How does one vote in support of the institution? I'm thinking the greater concern is that once having gotten the South on the hook for 73% of all taxation and with New York pocketing 60% of the revenue produced by all the South's trade output, the fear was that they would be able to vote to get out of this situation.
So long as the North had the majority in congress, the money stream from Southern trade with Europe would continue routing through their hands, and those nasty cheaper European products would continue to be held back from their markets by beneficial taxes making them uneconomical to purchase.
But the institution? What could you do by voting to further it? It was either there, or it wasn't. It's like being a little bit pregnant.
First of all, your math is wrong. Five states ratified the amendment, but two of them were slave states. Seven slave states were in rebellion and weren't going to ratify anything. They had already made their decision and weren't going to turn around. Secessionists in the other states weren't going to support any compromise measures. Seward couldn't guarantee squat, and the Upper North wasn't going to ratify the measure. So it wasn't going to be adopted.
"If" is a big word. I said "If" they thought it would have worked, they would have gotten the votes to pass it. The Southern states would have voted for it in July of 1860, but by March of 1861, they'd decided to do something different.
South Carolina wasn't really a democracy back then, but if you combine slaveowers, people who wanted to become slaveowners and people who were scared of free Blacks and slave uprisings, that was probably a majority of voters in some states
I have heard that the "Aristocracy" pretty much decided how various southern states would vote, and if this is indeed so, then it does change the legitimacy of the secession effort. Top down coercion is not Democracy. It's what we are dealing with now.
Why on earth would your opinion possibly be more important than the opinions of thousands of people who were alive at that time?
My opinion that the status quo would continue being the status quo if not disturbed, is too radical for you?
You essentially just ignore the arguments made against your view and fall back on the idea that the South was paying all the taxes. But the people you are arguing with don't accept your figures and don't think you understand economics, so your contributions to the discussion don't contribute much to the discussion.
So long as the North had the majority in congress, the money stream from Southern trade with Europe would continue routing through their hands, and those nasty cheaper European products would continue to be held back from their markets by beneficial taxes making them uneconomical to purchase.
Tariffs in the years leading up to the Civil War were not burdensome or an insurmountable barrier to imports. The Democratic Party controlled politics during this period and was favorable to Southern interests. Northerners didn't dominate trade because of laws, but because it was their bread and butter. It was what they had to do, so they became quite good at it.
But the institution? What could you do by voting to further it? It was either there, or it wasn't. It's like being a little bit pregnant.
For one thing, they would keep parties that didn't like slavery out of power. For somebody always b*tch*ng about the power of the courts today, you seem oblivious to the importance of judgeships and control of Congress in the 19th century. I outlined in my post ways in which Republicans could weaken slavery over time - or ways in which Southern slaveowners thought the Republicans could weaken slavery. Did you just ignore all that?
The Southern states would have voted for it in July of 1860, but by March of 1861, they'd decided to do something different.
Lincoln took office in March of 1861, so the amendment was DOA from the beginning. It wasn't going to prevent secession, and the rejection of it did not mean that Southerners didn't care about slavery.
My opinion that the status quo would continue being the status quo if not disturbed, is too radical for you?
Again, I ask, what does your opinion or my opinion have to do with the opinions of people at the time? They believed what they believed. If we think that they were irrational or wrong, that doesn't mean that they didn't believe what they believed.