I don't see why not, at least not in the days when this was a confederation of voluntary states. Now days you'd probably go apoplectic over such a thought. Sorry, I don't mean to harm you.
[rb] A major compromise over slavery in the Constitution (the return of fugitive slaves) was being disobeyed by the North.
[ftD] Well, that is a false statement.
Oh? From the 1855 Massachusetts Personal Liberty Law:
Sec. 11. Any person who shall act as counsel or attorney for any claimant of any alleged fugitive from service or labor, under or by virtue of the acts of congress mentioned in the ninth section of this act, shall be deemed to have resigned any commission from the Commonwealth that he may possess, and he shall be thereafter incapacitated from appearing as counsel or attorney in the courts of this Commonwealth...
Sec. 15. Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, jailer, coroner, constable, or other officer of this Commonwealth, or the police of any city or town, or any district, county, city or town officer, or any officer or other member of the volunteer militia of this Commonwealth, who shall hereafter arrest...any person for the reason that he is claimed or adjudged to be a fugitive from service or labor, shall be punished by fine...and by imprisonment...
Sec. 19. No jail, prison, or other place of confinement belonging to, or used by, either the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any county therein, shall be used for the detention or imprisonment of any person accused or convicted of any offence created by [the Federal Fugitive Slave Acts]...or accused or convicted of obstructing or resisting any process, warrant, or order issued under either of said acts, or of rescuing, or attempting to rescue, any person arrested or detained under any of the provisions of either of the said acts.
Lincoln told the South that the law was in the Constitution and would be upheld.
I think the South knew what was in the Constitution and didn't need Lincoln telling them. It was the North that needed the reminder. Personally, I think the South would have been wiser to let Lincoln enforce the law (or not).
From The Daily Mississippian newspaper of January 16, 1861:
Washington, Jan. 12. Hon. Wm H. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate to-day, on the President's message. He said Congress ought, if it can, redress any real grievances of the offended States, and then supply the President with all the means necessary to maintain the Union. He argued that the laws contravening the constitution, in regard to the escape of slaves, ought to be repealed. He was willing to vote for an amendment to the constitution, that Congress should never have the power to abolish or interfere with slavery within the States.
What did Seward know that you don't?
[Lincoln] had strong opposition, both from the Northern Democrats and Southerners.
Others on this thread have documented the leanings of the House and Senate. Senator Wigfall from Texas did the count, I think. Lincoln's opposition could have been outvoted.
The Tarriffs of the 50's were fairly low.
had the South not left in 1860 they could have blocked the tarriff that was passed when 14 Southern Senators left.
Like I said, others have demonstrated otherwise. And yes, the tariffs adopted by the Confederate States were low. Here is what the Cincinnatti Enquirer said in March 1861:
The seceded States invite imports under the tariff of 1857, at least ten per cent. lower than that which the Federal Government has just adopted. As a matter of course, foreign trade will seek southern ports, because it will be driven there by the Morrill tariff.
As I remember, as soon as the Morrill tariff was passed Congress voted to float another big loan to the Federal Government.
The South had no moral justification for secession.
Ah, the pious moral scold from Fort Bend has spoken! Actually, they could leave whenever and for whatever reason they chose, be it moral, immoral, or simply because they didn't like Lincoln's deoderant.
They had the rights of representation, even using the slaves 3/4 rule to be overrepresented.
I forget who proposed that, someone from the North perhaps (I may be wrong) to counter a demand that slaves be counted as whole people. Without the compromise, a Union including the South would not have come to be, and I would not have the pleasure of discussing the WBTS with you.
No, I will not go apoplectic, but it is clear that you are advocating anarchy.
So, no state would have any security in the union.
[rb] A major compromise over slavery in the Constitution (the return of fugitive slaves) was being disobeyed by the North. [ftD] Well, that is a false statement. Oh? From the 1855 Massachusetts Personal Liberty Law: Sec. 11. Any person who shall act as counsel or attorney for any claimant of any alleged fugitive from service or labor, under or by virtue of the acts of congress mentioned in the ninth section of this act, shall be deemed to have resigned any commission from the Commonwealth that he may possess, and he shall be thereafter incapacitated from appearing as counsel or attorney in the courts of this Commonwealth...
I said that the States were not too happy with turning over the slaves, but the Federal gov't was enforcing the act.
Gee, what happened to State rights?
Sec. 15. Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, jailer, coroner, constable, or other officer of this Commonwealth, or the police of any city or town, or any district, county, city or town officer, or any officer or other member of the volunteer militia of this Commonwealth, who shall hereafter arrest...any person for the reason that he is claimed or adjudged to be a fugitive from service or labor, shall be punished by fine...and by imprisonment...
Again, the Federal gov't was using force to retrieve slaves when the states would not give them up.
There was a riot in Boston when the Federal Gov't took one slave back.
Sec. 19. No jail, prison, or other place of confinement belonging to, or used by, either the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any county therein, shall be used for the detention or imprisonment of any person accused or convicted of any offence created by [the Federal Fugitive Slave Acts]...or accused or convicted of obstructing or resisting any process, warrant, or order issued under either of said acts, or of rescuing, or attempting to rescue, any person arrested or detained under any of the provisions of either of the said acts.
And again, the Federal gov't supported the South's taken back the slaves.
Lincoln told the South that the law was in the Constitution and would be upheld. I think the South knew what was in the Constitution and didn't need Lincoln telling them. It was the North that needed the reminder. Personally, I think the South would have been wiser to let Lincoln enforce the law (or not).
Lincoln told the South that they had nothing to fear from him that he would uphold the Constitution.
That is what Lincoln was telling the South, not what was in the Constitution.
From The Daily Mississippian newspaper of January 16, 1861: Washington, Jan. 12. Hon. Wm H. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate to-day, on the President's message. He said Congress ought, if it can, redress any real grievances of the offended States, and then supply the President with all the means necessary to maintain the Union. He argued that the laws contravening the constitution, in regard to the escape of slaves, ought to be repealed. He was willing to vote for an amendment to the constitution, that Congress should never have the power to abolish or interfere with slavery within the States. What did Seward know that you don't?
And as President, Lincoln took an oath to defend the Constitution, no matter what his private opinions.
[Lincoln] had strong opposition, both from the Northern Democrats and Southerners. Others on this thread have documented the leanings of the House and Senate. Senator Wigfall from Texas did the count, I think. Lincoln's opposition could have been outvoted.
So, if you can't win the vote, pull out?
I however, doubt that the North could have defeated the South in the Senate
The Tarriffs of the 50's were fairly low. had the South not left in 1860 they could have blocked the tarriff that was passed when 14 Southern Senators left. Like I said, others have demonstrated otherwise. And yes, the tariffs adopted by the Confederate States were low. Here is what the Cincinnatti Enquirer said in March 1861: The seceded States invite imports under the tariff of 1857, at least ten per cent. lower than that which the Federal Government has just adopted. As a matter of course, foreign trade will seek southern ports, because it will be driven there by the Morrill tariff. As I remember, as soon as the Morrill tariff was passed Congress voted to float another big loan to the Federal Government.
You do not know that the South could have not defeated the Tarriff.
The South had no moral justification for secession. Ah, the pious moral scold from Fort Bend has spoken! Actually, they could leave whenever and for whatever reason they chose, be it moral, immoral, or simply because they didn't like Lincoln's deoderant.
Yea, right.
Calhoun's view of loose confederation of states.
The same guy that rejected the Declaration of Independence since he believe that no individual was born with rights to anything, only the state had the rights.
Here you are arguing for a regime that tore men from their loved ones to drag them back to the slaver masters and used the federal gov't to do so.
They had the rights of representation, even using the slaves 3/4 rule to be overrepresented. I forget who proposed that, someone from the North perhaps (I may be wrong) to counter a demand that slaves be counted as whole people. Without the compromise, a Union including the South would not have come to be, and I would not have the pleasure of discussing the WBTS with you.
Well, the slavers wanted it both ways, having slaves counted as people for representation but in practice treating them as property.
But consistency in thinking has never been a strong suit for defenders of the Confederacy.