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.
Yes we do. The math is as follows: As of March 1861 the incoming US Senate had 34 states and 68 members. The minimum threshold for passage was 34 votes - a tie, in which case VP Hamlin would break the tie in favor. Now the breakdown of the senate:
1. There were 14 southern states. Assuming that all southern senators voted "no" that yields a maximum of 28 southern no votes.
2. There were 31 Republicans guaranteed to vote yes.
3. There was one Democrat from the tariff state of New Jersey, who would also vote yes for a total of 32. Another Democrat from Delaware suggested he would vote in favor of the bill for 33.
4. Of the remaining northern democrats and independents there were five reliable "no" votes: Bright of Indiana, the 2 senators from California, Douglas of Illinois, and Rice of Minnesota.
That puts us at 33-33 with two votes outstanding, one from Oregon and the other from Delaware (neither voted on the bill or gave their positions in the congressional record as far as I can determined). The southerners estimated that they would not get the Oregon vote and assuming they are correct that would put the Morrill bill over the top.
Scenario 2 happens after June when Stephen Douglas dies and is replaced by a Republican, giving the Republicans 32 votes plus the two aforementioned pro-tariff Democrats for 34.
Add to the mix that the incoming President had publicly pledged to make the tariff his top legislative priority in the new session and the scenario plays out to completion.
Here is what we can conclude from that scenario:
- The absolute best case possibility for the south was defeating 35 to 33 assuming they got the Oregon vote that they did not consider reliable. That possibility is removed entirely after Douglas dies.
- The second and most likely scenario for the south is that the two unidentified votes split, possibly after Lincoln lobbies one of them hard for the tariff, and a tie results. Hamlin then breaks the tie and the bill passes.
- The third and worst case scenario is that Lincoln lobbies hard for the tariff and sways both of the undecideds to his side. The bill passes 35-33.
As only one of these three scenarios was acceptable to the south (and it only worked so long as Douglas was alive) it is safe to say that the odds were strongly against them.
Nonsense.
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?
I presume you mean the rights of the Northern states to do as they chose, as in not returning fugitive slaves? If so, you do not understand states rights. Why am I not surprised?
States rights concerns the rights and powers of the states not delegated or assigned to the Federal government in the Constitution, not the right to violate the Constitution or go back on their word. Northern states agreed that fugitive slaves should be returned when they ratified or accepted the Constitution.
Do you argue that under states rights Northern states were free to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they would obey and which they would not? If so, how is it that I am for anarchy in your opinion, but you are not?
Daniel Webster made a cogent statement about this issue in 1851 when he was Secretary of State:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Good on ya, Daniel. This is fun, but I'm heading to bed. Will address the rest of your post tomorrow.
I've seen where he was supposedly the last slave returned from Massachusetts. And that was years before the war.
Lincoln told the South that they had nothing to fear from him that he would uphold the Constitution.
Now you've stated it more correctly. But I have seen a Southern paper argue that Lincoln said he would not enforce Dred Scott. I don't know whether that is correct or not. He certainly did not uphold the Constitution after the war started -- he did all but use it for a doormat.
So, if you can't win the vote, pull out?
They had that right if they chose to do so. They didn't have access to the Army to prevent Democrats from voting in key states like what happened in 1863-64. Maybe 1862 also.
I however, doubt that the North could have defeated the South in the Senate
I see GOPc has tried to enlighten you on this point already. I defer to his eloquence.
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.
Didn't Northern states agree to the representation question? As I've pointed out, without that compromise, the US as we know it would not have come to be.