Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
Taney wrote the decision and expanded the case far beyond its original intent. All seven justices voting in the majority wrote their own decisions. One, Justice Wayne, said he concurred with the Taney decision entirely. One, Justice Campbell, concurred on the point of Scott being a slave. Four other justices wrote their own separate opinions and none went to the extent that Taney did.
“But in one of those Constitutions it was legal for a state to end slavery.”
In the United States Constitution it was legal for not just a state to abolish slavery, it was legal for the entire United States to abolish slavery peacefully through the amendment process which was thoughtfully included and agreed to by everyone.
But you and I have no entirely satisfactory explanation why no federal legislator - south or north - ever introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to peacefully abolish slavery in the United States prior to Lincoln’s invasion of the South.
A nation that has the constitutional ability to peacefully abolish slavery - and refuses to use it - is no better off than a nation that doesn’t have the constitutional ability.
“All seven justices voting in the majority wrote their own decisions.”
Still, you would have to say it was a 7-2 decision.
Because ratifying such an amendment would require 46 states, assuming all 15 slave states voted against it. Please do the math and then let me know if that is satisfactory enough.
A nation that has the constitutional ability to peacefully abolish slavery - and refuses to use it - is no better off than a nation that doesn’t have the constitutional ability.
That ability did not exist in the U.S. in 1860.
Seven justices agreed that Scott was a slave and therefore had no right to sue in court. Had Taney stopped there then Scott v. Sandford would be an obscure decision in the history of the court. But only one justice, maybe two, went further and decided that blacks were not and never could be citizens of the U.S. and that the Northwest Ordinance was unconstitutional. Taney's dicta would certainly have been challenged by the Republicans had the rebellion not gotten in the way.
Still in 15 states of the Union slavery was illegal. The states of the Confederacy did not have that right.
“Please do the math and then let me know if that is satisfactory enough.”
It is not.
Why not? You don't see a need for 61 states to ratify an amendment to end slavery as being a problem
So let me get this straight. In your world view no one was against slavery because they believed it was wrong? Is that a correct assessment of your view?
“Still in 15 states of the Union slavery was illegal.”
During Lincoln’s War there were 16 states in the Union where slavery was legal - if you count West Virginia as a legitimate state, and if you honestly believe the southern states never left the Union.
That's a matter of interpretation. Again, the Confederate constitution was very explicit about it, but the US Constitution can be interpreted to mean the same thing.
George Washington kept slaves in Pennsylvania after that state had passed a law making it illegal.
I think efforts to bar slavery in states run afoul of Article IV, which guarantees all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the various states.
How can you have a system in which slaves are recognized as property by the entire Union, but then not allowed to be in some states, but allowed to be in others? This seems like a clear infringement of the immunities and privileges clause.
Other people felt states had a right to ban slavery within their borders and saw no conflict with the rights guaranteed to the citizens of other states.
Which view is correct is not completely clear. I think the US constitution can easily be interpreted to mean the same thing as this aspect of the Confederate constitution, but the Confederate constitution leaves no doubt at all.
That's what I mean when I say it is clearer on the point.
And I can see his argument as to why, though Taney went way further than can be supported by a reasonable interpretation of Constitutional intent.
You were asking why a Constitutional amendment to end slavery was never tried as a means to avoid the rebellion. At that time the rebellion broke out there were 15 slave states. West Virginia was still part of Virginia. Or were you not aware of that?
Taney went way further than the matter in front of the court at the time. His meanderings, reasonable and unreasonable, were not germane to the question of Dred Scott's ability to sue in court and were made in dicta.
“You don’t see a need for 61 states to ratify an amendment to end slavery as being a problem”
It was not a problem to the founders of the United States Constitution. And it is not a problem for me.
The founders wrote into the constitution a supermajority requirement to peacefully adopt an amendment.
Of the original 13 states, 13 of them voted to include the supermajority requirement.
But it was a mathematical impossibility in 1860, and would be impossible today as well. You don't consider that a problem?
The founders wrote into the constitution a supermajority requirement to peacefully adopt an amendment.
Your were looking for a reasonable explanation why no attempt to end slavery through Constitutional amendment was tried before the Southern rebellion. The answer is that it was mathematically impossible, and everyone knew it. Everyone, apparently, except you.
14 states. Maryland and Missouri outlawed slavery before the war ended.
“So let me get this straight. In your world view no one was against slavery because they believed it was wrong?”
Nobody asked me, but . . . John Brown and those involved in his twisted murder raids believed slavery was wrong. There were probably others.
For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate Lincoln could not get the necessary votes to amend the United States Constitution and abolish slavery peacefully.
That would leave only one way to accomplish his aspirations as outlined in the House Divided speech: use the military to violently overthrow the constitution and its slavery provisions.
First, he would need a pretext for war. His navy found that in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I mean, the Fort Sumter Incident.
“West Virginia was still part of Virginia. Or were you not aware of that?”
It seems like I did hear something about that.
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.