Documentation? Citation? Reference?
I already provided this. We’re not going to play this little game of you demanding sources 10 times and me spending vast amounts of time trying to satisfy your endless demands.....which you will claim are not satisfied no matter how ironclad the sources I provide actually are. You want citations, references and sources? Go back and read.
[Lincoln] even offered strengthened fugitive slave laws.
Proof?
“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I WILL GIVE THEM ANY LEGISLATION FOR RECLAIMING THEIR FUGITIVE SLAVES.” Abraham Lincoln
https://books.google.com/books?id=simEInO2dqEC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=%E2%80%9CWhen+Southern+people+tell+us+that+they+are+no+more+responsible+for+the+origin+of+slavery+than+we+are,+I+acknowledge+the+fact.+When+it+is+said+the+institution+exists,+and+it+is+very+difficult+to+get+rid+of+in+any+satisfactory+way,+I+can+understand+and+appreciate+the+saying.+I+surely+will+not+blame+them+for+not+doing+what+I+should+not+know+what+to+do+as+to+the+existing+institution.+My+first+impulse+would+possibly+be+to+free+all+slaves+and+send+them+to+Liberia+to+their+own+native+land.+But+a+moment%27s+reflection+would+convince+me+that+this+would+not+be+best+for+them.+If+they+were+all+landed+there+in+a+day+they+would+all+perish+in+the+next+ten+days,+and+there+is+not+surplus+money+enough+to+carry+them+there+in+many+times+ten+days.+What+then?+Free+them+all+and+keep+them+among+us+as+underlings.+Is+it+quite+certain+that+this+would+alter+their+conditions?+Free+them+and+make+them+politically+and+socially+our+equals?+My+own+feelings+will+not+admit+of+this,+and+if+mine+would,+we+well+know+that+those+of+the+great+mass+of+whites+will+not.+We+cannot+make+them+our+equals.+A+system+of+gradual+emancipation+might+well+be+adopted,+and+I+will+not+undertake+to+judge+our+Southern+friends+for+tardiness+in+this+matter.++I+acknowledge+the+constitutional+rights+of+the+States+%E2%80%94+not+grudgingly,+but+fairly+and+fully,+and+I+will+give+them+any+legislation+for+reclaiming+their+fugitive+slaves.%E2%80%9D++Abraham+Lincoln&source=bl&ots=RetdZPiYkF&sig=B4W77YtQx64khLih3NS4YWbA1Hc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiatpqcivzbAhXMslkKHRqKBBsQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CWhen%20Southern%20people%20tell%20us%20that%20they%20are%20no%20more%20responsible%20for%20the%20origin%20of%20slavery%20than%20we%20are%2C%20I%20acknowledge%20the%20fact.%20When%20it%20is%20said%20the%20institution%20exists%2C%20and%20it%20is%20very%20difficult%20to%20get%20rid%20of%20in%20any%20satisfactory%20way%2C%20I%20can%20understand%20and%20appreciate%20the%20saying.%20I%20surely%20will%20not%20blame%20them%20for%20not%20doing%20what%20I%20should%20not%20know%20what%20to%20do%20as%20to%20the%20existing%20institution.%20My%20first%20impulse%20would%20possibly%20be%20to%20free%20all%20slaves%20and%20send%20them%20to%20Liberia%20to%20their%20own%20native%20land.%20But%20a%20moment’s%20reflection%20would%20convince%20me%20that%20this%20would%20not%20be%20best%20for%20them.%20If%20they%20were%20all%20landed%20there%20in%20a%20day%20they%20would%20all%20perish%20in%20the%20next%20ten%20days%2C%20and%20there%20is%20not%20surplus%20money%20enough%20to%20carry%20them%20there%20in%20many%20times%20ten%20days.%20What%20then%3F%20Free%20them%20all%20and%20keep%20them%20among%20us%20as%20underlings.%20Is%20it%20quite%20certain%20that%20this%20would%20alter%20their%20conditions%3F%20Free%20them%20and%20make%20them%20politically%20and%20socially%20our%20equals%3F%20My%20own%20feelings%20will%20not%20admit%20of%20this%2C%20and%20if%20mine%20would%2C%20we%20well%20know%20that%20those%20of%20the%20great%20mass%20of%20whites%20will%20not.%20We%20cannot%20make%20them%20our%20equals.%20A%20system%20of%20gradual%20emancipation%20might%20well%20be%20adopted%2C%20and%20I%20will%20not%20undertake%20to%20judge%20our%20Southern%20friends%20for%20tardiness%20in%20this%20matter.%20%20I%20acknowledge%20the%20constitutional%20rights%20of%20the%20States%20%E2%80%94%20not%20grudgingly%2C%20but%20fairly%20and%20fully%2C%20and%20I%20will%20give%20them%20any%20legislation%20for%20reclaiming%20their%20fugitive%20slaves.%E2%80%9D%20%20Abraham%20Lincoln&f=false
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.
Weak argument and not what Lincoln himself said....slavery was much safer IN the Union than outside of it.
“But secession, Lincoln argued, would actually make it harder for the South to preserve slavery. If the Southern states tried to leave the Union, they would lose all their constitutional guarantees, and northerners would no longer be obliged to return fugitive slaves to disloyal owners. In other words, the South was safer inside the Union than without, and to prove his point Lincoln confirmed his willingness to support a recently proposed thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which would specifically prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery in states where it already existed.” (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 32-33)
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.
No their interests would not have been different. Their economy was geared toward producing cash crops for export in exchange for manufactured goods. Low tariffs suited them. They also did not want the central government doling out taxpayer money for special interests. That is why numerous clauses of the Confederate constitution tightly restricted what qualified as being in the “general welfare” and required a balanced budget and no riders for bills and a line item veto for the president - all designed to control spending.
Had their labor been paid wages or had they been sharecroppers, they still would have had an economy geared toward producing cash crops for export.
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.
Of course its a sensible argument. No country is going to tolerate another country holding a fortress in the middle of one of its principle harbors. The Brits holding a few forts in the far off west at the time of Michigan is not remotely analogous to having a fortress in say NY or Boston harbor.
Oh, FYI, the Brits did not evacuate those forts until after the war of 1812. That was part of the peace treaty so no, it was not resolved peacefully. It took another war before it was resolved.
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.
Only a few ratified because....get this.....the Southern states TURNED IT DOWN. It was a moot point after that. There’s no doubt it would have passed had the Southern states agreed to it.
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.
Any amendment could be changed by a future amendment. There’s no such thing as an unamendable amendment. It takes 2/3rds of each house of Congress and 3/4s of the states to pass an amendment. The latter is the stumbling block. Without the consent of the slaveholding states, there simply would not have been enough states to equal a 3/4s majority of all states. The amendment would be 10 states short of that to this day. The then slaveholding states would have had to agree to any future amendment or at least a significant number of them would have. It obviously would have taken some considerable compensation to get them to do that.
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.
We know they did not oppose compensated emancipation of sorts since the discussed it as late as 1864 at the hampton roads conference. Southerners were considering abolishing slavery in exchange for foreign recognition and entry into the war on their side. Independence was the goal - not money. There is no contradiction in my argument. My argument is historical fact.
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.
I say that most people at the time understood that slavery was going to die out eventually just as it had in the Northern states and just as it had in other parts of the Western world throughout the 19th century. I never said they would have kept slavery permanently. You have obviously misread me.
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.
Nonsense. The massive tariff hike was coming and everybody knew it. All that was needed was a couple Senators to flip. Yes the rates doubled and then TRIPLED during the war but the war can hardly be used as an excuse when those tariff hikes were the key plank of the Republican party in 1860 and those tariffs were kept in place until well into the 20th century over 50 years after the war ended.
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.
They DID make it clear. They made it clear numerous times. I’ve cited several statements, newspaper columns etc etc. Why did Lincoln offer to compromise over slavery and not tariffs? Because slavery was not the key issue to either side. Tariffs and economic policy were. It is your “history” that is cartoonish. If Lincoln had accurately judged what was on the minds of Southerners, they would have accepted the Corwin Amendment. They did not. OOPS!
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.
Harper’s Ferry was a band of lunatics backed by a few financiers in the Northeast. There was fighting in Kansas obviously. Of course you haven’t addressed the arguments over the nullification crisis and the tariff of abominations a generation earlier.
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.
No, not BS. Its very clear that Georgia had major complaints about the tariff and about grossly unequal federal government expenditures. They didn’t have to scrape the bottom of the barrel as you “cartoonishly” claim. Those were just some examples of the grossly unequal expenditures.
Here’s Georgia’s senior Senator at the time:
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the “infamous Morrill bill.” The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which “the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists.” Toombs described this coalition as “the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South.”
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.
here are but a few sources showing the grossly unequal taxes paid and expenditures given by the federal government. There are many more:
“What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860? . . . Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich . . . the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North.” - Charles Adams, “For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization,” 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327
As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. When in the Course of Human Events: Charles Adams
South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. When in the Course of Human Events: Charles Adams
From the days of the illustrious Henry onwards, the South had generally stood in the way of the Northern goal to make such an unjust system of taxation permanent. According to John Taylor of Virginia, a high protective tariff system, like that which existed in Great Britain, was “undoubtedly the best which has ever appeared for extracting money from the people; and commercial restrictions, both upon foreign and domestick commerce, are its most effectual means for accomplishing this object. No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of people, has ever been discovered.” Nevertheless, the North clung tenaciously to its protectionist policy and managed to push through the tariff legislation of 1828 which provoked South Carolina to resistance to the general Government and nearly to secession from the Union during the Administration of Andrew Jackson. It should be noted that, by 1828, the public debt was near to extinction and, at the current rate of taxation on imported goods, a twelve to thirteen million dollar annual surplus would have been created in the Treasury. Thus, the excuse for a high tariff system as a source of Government revenue was a flimsy one at best; the so-called “Tariff of Abomination” really served no other purpose than to “rob and plunder nearly one half of the Union, for the benefit of the residue.” James Spence of London explained the effects of such a high tariff on the Southern economy:
This system of protecting Northern manufactures, has an injurious influence, beyond the effect immediately apparent. It is doubly injurious to the Southern States, in raising what they have to buy, and lowering what they have to sell. They are the exporters of the Union, and require that other countries shall take their productions. But other countries will have difficulty in taking them, unless permitted to pay for them in the commodities which are their only means of payment. They are willing to receive cotton, and to pay for it in iron, earthenware, woollens. But if by extravagant duties, these be prohibited from entering the Union, or greatly restricted, the effect must needs be, to restrict the power to buy the products of the South. Our imports of Southern productions, have nearly reached thirty millions sterling a year. Suppose the North to succeed in the object of its desire, and to exclude our manufactures altogether, with what are we to pay? It is plainly impossible for any country to export largely, unless it be willing also, to import largely. Should the Union be restored, and its commerce be conducted under the present tariff, the balance of trade against us must become so great, as either to derange our monetary system, or compel us to restrict our purchases from those, who practically exclude other payment than gold. With the rate of exchange constantly depressed, the South would receive an actual money payment, much below the current value of its products. We should be driven to other markets for our supplies, and thus the exclusion of our manufactures by the North, would result in a compulsory exclusion, on our part, of the products of the South.
This is a consideration of no importance to the Northern manufacturer, whose only thought is the immediate profit he may obtain, by shutting out competition. It may be, however, of very extreme importance to others — to those who have products they are anxious to sell to us, who are desirous to receive in payment, the very goods we wish to dispose of, and yet are debarred from this. Is there not something of the nature of commercial slavery, in the fetters of a system that prevents it? If we consider the terms of the compact, and the gigantic magnitude of Southern trade, it becomes amazing, that even the attempt should be made, to deal with it in such a manner as this.
George McDuffie of South Carolina stated in the House of Representatives, “If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberties subverted, historians who record these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government, nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation.” While the Northern manufacturer enjoyed free trade with the South, the Southern planter was not allowed to enjoy free trade with those countries to which he could market his goods at the most benefit to himself. Furthermore, while the six cotton States — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas — had less than one-eighth of the representation in Congress, they furnished two-thirds of the exports of the country, much of which was exchanged for imported necessities. Thus, McDuffie noted that because the import tariff effectively hindered Southern commerce, the relation which the Cotton States bore to the protected manufacturing States of the North was now the same as that which the colonies had once borne to Great Britain; under the current system, they had merely changed masters.
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: “The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives.” Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, “I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself.” James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, “I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy.”
John H. Reagan of Texas, who would later become Postmaster-General of the Confederate Government, expressed similar sentiments when addressing the Republican members of the House of Representatives on 15 January 1861:
You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions....
We do not intend that you shall reduce us to such a condition. But I can tell you what your folly and injustice will compel us to do. It will compel us to be free from your domination, and more self-reliant than we have been. It will compel us to assert and maintain our separate independence. It will compel us to manufacture for ourselves, to build up our own commerce, our own great cities, our own railroads and canals; and to use the tribute money we now pay you for these things for the support of a government which will be friendly to all our interests, hostile to none of them.
I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I WILL GIVE THEM ANY LEGISLATION FOR RECLAIMING THEIR FUGITIVE SLAVES.” Abraham Lincoln
That is the Peoria Speech of 1854. It was only what your side says the Constitution requires. You made it sound like it was something Lincoln was offering in 1860-1 to keep the slave states in the Union. Deceptive.
Weak argument and not what Lincoln himself said....slavery was much safer IN the Union than outside of it.
Some in the South thought that way as well. But the rabid secessionists thought and said otherwise. They saw a direct threat from Northern abolitionists and believed that slavery would only be secure if they had their own country.
No their interests would not have been different. Their economy was geared toward producing cash crops for export in exchange for manufactured goods. Low tariffs suited them.
That was because slaveowning and cotton growing were regarded as the way to wealth in the Deep South. Without slavery, ambitious Southerners would have sought other ways to wealth. That is sort of what Diogenes Lamp is always saying, though he thinks it would have happened even with slavery. Manufacturers in Virginia and Tennessee sought to industrialize and welcomed tariffs. Without slavery, many further South would have done the same.
No country is going to tolerate another country holding a fortress in the middle of one of its principle harbors.
Enclaves and exclaves are an established part of international law - Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Macao, Goa, West Berlin. How countries deal with them will vary depending on how much they care about peace. A new nation would do well to proceed cautiously.
Oh, FYI, the Brits did not evacuate those forts until after the war of 1812. That was part of the peace treaty so no, it was not resolved peacefully. It took another war before it was resolved.
Oh, FYI, Jay's Treaty. Look it up.
Only a few ratified because....get this.....the Southern states TURNED IT DOWN. It was a moot point after that. There’s no doubt it would have passed had the Southern states agreed to it.
Maybe, maybe not. The Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort to rally unionists in the South to turn back secession. Whether it would really have gone through is hard to say. I can't see the Northern tier of states ratifying. The ratification process could well have torn the country and the Republican party apart.
Any amendment could be changed by a future amendment. There’s no such thing as an unamendable amendment.
That is what I meant by saying that it was problematic.
I say that most people at the time understood that slavery was going to die out eventually just as it had in the Northern states and just as it had in other parts of the Western world throughout the 19th century.
Wishful thinking. If there was widespread acceptance that slavery was dying out there would have been no secession and no war. Some slaveowners may have had a feeling that in God's Own good time, slavery would do its work and be replaced with something else, but there was little serious contemplation of what would come next.
South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000.
More B.S.
Look at our favorite graph:
The North had a larger population and could import more. Therefore the taxes were collected in New York and other Northern ports. Some of that reflects goods eventually destined to Southern buyers, but most of it doesn't.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, “I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself.”
Good example of what I was saying above. Keitt refers to the "abolitionist flood" at the beginning of the quote. He believed that his state and the basis of its economy and society - slavery - would be safer outside the Union than inside. That he was wrong, doesn't mean that he didn't think that way.
