Well, I hope you are aware that even in the North, the majority of people were NOT abolitionists. The majority in the North actually cared little about blacks. Abolitionists were always a minority. Even at the time of Lincoln it as so. When he passed his Emancipation proclamation (which I had outlined before didn’t actually free anybody), people in the North (both civilians and soldiers in the Union army) were upset, calling it “wicked”, “atrocious,” and “impudent.”
The 3/5 compromise was thought up by two Northerners at the time of the Constitution Convention. And it didn’t just give a little extra representation (the North was still the majority in Congress) it also counted towards taxation.
I don’t know where you get the idea that the South ever controlled the Congress. It was always ever equally balanced or with the North in a majority. The reason both sides like the idea of states coming in in pairs (one northern one southern) was both were eager that the other didn’t get the balance in favor too much of their side. However, the North eventually (in the compromise of 1850) had all the territories declared slave free, so there would be no more “southern” states to be added, only Northern ones, thus maintaining that in the future the balance of power would never be equal again.
About the Supreme Court. Yes, it did have a Southern majority in 1857. It had 5 southerners and 4 Northerners. But you said the Dred Scott decision went 7-2, so some of your Northerners voted for it as well. Also, if control of the Supreme court was some big plot by the South, then why were three of the Northerners on the Court at the time appointed by Southern Presidents, and two of the Southern Judges appointed by Northern Presidents?
Your claim that the South had absolute control of the Federal government is a laugh. Neither side ever had absolute control. It was always a balance that more often than not tipped in the side of the North. That is why the South was always stuck paying a heavier share of the tax burden.
First of all, in 1796 and again in 1824, both Adams became president without carrying a single Southern state. Second, Presidents Jefferson (1800), Madison (1808), Jackson (1828) and Buchanan (1856) were all elected with Solid South support and virtually none in New England
In the election of Adams, the Northern state of Pennsylvania went to Jefferson and the Southern state of Maryland went to Adams. You also forget that the Federalist party, while having more supporters up north, was still a national party, which is why Adams did get some votes (though not near enough) from Virginia and North Carolina. Still, Adams turned out to be a dreadfully unpopular president because of his big government policies and served only one term. In the Jefferson Election, both Pennsylvania and New York went to Jefferson. In his next election his was so popular he carried the entire country with the exception of Delaware and Connecticut. Madison in his election carried New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Ohio. J. Q. Adams, you are right won very sectionally with the support of only New England. The rest of the North as wells as the South three their lot in with three different candidates. Adams only served one term. Jackson won the entire country including 5 northern states, but did not win New England. In his second term however he carried a couple new England states. Buchanan had the support of the entire country including four northern states and California (which always sided with the North) with the exception of new England. But just as the South expanded westward with the addition of states like Louisiana and Texas, so did the North. New England does not equal the whole North in these later elections. The fact that Buchanan, who was a Northerner btw, carried some of the Northern States shows that the Democrat party was a national party concerned with national interests, not sectional and concerned only with the interests of one section over the others.
You point out that the election of the republican party was not unconstitutional. Of course it wasn’t. But it doesn’t mean it wasn’t cause for alarm. If in today’s world you saw a member of a radical party (say a communist) elected president with the support of only a few liberal states, wouldn’t you be alarmed? Well I suppose you wouldn’t. We have too much of that nowadays that it seems almost passé. But believe me, in those days, it was a big deal. I have told you how liberal Lincoln was and it was commonly known at the time. That is why when he became president he raised tariffs, instituted income tax and property tax, put into law the National Banking act which allowed the Government too much control over the currency and inflation (we see the problems of that today). He also supported public school system with the purpose being not so much to promote the three R’s as to ensure that the Government could control what was taught in the schools. I think it is quite obvious that the South had good reason to secede, knowing that Lincoln supported all these things. If you still think that trying to preserve the idea of limited government against big government schemes such as those supported by Lincoln was “seceding at pleasure,” then you apparently will never understand the importance of defending the rights of the people and the states against federal encroachment. So you doubt the amount of taxes paid by the South? Read up:
In 1828, Senator Thomas Benton declared that:
“Before the Revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality….Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in the regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred million dollars; and the North has exported comparatively northing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact?...Under Federal legislation, the exports of the south have been the basis of the Federal revenue….Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government: and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction—it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this.”
President Buchanan (a Northerner) agreed and noted in a message to Congress that “The South has not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination has been made against her….”
When asked why the North should not let the South go, Lincoln’s reply was “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!”
Patrick Henry had anticipated some of this when he spoke out against the proposed Constitution: “But I am sure that the dangers of this system [he Federal Constitution] are real, when those who have no similar interests with the people of this country [the South] are to legislate for us—when our dearest rights are to be left, in the hands of those, whose advantage it will be to infringe them.”
When the South seceded, The New York Times complained about the loss of revenue because the seceded states could no longer be forced to collect the “national” tariff. The Manchester had this to say:
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No—we MUST NOT ‘let the South go.’”
The New York Evening Post bemoaned the loss of tax dollars in an article titled “What shall be done for a Revenue?”
“That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad,…If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe….”
Actually, the only founders who supported the national bank were big government folks like Hamilton (who was an admitted monarchist). The problem with the National Bank is it gives the Federal government too much control over the printing of money and thus the economy.
The difference is that when Lincoln passed the income tax law, he had no intentions of it being temporary.
He did not issue a formal proclamation of war, but he called out the troops, with the purpose of waging war. Same result.
If the South was really looking for an excuse to wage full-scale war, then why did they delay so long in issuing a declaration of war?
As I pointed out before, the FSL were only an extension of the full faith and credit idea put forth in the constitution. And that was the ONLY thing the South gained in the 1850 compromise. The North gained everything else. You could also say it was unconstitutional for them to make all the territories slavery free rather than letting the population of those territories to decide for themselves.
You’ve been reading diloranzo again, haven’t you? LOL
Well, there were abolitionists, and then there were abolitionists, depending on your definitions.
By 1860, every Northern state had gradually abolished slavery, and so, in that sense every Northerner was an abolitionists, and cared deeply about blacks in their own states.
In several Northern states freed slaves could vote, some Northern states actively or passively worked to foil Fugitive Slave Laws, and so it's impossible to argue legitimately that Northerners "cared little about blacks".
But we also remember that our Republic was founded on the idea that states would make their own laws in such matters, and until 1860 there had never been an anti-slavery political party.
Even in 1860, Republicans claimed they were not abolitionists, because they did not advocate outlawing slavery where it already lawfully existed, only wished to prevent slavery's expansion into new territories, where it wasn't wanted.
But from the Slave-Power Fire-Eater perspective, that Republican view was totally intolerable, unacceptable, just as bad as radical-abolitionism, and plenty justification enough for declaring secession.
Indeed, we often forget that prior to 1860 the Slave-Power had enjoyed an unbroken string of political successes, in reducing tariffs, in making the Federal Government enforce Fugitive Slave Laws, in Northern states (Compromise of 1850) and then with Dred-Scott, in effect making slavery lawful in every state, regardless of its own laws.
And that is what pushed Northern opposition to slavery to new, higher levels, and fueled the new Republican Party's popularity.
In other words: it was Northern fears of slavery's expansion which drove political moves to contain it.
As for exactly how much most Northerners "cared" about blacks, it's certain they cared less about slaves than they did about their Southern fellow countrymen, but they didn't want Southerners shoving slavery down Northern throats.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "When he passed his Emancipation proclamation (which I had outlined lied about before, claiming it didn’t actually free anybody)..."
Corrected it for you.
Now you've been corrected on this point more that once, and so you need to stop misstating it.
The truth of this matter is: Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed tens of thousands of slaves immediately and by the war's end, millions.
I can't imagine how or why you insist otherwise, but you're certainly mistaken.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...people in the North (both civilians and soldiers in the Union army) were upset, calling it “wicked”, “atrocious,” and “impudent.”
Perhaps you don't remember, but nearly half of all Northerners were "Dough-Faced" Democrats who supported the Slave-Power in all things except some technicalities relating to slavery's expansion.
Those Northern Democrats did not want to stop secession in the first place, and when war eventually came, did not want to win it.
They wanted a negotiated settlement, where everyone would "go in peace".
Such Dough-facers were almost as rabidly anti-Lincoln as Confederates themselves, and they controlled many powerful newspapers, especially in New York.
But most Northerners well understood the math here -- the Confederacy had almost as many slaves as whites, and every slave who could be turned to the Union cause was, in effect, a knife in the back of the Slave-Power.
By Civil War's end, Northerners were strongly in favor of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery forever.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The 3/5 compromise was thought up by two Northerners at the time of the Constitution Convention.
And it didn’t just give a little extra representation (the North was still the majority in Congress) it also counted towards taxation."
Take the example of 1833 -- the 3/5 rule increased Slave-Power representatives in congress by 1/3, from 73 to 98.
This meant they needed only 20 votes from non-slave states to form a majority, and there were always at least 20 Northern or Western Dough-faced representatives willing to vote with Southerners.
Indeed, very seldom were issues strictly "north versus south", and when they were, the Slave Power always protected its vital interests.
On the question of 3/5 tax liabilities: to my knowledge, there was never taxation -- none -- based on a state's census counts.
Instead, Federal income was derived almost entirely from tariffs on imports.
So your suggestion that taxes off-set the South's congressional advantage from the 3/5 rule is just bogus.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I don’t know where you get the idea that the South ever controlled the Congress.
It was always ever equally balanced or with the North in a majority."
Of course the Slave-Power controlled the Congress, continuously, certainly on issues which mattered most to it.
To pick one example, by 1831 Southern representatives were growing tired to dealing with many citizen petitions to outlaw slavery.
So they passed a gag-rule eliminating all such debates within Congress, in 1836 by an overwhelming vote of 117 to 68.
That vote proves that when it really wanted to be, the Slave Power was both united and effective.
And when that gag-rule was finally abolished in 1844, it was only because Northern Democrats joined with Whigs, for reasons which are not now clear.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "However, the North eventually (in the compromise of 1850) had all the territories declared slave free, so there would be no more “southern” states to be added, only Northern ones, thus maintaining that in the future the balance of power would never be equal again."
No, no, where do you get this stuff?
After 1850, that was a political issue never settled, as the story of "Bleeding Kansas" illustrates.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision in effect made slavery lawful in all states & territories.
But on the other hand, Democrat Stephen Douglas' ideas of self-determination in territories were the issues on which Fire-Eaters walked out of the 1860 Democrat convention -- thus guaranteeing "Black Republican" victory in November.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "About the Supreme Court.
Yes, it did have a Southern majority in 1857.
It had 5 southerners and 4 Northerners.
But you said the Dred Scott decision went 7-2, so some of your Northerners voted for it as well."
As usual, you studiously ignore the indispensable supporting role of Northern Dough-faced Democrats in carrying out the Slave-Power's agenda.
So the answer to all such questions is: Northern Dough-faced Democrats.
Without them, the South was a powerless minority.
With them, the Slave-Power ruled the United States.
And when Fire Eaters broke up their own political alliance, they did so hoping it would lead eventually to declarations of secession.
And of course, it did.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Your claim that the South had absolute control of the Federal government is a laugh.
Neither side ever had absolute control.
It was always a balance that more often than not tipped in the side of the North.
That is why the South was always stuck paying a heavier share of the tax burden."
Again, there was no "heavier share", that's just another one of those Big Lies you people tell each other, to help you feeeeeeeeeeeel better, and you need to stop it, cold turkey, FRiend.
It's just not true.
As for who controlled the Federal Government, you can see it for your self -- from the beginning of the Republic, the South voted for the party which eventually became Democrats, and along with their Northern allies were usually, if not always, in the majority.
By contrast, the Northern parties (Federalists, Whigs & Republicans) elected only four of the first 15 presidents, and none of those for a second term.
The South alone elected eight presidents (five reelected) with the remaining three their Dough-faced allies (i.e., Democrat Buchanan).
In Congress, when united & allied, Southerners kept tariffs low and maintained a gag-rule against debates over slavery.
Of course, they weren't always united or allied, and on those occasions suffered setbacks to their interests.
In the Supreme Court, the Dred-Scott decision should speak for itself.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "In the election of Adams, the Northern state of Pennsylvania went to Jefferson and the Southern state of Maryland went to Adams."
In 1796 Maryland split its votes, the same as in 1861, with western counties voting Federalists, eastern counties Jefferson's Rep-Democrats.
Yes, Adams got more votes, but did not carry the entire state's delegates.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Adams turned out to be a dreadfully unpopular president because of his big government policies and served only one term."
But there was nothing "big government" about Adams, certainly not when compared with Jefferson's administration.
Yes, Adams grew unpopular, and Jefferson more popular, but still, in that 1800 election, Jefferson only won because of the extra electoral votes provided by the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
Without that, Adams would have won a second term.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "New England does not equal the whole North in these later elections."
No, but New England was especially badly served by the Big Government oppressive presidencies of Jefferson and Madison, and responded by threatening to secede.
So we must assume New England felt as badly then as the Deep South felt in 1860.
And yet, in the end, New England did not declare secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The fact that Buchanan, who was a Northerner btw, carried some of the Northern States shows that the Democrat party was a national party concerned with national interests, not sectional and concerned only with the interests of one section over the others."
Because you are so blissfully ignorant of real history, you don't yet comprehend that Southern Slave-Power Democrats plus Northern Dough-faced Democrats = total control over the US Federal Government.
As long as they maintained their alliance, they ran the show.
But whenever they broke up their alliance, the results could be disastrous for the South.
President Buchanan was a Pennsylvania Dough-faced Democrat, dedicated to giving the Slave-Power whatever it wanted, up to and including a peaceful secession.
But after Fort Sumter, most Northern Democrats joined Republicans in support of war.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You point out that the election of the republican party was not unconstitutional.
Of course it wasn’t.
But it doesn’t mean it wasn’t cause for alarm."
Both Lincoln's election and the resulting alarm were totally engineered by Southern Fire-Eaters who had been for many years campaigning for declarations of secession.
So in 1860 they first split their majority Democrat party, thus engineering Republican victory, then used that victory as excuse to declare secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I have told you [lied about] how liberal Lincoln was and it was commonly known at the time.
That is [not] why when he became president he raised tariffs, instituted income tax and property tax, put into law the National Banking act which allowed the Government too much control over the currency and inflation (we see the problems of that today)."
Again, I have to correct you, because you don't learn from the truth.
Lincoln's tariffs, taxes and bank were all the result of Civil War, provoked, started and declared by the Confederacy against the United States.
After the war, tariffs were rolled back and income taxes repealed.
However, the National Banks proved important in controlling inflation (among other reasons) and so was kept.
Yes, I "get" that some people are paranoid over big banks, but I never learned such fears.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He also supported public school system with the purpose being not so much to promote the three R’s as to ensure that the Government could control what was taught in the schools.
I think it is quite obvious that the South had good reason to secede, knowing that Lincoln supported all these things."
First of all, Lincoln did not support Federal control of "public schools" as we understand that term today.
Your claim here is just bogus to the max.
Second of all, of course the Deep South did have reason to secede, but all you pro-Confederates never, ever, ever confess the truth of what that reason was!
The Deep South, as fully explained in their "Reasons for Secession" documents, acted for one reason, and one reason only: to protect the FUTURE of SLAVERY.
That's why they acted before Lincoln took office and while their own Democrats still ruled Washington DC.
Lincoln did nothing!
Secessionists had no valid complaint against him.
They had only their own fears of what Lincoln might do at some time in the future.
And that, my FRiend, is the very definition of secession, "at pleasure".
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "In 1828, Senator Thomas Benton declared that:
I don't believe a word of that, for even a second.
The reason is simple: over 90% of Federal revenues came from tariffs -- not on exports but on imports well over 90% of which came into the USA through such Northern ports as Boston, New York and Philadelphia.
Those are the merchants who paid the tariffs, before shipping their goods throughout the rest of the country -- north, east, west and south.
So there is no possible way Southerners paid more than a "fair share" based on the volume of their import purchases.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "President Buchanan (a Northerner) agreed and noted in a message to Congress that 'The South has not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination has been made against her….' "
All such quotes are ludicrous, and most likely fake, or taken grossly out of context.
That's because: when Dough-faced Democrat President Buchanan was in the White House, his Southern-Democrat dominated party controlled Congress, and so they had no excuse -- none, zero, nada -- to complain about how Federal money was spent.
They were in charge!
The Secretary of Treasury was a Georgian.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "When asked why the North should not let the South go, Lincoln’s reply was 'Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!' "
That particular quote is certainly bogus, but obviously, Lincoln was unwilling to give up the portion of Federal revenues which came from seceded states.
A reasonable estimate is 15% or 20% of the total.
Turns out, he didn't really need that money, since the war-time income tax eventually provided more than enough, even with zero from the Confederacy.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Manchester had this to say: “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods.
What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade.
It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose.
No—we MUST NOT ‘let the South go.’”
The truth of this matter is that cities like New York were highly conflicted in their responses to Deep South secession.
On the one hand, they depended on the South for raw materials and commerce, but on the other, as Democrats they were sympathetic to their southern cousins, and loathed Republicans, just as all Democrats did, and do.
So many wanted no part of a civil war against their southern partners and allies.
But my point is: their concerns were far more personal, based on their own private economies, not some abstract worry about sources of Federal revenues.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The New York Evening Post bemoaned the loss of tax dollars in an article titled “What shall be done for a Revenue?” "
Again, doubtless New York commercial (& banking) interests were primarily concerned with their own future economies, and hyperbolically projecting their own needs onto the Federal government.
In fact, it turned out, they all did quite well, thank you, during the war, despite the loss of their previous sources of raw materials and customers.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Actually, the only founders who supported the national bank were big government folks like Hamilton (who was an admitted monarchist).
The problem with the National Bank is it gives the Federal government too much control over the printing of money and thus the economy."
Not true, since without Washington's approval, Hamilton could do nothing.
Actually, it would be easier to name those who opposed the National Bank -- anti-federalists they were called at first, eventually becoming Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and finally Jacksonian Democrats.
But their opposition to a National Bank was highly negotiable (not a "core value") and so they struck a deal with Hamilton, approved by G. Washington and Adams.
And when Hamilton's bank charter expired in 1811, after five years of economic chaos & inflation, in 1816 President Madison (also a Founder) signed the charter for the Second Bank of the United States.
Point is: reinstating a National Bank system during the Civil War was nothing more that reestablishing what our Founders originally intended.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The difference is that when Lincoln passed the income tax law, he had no intentions of it being temporary."
In fact, the temporary war-time income tax was passed by a Republican congress and in 1871 repealed by a Republican congress, so you have no basis on which to make such a false accusation.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He did not issue a formal proclamation of war, but he called out the troops, with the purpose of waging war. Same result."
All you pro-Confederates like to make the ridiculous claim that Lincoln "declared war" on the South, while denying that the Confederacy "declared war" on the United States.
Seriously, doesn't that embarrass you?
In fact, on April 15, 1861 Lincoln had no purpose to "wage war", simply to recover those Union properties seized by the Confederacy.
Nor did Lincoln actually begin to "wage war" until long after the Confederacy had provoked, started, formally declared war on the United States and sent military aid to Confederates fighting to take over Union states.
The simple historical fact is that the Confederacy's only real chance for success was to "make nice" to Lincoln, and that they utterly refused to do, preferring war and destruction.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If the South was really looking for an excuse to wage full-scale war, then why did they delay so long in issuing a declaration of war?"
The Confederacy delayed nothing:
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You could also say it was unconstitutional for them to make all the territories slavery free rather than letting the population of those territories to decide for themselves."
I'll say it again: the Slave Power opposed territory voters' choice of free or slave state, and did everything it could -- in Kansas for example -- to prevent or corrupt popular vote on the slavery issue.
Indeed, the US Supreme Court in Dred-Scott had already effectively declared 7-2, slavery lawful in every state, requiring only some implementing decisions to make it impossible for any state to outlaw slavery.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As I pointed out before, the FSL were only an extension of the full faith and credit idea put forth in the constitution."
Yes, the Constitution did require the return of fugitive slaves, however, enforcement of that requirement was left up to individual states.
This allowed the Underground Railroad to bring fugitives north until they reached some state which was very lax in enforcement.
The Compromise of 1850 moved enforcement unconstitutionally to the Federal government, and now combined with the 1857 Dred-Scott decision, threatened to make slavery enforceable -- and freedom for blacks unenforceable -- in every state.
And that was totally not what our Founders originally intended, and it's what motivated vast numbers of Northerners to vote Republican.
In summary: the Slave Power's initial political success was the root cause of its eventual destruction.