As a result of Lincoln's election and the certainty that the Morrill Tariff would pass, the states of the Deep South decided to leave.
Then the North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
Then the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
Then Lincoln decided to start a war to prevent his cash cows from leaving.
Then the states of the Upper South seceded."
OK, one more time, let's review:
Southern Democrat Fire Eaters
weren't worried about tariffs!!
- F-B: "As a result of Lincoln's election and the certainty that the Morrill Tariff would pass, the states of the Deep South decided to leave."
Lincoln's election was certainly the trigger, but the Morrill Tariff had nothing to do with it, for at least these reasons:
- US tariff rates were historically 100% negotiable "politics as usual", with relatively minor adjustments having never caused threats of secession, nor did they in 1860.
- The original Morrill proposal was defeated in Congress in 1860 and could again be defeated, or watered down enough to become acceptable, even in 1861.
- The original Morrill proposal simply returned then record-low tariffs to levels previously approved by Southern Democrats in the 1846 Walker Tariff
Here are examples (Source: Hays Importer Guides, Hunts Merchant Magazine 44, no. 4 (April 1861), The Shipping and Commerical List and New York Price Current, 47-48 (January 2, 1861-July30 1862) ):Comparing US tariff rates in 1846, 1857 and 1860 Morrill proposed:
Commodity 1846 Tariff 1857 Tariff Morrill Cotton 25 19 25 Brown Sugar 30% 24% 26% Tobacco 40 30 25 Woolens 30% 24% 37% Coal 30% 24% 18% Iron pig 30 24 29 Iron mfg 30 24 30 Wines 40 30 40 Average tariffs: 30% 24% 29% - During the election campaign of 1860, no Southerner threatened secession if Morrill passed and, after the November election, no "Reasons for Secession" document named the Morrill Tariff as a cause of secession.
However, during the campaign, many Southern Fire Eaters did threaten secession over slavery if Lincoln's "Black Republicans" were elected.
After the November election, every "Reasons for Secession" document listed slavery as a major reason, some (i.e., Mississippi) as their only reason. - F-B: "Then the North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
Then the original 7 seceding states turned it down."Noooo... there was no "offer" in December 1860, when it might have mattered, and so nothing could be "turned down".
Instead, in December 1860 Kentucky Sen. John Crittenden worked closely with Mississippi Sen. Jefferson Davis (future CSA Pres.) and Georgia Sen. Robert Tombs (future CSA Sec. of State) to develop the "Crittenden Compromise" proposals, which Davis and Tombs believed could prevent further secessions, including Davis's state of Mississippi (which did secede on January 9) and Tombs's state of Georgia (seceded January 19).
Crittenden's Compromise took elements from Sen. Davis's February 9, 1860 proposals, along with others to recommend six new amendments and four new laws, all intended to protect slavery and prevent states other than South Carolina from declaring secession.Crittenden's Compromise was presented to Congress on December 18, 1860 and was defeated by Republicans on December 31, 1860.
Nine days later -- January 9, 1861 -- Sen. Davis's Mississippi declared secession, and why? Over the Morrill Tariff?
No, that's foolish -- Mississippians were not in the least ashamed to explain their own reasons:"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
So, any suggestions that Southerners' overwhelming concerns to protect slavery, even if that required secession, any suggestions these were merely a ruse and smokescreen to hide their true motives, which concerned very minor and 100% negotiable returns to previously approved 1846 Walker Tariff rates, such suggestions are pure 100% unadulterated anti-historical nonsense.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory..."
- F-B: "Then Lincoln decided to start a war to prevent his cash cows from leaving.
Then the states of the Upper South seceded."In fact, Civil War began with CSA Pres. Jefferson Davis ordering a military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, Davis's order coming precisely because he knew that would cause states of the Upper South to secede.
The Supreme Court had already ruled.
Temper tantrums by lower courts were null and void."
Here might be a good time to remember Pres. Jackson's response to the SCOTUS 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling:
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."Likewise, Crazy Roger's Dred Scott ravings caused huge outrage in the North, and some gloating in the South, but no actual laws were changed as a result.
Instead, proposals were made in Congress -- i.e., Sen. Davis's proposals of February 2, 1860 -- and in national election party platforms, notably Southern Democrats (Breckenridge) in 1860.
Crazy Roger Taney did not settle the issues with his Dred Scott ravings, but he did start the political processes working to impose them in US laws.
FLT-bird re the CSA constitution's "right of sojourn": "It just expressly spelled out in the Constitution what was already settled law in the US."
Crazy Roger's 1857 Dred Scott rantings notwithstanding, an alleged slaveholder's "right of sojourn" with slaves into free states and territories was still the opposite of "settled law".
But Southerners like Mississippi's Democrat Sen. Jefferson Davis and Georgia's Democrat Sen. Robert Tombs were working hard to make it settled.
In December 1860 their work resulted in the Crittenden Compromise proposals, which Senate Republicans defeated on December 31, 1861, causing Mississippi, Georgia and other Deep South states to immediately secede.
FLT-bird: "I've never said they did not accept the idea of the Corwin Amendment in the Confederate Constitution.
I said they did not accept the Corwin Amendment offered by the North in exchange for giving up their independence."
So, you do agree that Corwin was a great idea from the Southern perspective and that's why Confederates copied and pasted it into their 1861 Montgomery CSA constitution?
You may also agree that Corwin helped keep Border Slave States of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware in the Union, even after the Battle of Fort Sumter, right?
And I think we can agree that Corwin was not a strong enough incentive to keep Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennesse and Arkansas in the Union after Fort Sumter, right?
Plus, obviously, Corwin had no effect on proceedings in Montgomery, Alabama in February and March of 1861, other than likely encouraging the CSA's Constitutional Convention to add their version of Corwin, plus additional protections for slavery that Republicans had rejected in December 1860, when it might have mattered, do we agree?
So, what exactly do we disagree on here?
FLT-bird: "The fact remains that the Corwin Amendment came out before the Confederate Constitution AND the original 7 seceding states rejected it in exchange for giving up their independence when offered it by the North."
No, and we've covered this already, because:
- There were not one but two CSA constitutions, both basically "cut and paste" versions of the 1787 US Constitution, with relatively minor modifications.
- The first provisional constitution took just three days to write, from February 5 to 8, 1861.
- The second permanent constitution took 12 days to add some minor items such as Crittenden and Corwin-like protections for slavery -- from February 28 to March 11, 1861.
- Whether by coincidence or cooperation, February 28 was also the date for Corwin's introduction in the US Congress, which then hurried to pass it in time for Democrat Pres. Buchanan's signature on March 4.
- So, by the time of Lincoln's alleged "offer" to seceded states of Corwin, beginning with his letter of transmittal on March 16, Corwin-like language was already firmly installed in the brand-new CSA Montgomery constitution.
So there was no action Confederate states needed to take regarding Corwin.
They turned it down because slavery was not their main concern.
Their real concern was gaining their independence so they'd be free of the grasp of imperial Washington and so they could set their own economic policy for their own benefit rather than be taxed for others' benefit."
Of course that's right, once the slavery issued was firmly dealt with, via Corwin-like language in their new CSA constitution, then everything else normal to governing a country became more immediate and pressing.
But, first and foremost, as spelled out in their earliest "Reasons for Secession" documents, Confederates had to deal with the "Black Republicans" threats against slavery.
Here are all of those original "Reasons for Secession" documents analyzed for what was most important:
"Reasons for Secession" Documents before Fort Sumter -- % of words devoted to each reason*
| Reasons for Secession | S. Carolina | Mississippi | Georgia | Texas | Rbt. Rhett | A. Stephens | AVERAGE OF 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical context | 41% | 20% | 23% | 21% | 20% | 20% | 24% |
| Slavery | 20% | 73% | 56% | 54% | 35% | 50% | 48% |
| States' Rights | 37% | 3% | 4% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 14% |
| Lincoln's election | 2% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 5% | 0% | 3% |
| Economic issues** | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0% | 25% | 20% | 10% |
| Military protection | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
* Alabama listed only slavery in its "whereas" reasons for secession.
** Economic issues include tariffs, "fishing smacks" and other alleged favoritism to Northerners in Federal spending.
FLT-bird on Dred Scott and a "right of sojourn": "Nope.
That is pure fiction.
Firstly, Taney did not decide the case himself.
The entire SCOTUS decided the case.
The ruling was that a slave owner had the right of transit with his property and could not be excluded from the territories.
Nowhere in the ruling did it say that states that had abolished slavery or which did not have slavery must now accept slavery if somebody brought their slaves in from out of state.
That's just your insane little fantasy."
Sadly, there's a lot of fantasy in your own words here:
- F-B: "Firstly, Taney did not decide the case himself.
The entire SCOTUS decided the case."There are many legal terms involved here, but let's stick to the five(+) basic words:
- "Opinion" or "decision" refers to the entire document, in Dred Scott's case it ran to some 248 pages which included:
- "Ruling" or "holding" refers to the court's decisions and outcome of the case, which set precedents lower courts must follow.
- "Judicial Dicta" and "Obiter Dicta" refer to judicial explanations which may also have the force of precedent, depending on circumstances.
In the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Taney's majority opinion -- rulings and dicta -- took 48 pages. - "Concurrences" -- five of the six Democrat concurrences also wrote their own opinions on how they arrived at the same rulings as Chief Justice Taney.
- "Dissents" -- both Republican dissenters wrote their own opinions.
All told, the Dred Scott concurrences and dissents ran to roughly 200 pages.
Crazy Roger's majority opinion rulings included:
- Dred Scott, a slave who had resided in a free state and territory, was not thereby entitled to his freedom.
- African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States.
- The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional.
"We think ... that they [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.Crazy Roger "then extensively reviewed laws from the original American states that involved the status of black Americans at the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787".[17]
On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 404–05."
Crazy "concluded that these laws showed that a
'perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery'.[42]Crazy Roger "therefore ruled that black people were not American citizens and could not sue as citizens in federal courts.[17]
This meant that U.S. states lacked the power to alter the legal status of black people by granting them state citizenship:[40]"
'It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted."This holding normally would have ended the decision, since it disposed of Dred Scott's case, but Taney did not confine his ruling to the matter immediately before the Court.[17]
... They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.'
— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 407."
He went on to assess the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise itself, writing that the Compromise's legal provisions intended to free slaves who were living north of the 36°N 30' latitude line in the western territories.
In the Court's judgment, this constituted the government depriving owners of slave property without due process of law, which is forbidden under the Fifth Amendment.[43]
Taney also reasoned that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights implicitly precluded any possibility of constitutional rights for black African slaves and their descendants.[40]"
"Now, ... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.I'd say, if this is not stark raving Democrat insanity, then there is no such thing.
... Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the [36°N 30' latitude] line therein mentioned is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void...."
— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 451–52."
FLT-bird: "Dred Scott's lawyers argued that because he had resided in Wisconsin and Illinois he therefore should be emancipated but he was a resident of Missouri at the time where slavery was legal.
Had he still been an Illinois or Wisconsin resident, THAT would be a different set of facts and almost certainly a different ruling by the SCOTUS."
Obviously, living six years in the free state of Illinois made Dred Scott an Illinois resident, not Missouri.
Then four more years in the free territory of Wisconsin made Scott a Wisconsin resident, not Missouri.
However, the issue of Scott's residency is bogus, and a red herring anyway, since it had nothing to do with Crazy Roger's insane Dred Scott rulings.
Crazy Roger didn't give a d*mn about Dred Scott's state of residency, Crazy only cared about one thing -- Scott was an African slave and therefore could only ever be "property", never a full US citizen.
Truly, my term "Crazy Roger" is far too mild and respectful for such an obvious raving lunatic.
And people who defend such lunacies are beyond the reach of words to describe.
FLT-bird: "The way the SCOTUS ruled in this case is consistent with many other cases in which there is a similar fact pattern."
Sorry, but that is just fact-free Lost Cause propaganda, because Crazy Roger's ruling had nothing to do with Dred Scott's residency or lack of residency.
Rather, Crazy's ruling was 100% based on Dred Scott's race and origin as an African slave.
FLT-bird: "Nope.
You didn't understand the ruling.
They ruled that since he was in Missouri where slavery was legal, he couldn't make his case that he should be free. Obviously he should have sued when a resident of Wisconsin or Illinois.
The Supreme Court did rule that Blacks could not be citizens.
That was a majority opinion in most of the country at the time including in Illinois and Wisconsin."
I'm sorry, but again, you've been reading Lost Cause propaganda and it has rotted your brain, you must stop that.
Here is the truth of it, in a brief nutshell:
"In essence, Taney’s opinion was that the status of slavery followed a person, regardless of their location, and that living in a free state or territory did not grant a slave freedom."This is also the "logic" behind Crazy Roger's voiding the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
FLT-bird: "What I grasp is that you not only don't know history, you also don't know the law and furthermore, you are incapable of discussing this without grade school level namecalling of anybody you disagree with."
Obviously, you are here looking in a mirror and pointing at yourself, since your understanding of Dred Scott is totally distorted to meet the needs of pro-Confederate Lost Cause propaganda.
FLT-bird: "The truth is you don't know what the hell you're talking about - as usual.
The ruling of the SCOTUS did not "remove all limitations on the lengths of time slaveholders could remain in free states"."
This is it!! This is your problem -- you've been reading a pack of lies and so totally misunderstand what Dred Scott was all about.
FRiend, there is just no way to help you understand until you give up on those G.D. lies.
FLT-bird: "And yet, 3 of the 4 states that issued declarations of causes for secession talked extensively about tariffs (general not just the current one working its way through congress at the time)"
Not one mentioned the proposed Morrill Tariff, which at that time simply returned rates to their levels of the 1846 Walker Tariffs approved under a Southern Democrat Congress and signed by Southern Democrat Pres. Polk.
In 1860 tariffs were a political annoyance, invisible to over 90% of Southern citizens, and to be hammered out and compromised on in Congress, as always.
In 1860 slavery was the vital issue that every Southern Fire Eater and many normal Southern citizens believed was worth secession and war to defend.
"Both parties deprecated war but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.
And the war came."
A. Lincoln, March 4, 1865