What do you call Kansas and Nebraska? Look at a map!
Missouri Compromise Line... (Green)
Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
What do you call Kansas and Nebraska? Look at a map!
Missouri Compromise Line... (Green)
So, what if you are not a “neo-Confederate”...but just an average person who believes these or similar points? Are they still “myths”?
Or do you have to start off such discussions by moronically making up categories of people?
If so, what do neo-Federalist/communists believe?
Thanks.
It’s called abortion. You may have heard of it.
Your argument was that Confederates were not interested in negotiating. I proved that Virginia was willing to negotiate, but Lincoln refused.
What I meant is the part where he talks about no negotiations with the South.
“They were there to deliver an ultimatum; recognition of Confederate independence or nothing.”
Yes, and? They were willing to do so peaceably.
Yes, and? What about Kansas/Nebraska?
Was not California admitted as a Free State in contravention to the Missouri Compromise?
Did either Kansas or Nebraska become slave states?
It's what experience has taught us to expect. And yes, wars do settle things. Though it would have been better to do so peacefully and avoid violence.
Henry Clay knew that. Daniel Webster knew that. Most thinking people in the 1850s and 1850s had an inkling.
Even the moron who said he would drink every drop of blood shed because of secession (or wipe it up with his handkerchief) knew about the possibility before rejecting it.
What's the use of not learning from history? Why pretend to be (or be) ignorant?
The point is that there were options - constitutional ones. That there were votes, constitutional ones at the time, that were held in the South, showing they no longer wished to be governed. It is not fair to gage the South by the rules of today - when black people could not vote in the north either. The same exact process that elected Lincoln, was the same process by which the south said they wished not to be governed by him.
The difference is that in the south - support was overwhelming to leave - whereas Lincoln had just 38 percent support of America. Less, if you count South Carolina.
The Missouri Compromise did not require new states to be slave states below the Compromise line. It simply permitted it if the state wanted it. The people of California decided they did not want slavery and The Compromise of 1850, among other things, admitted California as a free state.
“It simply permitted it if the state wanted it.”
Which is what applied to Nebraska and Kansas too, didn’t it. Popular Sovereignty.
Except that wasn’t the agreement reached in the Missouri Compromise. It specifically said that slavery was prohibited north of the line. No “popular sovereignty,” just banned in the same way the Northwest Ordinance had banned slavery in the Northwest Territories in 1787. The problem came when the south realized that there were going to be more states joining the union north of the line than south of the line and wanted to renege. Stephen Douglas pushed the “popular sovereignty” idea in Kansas as a way to finesse a slave state into the union, preserving the south’s eroding power.
As was already posted - popular sovereignty applied to California, south of the line, and would apply to Kansas and Nebraska after the Kansas-Nebraska act.
Not for lack of trying. You may have heard of Bleeding Kansas, Osawatomie Brown, the Lecompton Constitution and the Sack of Lawrence.
Proslavery Missouri senator David Atchison declared that “there are 1,100 men coming over from Platte County to vote, and if that ain’t enough we can send 5,000—enough to kill every Goddamned abolitionist in the Territory.”
Constitutional? No. There was nothing in the Constitution about secession.
And those were very irregular elections. Look up the history. Some states held conventions. In others the state legislature made the decision. The way delegates were chosen to the conventions may also have varied.
Some conventions voted down secession before voting it up. Any number of rejections apparently didn't count, but one acceptance changed everything.
One state announced it would hold a convention and didn't, the state legislature doing the seceding. Some states held referendums to ratify the secession. Others didn't.
Georgia historians concluded that there were so many irregularities in the election of delegates that they couldn't conclude who had won.
There were enough charges of fraud and intimidation that unionists were within their rights to criticize the results. And the questions at stake were important enough that they had to do so.
The difference is that in the south - support was overwhelming to leave - whereas Lincoln had just 38 percent support of America. Less, if you count South Carolina.
South Carolina? Do you understand that it wasn't just the African-American majority of the state that wasn't allowed to vote in that election? Even free white property owners didn't vote. The state legislature made the choice.
If you don't show your citizens the courtesy of actually asking what they think about the political choices you make for them, you can't claim that they somehow, without being allowed to vote, implicitly "voted" for the choices you made. We've discussed all that, and any sane, thoughtful person would at least acknowledge and consider the point.
38% of the vote for Lincoln? According to the figures I've seen it was closer to 40%. But the Republicans won a majority in the electoral college fair and square. You are willing to split up the country because of some questionable actions in various states, but you reject the results of a national election?
Also, you only count the elections which go your own way. In a two candidate run-off, Lincoln might very well have won a majority. All he needed to get to 50% was a little over a third of Douglas voters (some Bell voters might also have gone his way).
Or say Lincoln didn't. Say you had 60% of the country on your side, implacably opposed to the Republicans. Was a 40% minority president really that threatening? If the country really backed you with well over a majority what was the problem and why was secession necessary?
Negotiate with who? Nobody from the Confederacy showed up.
We're going around and around with your compatriot central_va on the definition of 'unilateral'. Do we have to do the same with you on 'negotiation'? Delivering an ultimatum is not negotiation.
With Lincoln perchance?
My question was who was there for Lincoln to negotiate with? Nobody from the Confederacy showed up. And remember, the Virginia Peace Conference was in February. Before Lincoln was inaugurated.
“Constitutional? No. There was nothing in the Constitution about secession.”
Government exists by the consent of the governed.
“And those were very irregular elections.”
And that is the basis *for* Lincoln’s authority. Secession on the other had broad and substantive support across the south.
“Any number of rejections apparently didn’t count, but one acceptance changed everything.”
Virginia originally rejected things - but when Lincoln levied Virginian troops to fight against their brothers, Virginia changed their mind. Had Lincoln chose not to levy troops - Virginia would have stayed in the Union, and the Confederacy would not have lasted long. Had Lincoln levied non-Virginian troops - they would have also stayed in the Union, and the war would not have lasted long.
“Georgia historians concluded that there were so many irregularities in the election of delegates that they couldn’t conclude who had won.”
Except for the fact that it wasn’t Lincoln.
“South Carolina? Do you understand that it wasn’t just the African-American majority of the state that wasn’t allowed to vote in that election? Even free white property owners didn’t vote. The state legislature made the choice.”
And that was constitutional at the time. Same with the North.
“If you don’t show your citizens the courtesy of actually asking what they think about the political choices you make for them, you can’t claim that they somehow, without being allowed to vote, implicitly “voted” for the choices you made. We’ve discussed all that, and any sane, thoughtful person would at least acknowledge and consider the point.”
Is 38 percent support for Lincoln a ‘broad and deep mandate from the United States? No.
“You are willing to split up the country because of some questionable actions in various states, but you reject the results of a national election?”
I don’t see how Lincoln was representative of the United States as a whole - when he did not have the support of the majority or a near-majority of the people. Nearly two thirds did not support him.
“In a two candidate run-off, Lincoln might very well have won a majority.”
Well, then Lincoln should have insisted on one. This is pure speculation. .
“Was a 40% minority president really that threatening?”
Was Lincoln inclined to work with the majority or was he inclined to go to war?
“why was secession necessary?”
For the people of the South to govern themselves according to the principles of Liberty.
Presumably Lincoln would negotiate with the Virginia delegation sent to negotiate with him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.