Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
... in government, the South was over-represented.

I have seen you post this before. Are you saying that the counting of slaves as 3/5th's of a person gave slaves states too many Representatives? If so, I would agree. If not you have it backwards, for the real reason the south seceded no matter what was said or printed. The population of the north had risen to the point that south had lost it's power to control and even be equal with the northern states. This was proved by the election of Lincoln/ Hamblin, without even the pretense of campaigning in the south. Before there had been an unwritten power sharing arrangement in the executive branch: southern president, northern vice president or vice versa. The writing was now on the wall in clear bold, block type. YOU NO LONGER MATTER

If all they really cared about was protecting slavery they could have stayed in the union and helped pass the Corwin Amendment, or some other deviation of it.
147 posted on 03/13/2008 5:04:09 AM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]


To: smug
Are you saying that the counting of slaves as 3/5th's of a person gave slaves states too many Representatives?

Look back at the Dred Scott decision. If blacks were not and could never be citizens, then free or slave they did not deserve representation in Congress. So the South shouldn't have even had the 3/5ths total.

The population of the north had risen to the point that south had lost it's power to control and even be equal with the northern states.

And what in the Constitution guaranteed the South the right to control the Northern states, much less be equal to them?

Before there had been an unwritten power sharing arrangement in the executive branch: southern president, northern vice president or vice versa.

And what prominent Southern Republican was available to run with Lincoln in 1860?

If all they really cared about was protecting slavery they could have stayed in the union and helped pass the Corwin Amendment, or some other deviation of it.

The Corwin Amendment had a fatal flaw that the South would not have stood for - it protected slavery only where it existed and did not protect the expansion of slavery into the territories. Nor would any amendment protecting the expansion of slavery ever pass out of the House. So the South did leave, and the did leave to protect their institution of slavery, and in the process adopted a constitution that protected slavery in ways never imagined in the real Constitution. The confederate constitution specifically guaranteed slave ownership, slavery in the territories, slave imports, and most likely guaranteed that an amendment ending slavery was impossible to pass.

148 posted on 03/13/2008 6:16:58 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson