Should Lincoln Have Accepted the Crittenden Compromise

[HenryBHough]

On the brighter side, had the Civil War not have happened America would have overpopulated and everybody would have died by starvation.

Ditto for World War I in particular tho WW II was a bit of a moderating factor.

Now here we are again.....................

Maybe that's why Ebola? Because some "divine" guiding hand is doing wot we won't do ourselves?

 

[Bush92]

Crittenden Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amendments to the Constitution[edit]

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

Lincoln was absolutely correct in rejecting the compromise. It would have only put off the war, not averted it. The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man. The Declaration of Independence stated "All Men".

I'm curious about the logic behind your comment regarding the three-fifths compromise, since it was the north that wanted slaves to not count as people whereas the south wanted them to be counted as a full person. Can you explain?

The North did not want slaves counted one for one and give the South a numerical edge in House. Northern delegates to the convention who were abolitionist already had agreed to a 16 year moratorium on discussion of the slave issue. No one could bring up slavery in Congress until 1808 and slaves could be imported until 1808. The original 7 Articles of Constitution made slavery legal. Anti slavery delegates did not want South to have a super majority in House because they foresaw ending slavery through legislation in 1808.

 

[JakeStarkey]

90% of capital investment directly and indirectly in the South supported slavery. England had not yet accessed Egyptian or Indian cotton for its factories, which the CW drove it to do.

Lincoln was very clear: keep slavery out of the Territories, respect federal properties, and accept constitutional and electoral process.

He believed correctly that if he could delay long enough he could split the northern Democracy from the southern crazies if the latter attacked Old Glory, which they did at Ft Sumter.

 

[Bush92]

90% of capital investment directly and indirectly in the South supported slavery. England had not yet accessed Egyptian or Indian cotton for its factories, which the CW drove it to do.

Lincoln was very clear: keep slavery out of the Territories, respect federal properties, and accept constitutional and electoral process.

He believed correctly that if he could delay long enough he could split the northern Democracy from the southern crazies if the latter attacked Old Glory, which they did at Ft Sumter.

So Lincoln wanted war?

 

[whitehall]

Hod did history consider it to be a "compromise"? It gave the slave states everything they wanted and more.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Crittenden Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amendments to the Constitution[edit]

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

Lincoln was absolutely correct in rejecting the compromise. It would have only put off the war, not averted it. The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man. The Declaration of Independence stated "All Men".

I'm curious about the logic behind your comment regarding the three-fifths compromise, since it was the north that wanted slaves to not count as people whereas the south wanted them to be counted as a full person. Can you explain?

Perhaps I misapprehend this post, the NORTH wanted slavery and the SOUTH was against owning human beings as property? Are you kidding? Besides contradicting history, it violates logic. I am not a lawyer and I will not play games and split hairs or words. The south wanted to maintain slavery and the north strove to end slavery, bluntly and as elementary as that.

No, the north did not want southern slaves counted as people at all, whereas the south wanted them counted as full people. The reason for this was because if slaves were counted as people then the south would be given far more representation in Congress based on their population. This is not to say that the south was against owning human beings as property, merely that they wanted their slaves to count as people so that they could have more power in the Congress. Though I will say that your comment, "the north strove to end slavery," is quite ludicrous. The idea that the north was interested in ending slavery is a myth. Genuine abolitionists were few and far between even in the north.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Crittenden Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amendments to the Constitution[edit]

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

Lincoln was absolutely correct in rejecting the compromise. It would have only put off the war, not averted it. The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man. The Declaration of Independence stated "All Men".

I'm curious about the logic behind your comment regarding the three-fifths compromise, since it was the north that wanted slaves to not count as people whereas the south wanted them to be counted as a full person. Can you explain?

The North did not want slaves counted one for one and give the South a numerical edge in House. Northern delegates to the convention who were abolitionist already had agreed to a 16 year moratorium on discussion of the slave issue. No one could bring up slavery in Congress until 1808 and slaves could be imported until 1808. The original 7 Articles of Constitution made slavery legal. Anti slavery delegates did not want South to have a super majority in House because they foresaw ending slavery through legislation in 1808.

Which doesn't explain his comment at all. "The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

90% of capital investment directly and indirectly in the South supported slavery. England had not yet accessed Egyptian or Indian cotton for its factories, which the CW drove it to do.

Lincoln was very clear: keep slavery out of the Territories, respect federal properties, and accept constitutional and electoral process.

He believed correctly that if he could delay long enough he could split the northern Democracy from the southern crazies if the latter attacked Old Glory, which they did at Ft Sumter.

So Lincoln wanted war?

Lincoln wanted the south to continue paying taxes and tariffs to the federal government, and was willing to fight a war to make that happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So Lincoln wanted war?

Not if as I pointed out, "Lincoln was very clear: keep slavery out of the Territories, respect federal properties, and accept constitutional and electoral process."

If war were to come, the South would have to fire on Old Glory, which it did, and which separated the northern Democracy from southern Democrats. The northern Dems wanted compromise until the rebs fired on Ft Sumter and the flag. Then they wanted southern blood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tariffs and taxes had nothing to do with the cause of the war at all. That is Beard revisionism. The fight over the Tariff of Abominations did reveal by 1833 that the two great nations of North and South had separate visions.

Read Vice-President Stephens 'cornerstone speech" as to the immediate cause of the war, particularly paragraph nine.

8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs and taxes had nothing to do with the cause of the war at all. That is Beard revisionism. The fight over the Tariff of Abominations did reveal by 1833 that the two great nations of North and South had separate visions.

Read Vice-President Stephens 'cornerstone speech" as to the immediate cause of the war, particularly paragraph nine.

8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Except that Lincoln said the exact same thing in his first Inaugural Address.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

In other words, there will be an invasion and the use of force to collect the duties and imposts he believed the south owed to the federal government.

 

[Bush92]

Crittenden Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amendments to the Constitution[edit]

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

Lincoln was absolutely correct in rejecting the compromise. It would have only put off the war, not averted it. The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man. The Declaration of Independence stated "All Men".

I'm curious about the logic behind your comment regarding the three-fifths compromise, since it was the north that wanted slaves to not count as people whereas the south wanted them to be counted as a full person. Can you explain?

The North did not want slaves counted one for one and give the South a numerical edge in House. Northern delegates to the convention who were abolitionist already had agreed to a 16 year moratorium on discussion of the slave issue. No one could bring up slavery in Congress until 1808 and slaves could be imported until 1808. The original 7 Articles of Constitution made slavery legal. Anti slavery delegates did not want South to have a super majority in House because they foresaw ending slavery through legislation in 1808.

Which doesn't explain his comment at all. "The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man."

I was not responding to him, but Mary L.

 

[Bush92]

Crittenden Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amendments to the Constitution[edit]

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

Lincoln was absolutely correct in rejecting the compromise. It would have only put off the war, not averted it. The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man. The Declaration of Independence stated "All Men".

I'm curious about the logic behind your comment regarding the three-fifths compromise, since it was the north that wanted slaves to not count as people whereas the south wanted them to be counted as a full person. Can you explain?

Perhaps I misapprehend this post, the NORTH wanted slavery and the SOUTH was against owning human beings as property? Are you kidding? Besides contradicting history, it violates logic. I am not a lawyer and I will not play games and split hairs or words. The south wanted to maintain slavery and the north strove to end slavery, bluntly and as elementary as that.

No, the north did not want southern slaves counted as people at all, whereas the south wanted them counted as full people. The reason for this was because if slaves were counted as people then the south would be given far more representation in Congress based on their population. This is not to say that the south was against owning human beings as property, merely that they wanted their slaves to count as people so that they could have more power in the Congress. Though I will say that your comment, "the north strove to end slavery," is quite ludicrous. The idea that the north was interested in ending slavery is a myth. Genuine abolitionists were few and far between even in the north.

I agree. That was the point behind the southern strategy. The problem arises however, if slaves are chattel property in the eyes of the law, then how could they be counted as a whole, 1/2, 3/5, or any other fraction for purposes of representation in the House.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes he should have.

No he shouldn't have.

Isn't he dead and this simply moot?

 

[paperview]

Tariffs and taxes had nothing to do with the cause of the war at all. That is Beard revisionism. The fight over the Tariff of Abominations did reveal by 1833 that the two great nations of North and South had separate visions.

Read Vice-President Stephens 'cornerstone speech" as to the immediate cause of the war, particularly paragraph nine.

8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Except that Lincoln said the exact same thing in his first Inaugural Address.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

In other words, there will be an invasion and the use of force to collect the duties and imposts he believed the south owed to the federal government.

Hostilities had already begun at that point, on the part of the South.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To collect duties and taxes as the primary reason for the war when placed next to Stephen's cornerstone speech reveals the paucity of the "tariffs" excuse. Please try again.

 

[Picaro]

Lincoln was a regional candidate who won a three way electoral race, with less than half the national vote. The Republican Party was seen, rightfully, as a regional Party. The majority of 'abolitionists' were themselves were, like Lincoln, opposed to blacks being in the U.S. at all, slave or free, and most of the support for 'anti-slavery' platforms was not for freeing southern slaves but keeping the new territories white and free of any blacks at all, since most whites and immigrants feared competing with cheap slave labor. Many northern states had Black Codes that effectively prevented blacks from being able to even make a living legally, including Lincoln's own state of Illinois. We also know that few blacks fled the South after the Civil War, and for good reason: They weren't welcome and had few options to do so.

Even though the plantation system wasn't feasible outside the Cotton South, most northerners were geographically ignorant and didn't know that slavery had already reached its natural boundaries by the 1840's, a fact which many of the elites already knew, hence Webster's assertion that opposition to the Wilmot Proviso in 1850 was unnecessarily antagonistic and irrelevant, for instance. Jefferson Davis also knew slavery wasn't going to expand geographically; both sides just used the slavery issue as political hubris for propaganda purposes.

The reason Lincoln and his business backers the railroads, bankers, and manufacturers supported going to war over secession was they needed the tariffs they were going to impose on southern to finance their own massive welfare programs and subsidies corporate interests, not because they had any moral objections to slavery. The South seceded over the tariffs and land bills, which would have had them paying for massive Federal welfare programs for northern business interests.

In fact, New York City and some other northern areas were also considering secession as well, with NYC's political leadership suddenly changing its mind when word came from London that southern delegates were in London negotiating direct shipping of cotton from southern ports, bypassing a Federal monopoly on coastal shipping NYC and other northern ports had, along with financial arrangements long monopolized by northern bankers and cotton traders. The railroads wanted massive amounts of free land, having seen the money the Illinois Central was making off of Federal land grants in that state and other places, hence the 'Homestead Act' and other bills like the Morill Tariff Acts were among the first bills passed after the elections, and why the southern states began seceding. It's also noteworthy to find the timeline for southern states' seceding; many held off, only to finally realize the northern interests were going to royally screw them and they had little reason not to secede by April.

Southern pols had long opposed these, and for good reasons, really; for all the noise over slavery, it had little to do with the war over secession; newspapers were partisan and heavily bribed in those days, and most pols weren't exactly going to run around pronouncing people should support them because massive Federal welfare giveaways and high protective tariffs were going to make a lot of rich people a whole lot richer at the public's expense, after all. Slavery was a red herring, and the propaganda over it in the North was aimed at ignorant immigrants and getting their votes. The 'antislavery' rhetoric was more of a modern white nationalist's wet dream than any moral objections to blacks being slaves.

Lincoln didn't compromise because he and his financial buddies couldn't afford their 'American System' welfare programs without the South paying for it all. Claiming it was about some moral angst over 'slavery' is ridiculous on its face, and just some after-the-fact PR northerners now use to pat themselves on the back over, painting it as some sort of moral crusade of Good Against Evil, when it was all about money and corporate welfare for railroads and northern financiers. Lincoln didn't compromise because he and his backers didn't want to, and he had already made plans to use military force before he was even inaugurated.

One of the more hilarious excuses made by Lincoln apologists is that the reason Lincoln and the northerners didn't immediately free all the slaves after his inauguration was that 'they were too busy fighting to preserve the Union n stuff', yet the record of bills passed first makes it blatantly obvious what their priorities were, and they had all kinds of time to pass such legislation if they so desired, but of course they didn't.

 

[Picaro]

Hostilities had already begun at that point, on the part of the South.

Wrong. Troops were first sent into states that hadn't seceded nor were in the process of doing so. Several slave states remained in the Union; no slaves were freed there. The Sumter meme is bogus; Lincoln deliberately provoked that incident, for propaganda purposes.

 

[Picaro]

So Lincoln wanted war?

Yes. Wartime powers would give him means to quash opposition within his own Party and military and police powers to crush opposition in northern states as well. He was a dictator after absolute power.

 

[paperview]

Hostilities had already begun at that point, on the part of the South.

Wrong. Troops were first sent into states that hadn't seceded nor were in the process of doing so. Several slave states remained in the Union; no slaves were freed there. The Sumter meme is bogus; Lincoln deliberately provoked that incident, for propaganda purposes.

Hostiles had begun in January. Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

Longtime readers of my posts are familiar with this rundown, so sorry to have to keep repeating it, but it seems to be necessary to remind the newby's:

A little Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.