Replies

If that’s true, then it’s obvious that Jefferson Davis wasn’t planning to free the slaves or replace the slave system. He might consent to emancipation as a very last resort, but it wasn’t something he wanted or was working towards.

Davis acknowledged as early as 1861 that slavery was going to end and had been urging the Confederate Congress to empower an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty which would end slavery for a while before they did so in 1864. That hardly chimes with a guy who felt slavery would be perpetual.

And who’s to say that Lincoln’s promise not to do anything about slavery didn’t work? Of course it had no effect on the seven states where secession resolutions had already been passed. The political leaders of those states had already made their decision. They weren’t coming back, anymore than American or Irish or Indian or African revolutionaries were going to give in when Britain gave them the things they were asking for earlier. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t want those things. They wanted more and wouldn’t settle for what they originally wanted. Revolution of rising expectations.

This is just an attempt to weasel. Lincoln fully endorsed slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. He even offered strengthened fugitive slave laws. The original 7 seceding states turned down his offer because slavery was simply not their primary concern. Having control of their economic destiny via freer trade and lower government expenditures which would not be spent for others’ benefit was in their interest. ie their economic interests were diametrically the opposite of those of much of the North. Had slavery not existed in those states and had they had a system of wages or sharecropping, their economic interest in freer trade and lower government expenditures and for their own rather than others’ benefit would have been no different.

But Lincoln’s pledge not to do anything about slavery where it existed did have an effect on the Border States. Most people in those states supported the Union, but Lincoln’s oft repeated promise not to do anything about slavery in those states did make secessionism less popular in those states. And Lincoln’s promise also worked in the Upper South states that rejected secession before Sumter. That may be why Davis attacked Sumter — War drove four more slave states into the Confederacy.

Sumter was fired upon because Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla to invade South Carolina’s territorial waters to maintain a fortress on their territory right in the middle of one of their principal harbors. No country would accept that. Had the British kept a fortress in the middle of New York harbor and sent a heavily armed fleet to reinforce it, Washington would have fired upon it.

But I think the Corwin Amendment’s importance has been exaggerated. Would the amendment really have been ratified? How would an “unamendable amendment” work? No, it was a last minute last chance “Hail Mary Pass” — more an repetition of what the Republicans had already promised than something that would really go through.

Rather it was more that some thoughtful Southern statesmen (and a few not so thoughtful) recognized that there was only so much that Lincoln could do in a four year term. He wasn’t likely to do much or even to be reelected. Southerners could stymie his activities if they stayed in the Union.

But the passions of the moment were too strong, and more thoughtful people didn’t prevail. It wasn’t that slaveowning secessionists didn’t care about slavery. It was that they thought slavery (and the economy, culture, and society they loved that rested on slavery) would be more secure outside the union than inside.

Of course you take that position. You have to. A simple reading of the facts completely torpedoes your position. So you have to come up with fanciful explanations and try to weasel out of what the plain facts show. Would the Corwin Amendment have passed? Almost certainly. Remember that the Congress passed it after the Southern delegation withdrew. It takes a 2/3rds supermajority in each house to do that. There was no widespread support for abolition in the Northern states. Abolitionists routinely received a tiny fraction of the vote. Lincoln got a few states to ratify it already. Had the original Southern states indicated they were willing to accept this, its a foregone conclusion that all 7 would have ratified it as would the Upper South and the border states. Plenty of Northern states would have hopped aboard too.

The irrevocability of the amendment stems from the fact that it takes 3/4s of the states to amend the constitution. There were 15 states at the time that still had slavery. Any future amendment to abolish slavery would have required the ascent of several of those states. That could only have been gained via a compensation scheme that fully compensated owners as had been done in Britain and most other countries that abolished slavery during that period of the 19th century. That was the point which everybody understood. Without the consent of the slaveholding states, they could have effectively blocked any future amendment since it would have taken 45 states to ratify any future amendment. 45+15=60 which is 10 more states than are even in the country today.

Lincolns big campaign promise and what he really wanted was Henry Clay’s “American system” on steroids. He wanted high tariffs and lots of government largesse which would inevitably be lavished on Northern business interests and Northern infrastructure as it had always been. Southerners, having experienced the extremely detrimental effects of high tariffs a generation earlier - the tariff of Abominations sparked the Nullification Crisis after all - knew all too well what the Morrill Tariff would bring them. The Morrill Tariff was certain to pass the Senate. All that would have been needed was a little logrolling to pick off one or two more senators. So throw in a protection for Hemp growing here and maybe include a tariff for Sugar there and voila! The Senate votes would materialize. This is standard fare in politics.

The prospect of a massive tariff hike and more unequal federal expenditures ad infinitum is what drove the Southern states to leave - not slavery which the Northern states were only too willing to compromise on.

Davis acknowledged as early as 1861 that slavery was going to end ...

Show where.

... and had been urging the Confederate Congress to empower an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty which would end slavery for a while before they did so in 1864.

Documentation? Citation? Reference?

[Lincoln] even offered strengthened fugitive slave laws.

Proof?

The original 7 seceding states turned down his offer because slavery was simply not their primary concern.

If you want $20 a bale for your cotton and I come up from $5 to 10$ and you still turn me down, it's not because you didn't care about the money. It's because I didn't offer enough. Or in this case, it's because the leaders in those states had already concluded that their "way of life" was safer outside the union than in, and had already decided on independence.

Had slavery not existed in those states and had they had a system of wages or sharecropping, their economic interest in freer trade and lower government expenditures and for their own rather than others’ benefit would have been no different.

Of course it would. They'd make use of the tariff to develop their own industries - as some parts of the Upper South already did, and as they would do after the war, and as Diogenes says they would if they had their independence. But they had slavery and it was profitable and they didn't want to risk the social dislocations that industrialization would bring.

Had the British kept a fortress in the middle of New York harbor and sent a heavily armed fleet to reinforce it, Washington would have fired upon it.

Not really a sensible argument. Nobody knows what George Washington would have done in such a case. We do know that the British kept forts in Michigan long after the peace treaty. They were waiting for us to compensate the dispossessed Tories, I think. In any case, nobody attacked the forts and the situation was resolved diplomatically.

Would the Corwin Amendment have passed? Almost certainly.

Only four or five states ratified. Even if all the seceding states had ratified that would still have fallen short of the approval of 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

Any future amendment to abolish slavery would have required the ascent of several of those states. That could only have been gained via a compensation scheme that fully compensated owners as had been done in Britain and most other countries that abolished slavery during that period of the 19th century. That was the point which everybody understood. Without the consent of the slaveholding states, they could have effectively blocked any future amendment since it would have taken 45 states to ratify any future amendment. 45+15=60 which is 10 more states than are even in the country today.

Well, the amendment actually and literally said it couldn't be repealed or amended -- the Constitution could not be changed to abolish or interfere with state's "domestic institutions" concerning those "bound to service or labor" -- but an unamendable amendment was constitutionally problematic and wouldn't have worked to bar future amendments.

I doubt Lincoln or the Republicans would have opposed a compensated Emancipation scheme if it would have kept the country together. If Southerners really were considering abolishing slavery as you seem to think, why would they hold out? I don't think they were contemplating emancipation, but I can't help noticing the massive contradiction in your argument.

You claim that the Confederates and arch-supporters of slavery were in favor of eventually abolishing slavery and now you say that they would never support the abolition of slavery and would have kept it permanently. Quite a contradiction.

Nonsense. The "massive tariff hike" was a result of secession and war. Tariff increases would have been more moderate had the Southern Senators remained in Washington.

I guess there's also a giant "dog that did not bark" in your argument. If it was really tariffs and expenditures the secessionists were worried about, why didn't they make that clear? Why was it Lincoln offered to compromise on slavery, rather than tariffs? Was it because he was so bound and determined for high tariffs as your cartoonish history suggests? Or was it because he accurately judged what was on the minds of Southerners? In any case, I'd have to say that the secessionist leaders didn't make sufficiently clear what you think was on their minds.

And you only come to your conclusion because you ignore the actual fighting going on over slavery in Kansas and at Harper's Ferry. You still haven't addressed that.

Read Georgia’s declaration of causes and there’s a whole list of them though there were plenty of others. What infrastructure projects? Everything from dredging for harbors to canals to railroads.

B.S. Georgia makes clear that anti-slavery agitation was their main reason for secession. Then there are a few snarky references to fishing boats and mail routes and lighthouses. They really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with those.

I don't see railroads or canals mentioned. Those were largely private or state-assisted projects, North or South.

Federal railway subsidies were sought by Northerners and Southerners, but so far as I know they only really started with the transcontinental railroad projects approved after 1860.

I've seen conflicting information on lighthouses. By one account, almost half of them were in the secessionist states by 1860.

The federal government also did a lot of dredging in Savannah and Mobile. Additionally, they did a lot to make the Ohio and Mississippi rivers more navigable, which would greatly benefit New Orleans.