Nice try. The 68 Republican members of Congress endorsed the book on March 9, 1859 according to this 1859 New York Herald article [Link]:
On the 27th of October, 1858, William H. Seward made his brutal and bloody speech at Rochester, in this State, laying down the programme of the “irrepressible conflict,” which was to end in converting New Orleans and other Southern cities into marts for the products of free labor only, or else to turn Quincy Market in Boston into a slave pen. On the following 9th of March [That means 1859, BJK.] sixty-eight Republicans signed a secret circular recommending Helper’s revolutionary book, which calls upon the poor-non-slaveholders in the South to make an agrarian revolution and destroy the property of their more wealthy neighbors.
Seward, of course, had also talked about “higher law than the Constitution” to combat slavery.
There were only 112 Republicans in Congress in March of 1859, 20 senators and 92 representatives. 68 is more than half of 112.
But of course, the Republican party represented no economic threat against slavery, since their platform merely called for Western territories to vote on whether to admit slavery or not.
No threat? On November 26, 1859, The New York Herald reprinted the names of the 68 endorsers of Helper’s book along with other supporters including the governor of New York and Thurlow Weed and a list of contributors to the publication and distribution of 100,000 copies of an abridgement of Helper’s book. Subheadings of the Herald article include “Incitement to Treason and Civil War” and “The South to be Throttled and the Negroes Freed.” Here is a [Link] to that paper which contained the following extracts from Helper’s book in the article.
… we appeal to you to join us in our earnest and timely efforts to rescue the generous soil of the South from the usurped and desolating control of those political vampires. Once and forever, at least so far as this country is concerned, the infernal question of slavery must be disposed of; a speedy and absolute abolishment of the whole system is the true policy of the South – and this is the policy we propose to pursue. Will you aid us? will you assist us? will you be freemen? or will you be slaves?
Do not reserve the strength of your arms until you have been rendered powerless to strike; the present is the proper time for action under all the circumstances, apathy or indifference is a crime. First ascertain, as nearly as you can, the precise nature and extent of your duty, and then, without a moment’s delay, perform it in good faith. To facilitate you in determining what considerations of right, justice and humanity require at your hands, is one of the primary objects of this work; and we shall certainly fail in our desire if we do not accomplish our task in a manner acceptable to God and advantageous to man.
REVOLUTION – PEACEABLY IF WE CAN, VIOLENTLY IF WE MUST
The following comments in this paragraph are paraphrased or quoted from “The 1859 Crisis over Hinton Helper’s Book, the Impending Crisis: Free Speech, Slavery, and Some Light on the meaning of the First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment – Symposium on the Law of Slavery: Constitutional Law and Slavery,” by Michael Kent Curtis, 68 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1113 (1992) [Link].
- A grand jury in North Carolina called upon the governor of New York to deliver up the Republican endorsers of the book for indictment and punishment.
- Once Democrats started blaming John Brown’s October 1859 attempt at Harper’s Ferry to incite slaves to revolt on Helper’s Book, a few Republicans “rushed to dissociate themselves from Harper’s Book. … Several recanted their endorsements, pleading ignorance, and repudiated the book.”
- “Southern nationalists used Helper, Seward, and Harper’s Ferry to show why secession was imperative if a ‘Black Republican” were elected President; …”
- “A Republican victory, Sherman [insert by rustbucket: General W. T. Sherman’s younger brother, a failed candidate for Speaker of the House because he had endorsed Helper’s Book] insisted, would encourage emancipation by the Southern states themselves. In this sense the Southern fear of an attack on the South was well founded.
But more to the point, neither the proposed Morrill tariff nor Confederates 15% rate were even on the radar screen when South Carolina first began to organize for secession in November 1860.
So tariffs are irrelevant to this discussion.
The Morrill Tariff had passed the House in the spring of 1860, IIRC. All that was needed was the Senate approval. A vote count of the new Senate elected in November 1860 showed that showed that the Morrill Tariff would probably pass in the next session of the Senate even if all Southern Senators stayed and no state seceded. From a post by GOPcapitalist citing a December 12, 1860 comment by Texas Senator Wigfall [Link]:
"Tell me not that we have got the legislative department of this Government, for I say we have not. As to this body, where do we stand? Why, sir, there are now eighteen non-slaveholding States. In a few weeks we shall have the nineteenth, for Kansas will be brought in. Then arithmetic which settles our position is simple and easy. Thirty-eight northern Senators you will have upon this floor. We shall have thirty to your thirty-eight. After the 4th of March, the Senator from California, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from New Jersey, and the Senator from Minnesota will be here. That reduces the northern phalanx to thirty-four...There are four of the northern Senators upon whom we can rely, whom we know to be friends, whom we have trusted in our days of trial heretofore, and in whom, as Constitution-loving men, we will trust. Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote. Mr. Lincoln can make his own nominations with perfect security that they will be confirmed by this body, even if every slaveholding State should remain in the Union, which, thank God, they will not do."
The second category, "mutual consent" you mention here, while calling it "unilateral", when in fact it was the exact opposite of "unilateral".
Eventually the old Articles of Confederation were withdrawn by 100% mutual consent, and act of Congress, to be replaced by the newly ratified Constitution.
It was peaceful, lawful, orderly mutual consent of which our Founders totally approved.
Actually, nine states were all that was needed to form the new government under the Constitution. The states unilaterally one by one withdrew from the Union under the Articles. They did form a new government before all thirteen states had ratified the Constitution. Until the last two states (NC and RI) ratified the Constitution, they were not considered to be part of the new Union, and some of their imports into the United States were to be taxed like imports from foreign countries. I wouldn’t call it mutual consent at that point. All thirteen did eventually join the new Union, but it was after the new government was already operating without all states being on board.
Once again, the key word here is not "happiness", but rather "necessary" and refers to the categories of "necessary" listed in the Declaration of Independence. But no condition even remotely similar to July 1776 existed in December 1860.
Madison defined it as “public happiness” or “dissatisfaction” with the government. We didn’t have a king in 1860-61 and a long list of grevances against the king. I dare say that Madison, Jay, and Hamilton would laugh at what you consider “necessary” to mean. The South faced a sectional president, possible serious threats from Republicans over their slave based economy, and likely increased sectional aggrandizement under Lincoln and the Republicans. First thing right off the bat after a number of states had already seceded, the Republicans passed the Morrill tariff that was going to harm the South. That was sectional aggrandizement. That protective tariff was in their platform. Lincoln was for it. It wasn’t any secret.
But no US Founder ever made that argument, and Founders fully understood the differences among "mutual consent", "material breach of compact" and secession "at pleasure".
Founders would consider Deep South declarations of secession as "at pleasure" and not approved.
You don’t think some Northern states blocking the return of fugitive slaves was not a material breach of contract? They were nullifying a section of the Constitution that had been unanimously agreed to during the compromises in the Constitution that made the Union possible. What was it those distinguished Massachusetts judges said in 1860 about Massachusetts’ personal liberty laws [Link]:
[they] stand as conspicuous and palpable breaches of the national compact by ourselves.
I’ve cited what Jay, Hamilton, and Madison said concerning reassuming or resuming their own governance. I gather from what you say that you don’t consider them to be Founders. Your version of history is certainly different from theirs and from mine as well. I trust what Jay, Hamilton, Madison said, and Jay and Hamilton agreed that the Constitution was consistent with what they said.
You apparently have sent what Jay, Hamilton, and Madison said down your version of 1984's Memory Hole.
And I submit that the Founders would be aghast and mortified by the actions of the insurrectionists - but only long enough to catch their wind before taking up arms against them.
Can't wait to see who (BroJoe??) attempts to refute any number of indicting revelations. FOR INSTANCE:
BroJoe:
"But of course, the Republican party represented no economic threat against slavery, since their platform merely called for Western territories to vote on whether to admit slavery or not."
Rustbucket:
"No threat? On November 26, 1859, The New York Herald reprinted the names of the 68 endorsers of Helper’s book along with other supporters including the governor of New York and Thurlow Weed and a list of contributors to the publication and distribution of 100,000 copies of an abridgement of Helper’s book. Subheadings of the Herald article include “Incitement to Treason and Civil War” and “The South to be Throttled and the Negroes Freed.”
"Here is a [Link] to that paper which contained the following extracts from Helper’s book in the article...."
Rustbucket:
Madison defined it as “public happiness” or “dissatisfaction” with the government. We didn’t have a king in 1860-61 and a long list of grevances against the king. I dare say that Madison, Jay, and Hamilton would laugh at what you consider “necessary” to mean.
The South faced a sectional president, possible serious threats from Republicans over their slave based economy, and likely increased sectional aggrandizement under Lincoln and the Republicans. First thing right off the bat after a number of states had already seceded, the Republicans passed the Morrill tariff that was going to harm the South. That was sectional aggrandizement. That protective tariff was in their platform. Lincoln was for it. It wasn’t any secret.
HEAR HEAR!
The deeper real CW history is unearthed, the smaller and more corrupt and reptilian Lincoln and the Northern state reps get.
At this juncture the US wasn't a "Representative Republic," it was about to become a banana republic as the North plotted premeditated tyranny and war.
Wow! I love it, thanks for the corrections, and news article, and thanks too for getting it wrong so I can correct you too, sir.
This is a good day. ;-)
When exactly this happened matters to whether we are talking about "more than 50%" or "less than 50%" of Republicans in Congress supporting North Carolinian Hinton Helper's 1857 anti-slavery book The Impending Crisis of the South.
Here is the explanation I read:
So when exactly did this happen?
Now, your article says those 68 Republicans signed their endorsements on March 9, 1859.
So, we can look it up, was March 9 the 35th or 36th Congress?
As it happens, March 9 was at the beginning of the 36th Congress, so Republican numbers then were 25 Senators and 113 Congressmen = 138 total, of which those 68 would be 49%.
No problem, you're welcome sir.
rustbucket quoting 1859 NY Herald: "On the 27th of October, 1858, William H. Seward made his brutal and bloody speech at Rochester, in this State, laying down the programme of the 'irrepressible conflict,' which was to end in converting New Orleans and other Southern cities into marts for the products of free labor only, or else to turn Quincy Market in Boston into a slave pen."
Sort of sounds like " 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other."
That was from June 1858.
The Seward quote is from October 1858.
Interesting
rustbucket quoting Curtis: "Once Democrats started blaming John Brown’s October 1859 attempt at Harper's Ferry to incite slaves to revolt on Helper’s Book, a few Republicans 'rushed to dissociate themselves from Harper’s Book. … Several recanted their endorsements, pleading ignorance, and repudiated the book.' "
As usual, many Republicans were just cowards.
But here is a more likely explanation of what was really going on:
This version met with fierce opposition in the South and many places banned it.
Possession of a copy was treated as criminal offense.
Distributors of the book were arrested, and three men in Arkansas were hanged for possession of it.[3]"
So what happened was: Southerner Hinton wrote a book intended for other Southerners, with strong anti-slavery language.
Republicans abridged and sanitized a version of Hinton's book for their own political purposes.
Democrats, especially Southern Democrats, were horrified & outraged by Hinton's book and Republican support for it.
But naturally Dems focused not on the sanitized abridged version, but Hinton's original unabridged & highly inflammatory version, which many of those 68 Republicans were far too cowardly to own up to.
Politically, Republicans used Hinton's words as a wedge issue against Democrats.
They were certainly not advocating war, but naturally that's what Dems accused them of, since that worked better for Dems.
So, politics as usual, but this time all sides were playing with real fire.
rustbucket quoting Wigfall from December 1860: "Tell me not that we have got the legislative department of this Government, for I say we have not...
There are four of the northern Senators upon whom we can rely, whom we know to be friends, whom we have trusted in our days of trial heretofore, and in whom, as Constitution-loving men, we will trust.
Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President"
Of course, Wigfall was a Fire Eater who campaigned for both secession and war against the United States.
So in this quote Wigfall is making his case, as a senator from Texas, against the Union based on his idea that, for virtually the first time ever, the South was now a minority in Congress.
But the truth is, the South had many more potential friends than Wigfall here admits.
They included:
So the situation for Southerners in December 1860 was nowhere near as dire as Fire Eater Wigfall here claims.
But regardless of the facts, Wigfall's and other Fire Eaters' arguments carried the day in the Deep South and soon they abandoned all representation in Congress.
rustbucket: "I wouldn’t call it mutual consent at that point.
All thirteen did eventually join the new Union, but it was after the new government was already operating without all states being on board."
Then you would be wrong, FRiend, since it absolutely was "mutual consent" and indeed that process defines historically exactly what the term "mutual consent" means!
Here is a timeline for the Articles of Confederation last days:
So, our Founders' actions here, as in so much else, totally define what the term "mutual consent" means.
rustbucket: "The South faced a sectional president, possible serious threats... and likely increased... under Lincoln and the Republicans... Lincoln was for it. It wasn’t any secret."
And bla, bla, bla, since none of that had happened as of December 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began declaring their secessions, at pleasure.
There were no actual changes in their political "happiness", only exaggerated fears of what was "possible", or "likely" or "Lincoln for it".
Even that Morrill tariff, which you harp endlessly on, didn't pass until long after secessionists walked out of Congress.
The very term "politics as usual" means you have to show up to defend and promote your ideas.
When you do, you very often end up with at least "half a loaf".
But when you walk out, you have no room to complain when somebody else gets your half of the loaf!
rustbucket: "You don’t think some Northern states blocking the return of fugitive slaves was not a material breach of contract?
They were nullifying a section of the Constitution that had been unanimously agreed to during the compromises in the Constitution that made the Union possible."
I think the whole issue of fugitive slaves was hugely exaggerated for political purposes by the very people who were least affected by it: the Deep South.
Here's why they were least effected: of South's 4 million slaves, 60% lived in the Deep Cotton South.
To escape, those slaves had the furthest to run, many hundreds of miles and all of it through other slave-states patrolled by slave catchers and US marshals so that only the strongest, luckiest and most wily made it.
Most were quickly captured and returned.
So, what are we talking about?
This source (which I highly recommend!) reports estimates that 50,000 slaves attempted to escaped each year, which would be roughly 1% of slaves per year.
However, 98% of those were quickly recaptured by slave-catchers and other organized forces, such that only about 1,000 per year successfully and permanently escaped.
So 1,000 escapees of 4,000,000 slaves is about one in every 4,000.
So, imagine a typical large plantation with 100 slaves, then one slave per plantation, on average, attempted escape each year, but only one in every 40 such plantations proved successful.
All the rest did not get far and were soon returned.
But this is far from realistic regarding the Deep South, because the vast majority of successful escapes came from Border States like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri.
So the very region which had the most slaves (60%) had by far the fewest successful escapes, a few hundred at most, meaning one in 12,000 or one in 120 typical large plantations.
I would call that roughly one successful Deep South fugitive slave per county per year.
And this is what we're talking about when we hear the whining & complaining from pro-Confederates about how fugitive slaves created some sort of "crisis of Union".
They didn't, except for secessionists' propaganda purposes.
rustbucket: "I’ve cited what Jay, Hamilton, and Madison said concerning reassuming or resuming their own governance.
I gather from what you say that you don’t consider them to be Founders. Your version of history is certainly different from theirs and from mine as well.
I trust what Jay, Hamilton, Madison said, and Jay and Hamilton agreed that the Constitution was consistent with what they said."
Then you totally misunderstand both those three Founders and yours truly, BroJoeK.
None of them ever supported unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession, "at pleasure".
And yet that is just what Deep South Fire Eater secessionists did starting in December 1860.