff would probably pass in the next session of the Senate even if all Southern Senators stayed and no state seceded. From a post by GOPcapitalist citing a December 12, 1860 comment by Texas Senator Wigfall [Link]:
"Tell me not that we have got the legislative department of this Government, for I say we have not. As to this body, where do we stand? Why, sir, there are now eighteen non-slaveholding States. In a few weeks we shall have the nineteenth, for Kansas will be brought in. Then arithmetic which settles our position is simple and easy. Thirty-eight northern Senators you will have upon this floor. We shall have thirty to your thirty-eight. After the 4th of March, the Senator from California, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from New Jersey, and the Senator from Minnesota will be here. That reduces the northern phalanx to thirty-four...There are four of the northern Senators upon whom we can rely, whom we know to be friends, whom we have trusted in our days of trial heretofore, and in whom, as Constitution-loving men, we will trust. Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote. Mr. Lincoln can make his own nominations with perfect security that they will be confirmed by this body, even if every slaveholding State should remain in the Union, which, thank God, they will not do."
The second category, "mutual consent" you mention here, while calling it "unilateral", when in fact it was the exact opposite of "unilateral".
Eventually the old Articles of Confederation were withdrawn by 100% mutual consent, and act of Congress, to be replaced by the newly ratified Constitution.
It was peaceful, lawful, orderly mutual consent of which our Founders totally approved.
Actually, nine states were all that was needed to form the new government under the Constitution. The states unilaterally one by one withdrew from the Union under the Articles. They did form a new government before all thirteen states had ratified the Constitution. Until the last two states (NC and RI) ratified the Constitution, they were not considered to be part of the new Union, and some of their imports into the United States were to be taxed like imports from foreign countries. I wouldn’t call it mutual consent at that point. All thirteen did eventually join the new Union, but it was after the new government was already operating without all states being on board.
Once again, the key word here is not "happiness", but rather "necessary" and refers to the categories of "necessary" listed in the Declaration of Independence. But no condition even remotely similar to July 1776 existed in December 1860.
Madison defined it as “public happiness” or “dissatisfaction” with the government. We didn’t have a king in 1860-61 and a long list of grevances against the king. I dare say that Madison, Jay, and Hamilton would laugh at what you consider “necessary” to mean. The South faced a sectional president, possible serious threats from Republicans over their slave based economy, and likely increased sectional aggrandizement under Lincoln and the Republicans. First thing right off the bat after a number of states had already seceded, the Republicans passed the Morrill tariff that was going to harm the South. That was sectional aggrandizement. That protective tariff was in their platform. Lincoln was for it. It wasn’t any secret.
But no US Founder ever made that argument, and Founders fully understood the differences among "mutual consent", "material breach of compact" and secession "at pleasure".
Founders would consider Deep South declarations of secession as "at pleasure" and not approved.
You don’t think some Northern states blocking the return of fugitive slaves was not a material breach of contract? They were nullifying a section of the Constitution that had been unanimously agreed to during the compromises in the Constitution that made the Union possible. What was it those distinguished Massachusetts judges said in 1860 about Massachusetts’ personal liberty laws [Link]:
[they] stand as conspicuous and palpable breaches of the national compact by ourselves.
I’ve cited what Jay, Hamilton, and Madison said concerning reassuming or resuming their own governance. I gather from what you say that you don’t consider them to be Founders. Your version of history is certainly different from theirs and from mine as well. I trust what Jay, Hamilton, Madison said, and Jay and Hamilton agreed that the Constitution was consistent with what they said.
You apparently have sent what Jay, Hamilton, and Madison said down your version of 1984's Memory Hole.