Should Lincoln Have Accepted the Crittenden Compromise

[Picaro]

Crittenden Compromise
When President-elect Lincoln got word of this proposal when he was in Philidelphia, he sent a telegram back informing Republicans to reject this proposal. Should Lincoln have accepted the deal and averted civil war?

He was opposed to it from the start, and his man Seward voted against it. I don't see how it would have changed much if he had accepted it, since it didn't address anything to do with the tariffs. The South was already payuing over half of the Federal revenues, and were looking at paying some 100%-300% more into the Treasury while receiving almost none of the benefits.

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".

The South had already won most of the Court cases on slavery and the 3/5's compromise; it was no cause for war and wouldn't make one 'inevitable'.

The Crittendon Compromise didn't really offer much; the 36-30 line was irrelevant, as the Cotton South had already reached both its western limits and northern geographical limits as well, and the rest was pretty minor stuff. Slavery wasn't economically viable for the Midwest and plains, nor was it viable for manufacturers in the North, since they didn't care if their employees starved or not, or died in droves from epidemics weakened fro malnutrition. There where always shiploads more in Europe they could send for, and they had agents overseas who did exactly that.

It also needs to be remembered Lincoln was opposed to it, so it was never going to fly anyway. He was President Elect, head of the Party, and had lots of patronage jobs and appointments to use as leverage, sown in or not, so it's false to pretend he couldn't influence anything because he wasn't sworn in yet. He also had sympathizers within the Buchanan administration, Stanton, for one, who kept Seward informed on Buchanan's political maneuvering; Stanton wanted military action.

Also it needs to be remembered only one state had seceded when the Committee of Thirteen vote was held on the Crittendon Compromise, on Dec. 28. The attempt to reinforce Sumter by Buchanan prompted five more to secede; there was no 'Confederate States of America' at that time. That came in February, and four didn't secede until Lincoln deliberately provoked the war by staging the unnecessary supply of Sumter again.

 

[Picaro]

Lincoln was a regional candidate who won a three way electoral race, with less than half the national vote. ....

That whole shpeele is the biggest pile of rubbish I have read in a long time.

Geezez.

That bit about "Jeff Davis also knew slavery wasn't going to expand geographically" is uproarious. Keeee-rist. What the hell was Bloody Kansas about and all that shit to try to expand it? And the insistence to enforce Dred Scott which would in essence make Free States have to follow Slave State rules - NO STATES RIGHTS! The irony! Yes, in their secession documents they were pissed to hell the Free states would want to have States Rights!

The whole damn thing was they wanted to seceed so they *could* expand geographically, to include Confederate colonies south of the border and Latin America. The Confederate constitution included the right to expand. That . was. the. plan. Dammit.

And the first stupid line there about Lincoln winning with "less than half the national vote."

Der. Most of the damn southern states didn't even put him on the ballot!

lol another idiotic ignorant troll post, typical of the types who just can't admit historical facts get in the way of the ' it was a war against slavery' BS.

The Peanut Gallery can easily unbiased sources that clearly point out that the limits of slavery had indeed reached their natural boundaries, not least by finding maps that show this without a doubt, all the way up to 1895 where cotton land makes a very small jump a few miles west, and that only with irrigation. Daniel Webster himself pointed this limit out in 1850, in the battle over the Wilmot Proviso. Walter Prescott Webb's book on the Great Plains is a great source of info on the nature of farming in the U.S. and the roles played by geography in determining limits on certain crops and reaping methods. Cotton agriculture never expanded much beyond the areas it had already reached by 1848, north and west. Or you can just mindlessly believe morons who don't know what they're talking about and are just blathering PC memes and juvenile insults.

 

[Picaro]

It merely depends on who you see as having wanted the war.

Maybe, but nowhere in the Constitution was the President ever given the unilateral right to determine what was constitutional or not, then suspending habeas corpus and tossing politicians and newspaper editors into jail over disagreeing with his claims, and launching armies at the secessionist states.

The case of North Carolina should have gone to the Supreme Court first. Madison and others, though not all who representative of the 'Founders' as a whole, but still influential, said otherwise, that the Federal government had no right to force states to remain in the Union, for instance. Even the majority of northern opinion was opposed to using force against secession, until after Lincoln's provocation at Sumter, along with the editorials in most papers pointing out how the Confederacy's low tariffs would cost them a lot of revenue and drive up competition, via both the Atlantic ports in the South and up the Mississippi from New Orleans to Pittsburgh and beyond in the western states.

 

[Picaro]

I have some interesting points made by a legal scholar on the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution around here in my library that would be of interest to some people. I'll dig it up here in a few minutes; it's relevant to what the 'Founders' might or might not have intended re leaving the Union.

Ah, here it is:

Ah, here it is ...

James Ostrowski, in an article on whether Lincoln's acts were themselves constitutional, points out that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention would have had to agree on the following clauses:

1. No state may ever secede from the Union for any reason.

2.If any state secedes from the Union, the federal government shall invade such a state with sufficient military force to suppress the secession.

3. The federal government may require all states to raise militias to be used to supress the seceding state (or states).

4. After suppressing the secession, the federal government may rule by martial law until such time ass the state accepts permanent federal supremacy (as occurred during "Reconstruction").

5. The President may, on his own authority,and without consulting any other branch of government, suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus (as Lincoln did in the first months of his presidency).

James Ostrowski, " Was Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?" in {b]Secession, State, and Liberty[/b],ed. David Gordon (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1998) p. 179.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It merely depends on who you see as having wanted the war.

Maybe, but nowhere in the Constitution was the President ever given the unilateral right to determine what was constitutional or not, then suspending habeas corpus and tossing politicians and newspaper editors into jail over disagreeing with his claims, and launching armies at the secessionist states.

The case of North Carolina should have gone to the Supreme Court first. Madison and others, though not all who representative of the 'Founders' as a whole, but still influential, said otherwise, that the Federal government had no right to force states to remain in the Union, for instance. Even the majority of northern opinion was opposed to using force against secession, until after Lincoln's provocation at Sumter, along with the editorials in most papers pointing out how the Confederacy's low tariffs would cost them a lot of revenue and drive up competition, via both the Atlantic ports in the South and up the Mississippi from New Orleans to Pittsburgh and beyond in the western states.

Well, yes. My point was that if you see the south as having wanted the war, despite the fact that they were hardly the favorites to win any war against the north and must have known that, then you would point to slavery as being the cause because slavery was a huge factor in their choosing to secede in the first place. You might also point to the Cornerstone speech as evidence, despite the fact that the Vice President of the Confederacy had little real power, and that Jefferson Davis publicly stated his opposition to war.

If, however, you see Lincoln as being the aggressor, as I do, then you would point out his threats to invade in his first Inaugural Address, as I did.

 

[Picaro]

It merely depends on who you see as having wanted the war.

Maybe, but nowhere in the Constitution was the President ever given the unilateral right to determine what was constitutional or not, then suspending habeas corpus and tossing politicians and newspaper editors into jail over disagreeing with his claims, and launching armies at the secessionist states.

The case of North Carolina should have gone to the Supreme Court first. Madison and others, though not all who representative of the 'Founders' as a whole, but still influential, said otherwise, that the Federal government had no right to force states to remain in the Union, for instance. Even the majority of northern opinion was opposed to using force against secession, until after Lincoln's provocation at Sumter, along with the editorials in most papers pointing out how the Confederacy's low tariffs would cost them a lot of revenue and drive up competition, via both the Atlantic ports in the South and up the Mississippi from New Orleans to Pittsburgh and beyond in the western states.

Well, yes. My point was that if you see the south as having wanted the war, despite the fact that they were hardly the favorites to win any war against the north and must have known that, then you would point to slavery as being the cause because slavery was a huge factor in their choosing to secede in the first place. You might also point to the Cornerstone speech as evidence, despite the fact that the Vice President of the Confederacy had little real power, and that Jefferson Davis publicly stated his opposition to war.

Since speeches given by politicians are generally meaningless for determining real motives, what is said for public consumption propaganda purposes doesn't impress me; as I pointed out in another post, hacks aren't going to run around using their real motives as 'talking points' for whipping up support and votes. It doesn't mean 'slavery' was the main issue, since hardly anybody was opposed to that 'principle', either in the North or the South.

If, however, you see Lincoln as being the aggressor, as I do, then you would point out his threats to invade in his first Inaugural Address, as I did.

Well, it's obvious that Lincoln was the aggressor, so it's a moot point whether or not one 'sees' one side or the other. It's a cut and dried fact he was, as we have his actions and the actions of the radical wing of his Party for evidence, and don't need self-serving speeches as proof.

 

[Picaro]

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

It didn't do a thing about the tariffs, so no, it didn't give the southern states everything they wanted; it gave them very little of anything practical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

lol another idiotic ignorant troll post, typical of the types who just can't admit historical facts get in the way of the ' it was a war against slavery' BS.

The Peanut Gallery can easily unbiased sources that clearly point out that the limits of slavery had indeed reached their natural boundaries, not least by finding maps that show this without a doubt, all the way up to 1895 where cotton land makes a very small jump a few miles west, and that only with irrigation. Daniel Webster himself pointed this limit out in 1850, in the battle over the Wilmot Proviso. Walter Prescott Webb's book on the Great Plains is a great source of info on the nature of farming in the U.S. and the roles played by geography in determining limits on certain crops and reaping methods. Cotton agriculture never expanded much beyond the areas it had already reached by 1848, north and west. Or you can just mindlessly believe morons who don't know what they're talking about and are just blathering PC memes and juvenile insults.

paperview, on this Board, has no competitors in knowledge, understanding, and mastery of the documents. That is what she does for a living. 90% of capital invested in the South supported slavery directly and indirectly; the slave owners had no intention of giving up slavery. The "no cotton extension" thesis was exploded years ago. Really, calling paperview a troll shows just how ignorant you are on this subject.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It merely depends on who you see as having wanted the war.

Maybe, but nowhere in the Constitution was the President ever given the unilateral right to determine what was constitutional or not, then suspending habeas corpus and tossing politicians and newspaper editors into jail over disagreeing with his claims, and launching armies at the secessionist states.

The case of North Carolina should have gone to the Supreme Court first. Madison and others, though not all who representative of the 'Founders' as a whole, but still influential, said otherwise, that the Federal government had no right to force states to remain in the Union, for instance. Even the majority of northern opinion was opposed to using force against secession, until after Lincoln's provocation at Sumter, along with the editorials in most papers pointing out how the Confederacy's low tariffs would cost them a lot of revenue and drive up competition, via both the Atlantic ports in the South and up the Mississippi from New Orleans to Pittsburgh and beyond in the western states.

Well, yes. My point was that if you see the south as having wanted the war, despite the fact that they were hardly the favorites to win any war against the north and must have known that, then you would point to slavery as being the cause because slavery was a huge factor in their choosing to secede in the first place. You might also point to the Cornerstone speech as evidence, despite the fact that the Vice President of the Confederacy had little real power, and that Jefferson Davis publicly stated his opposition to war.

If, however, you see Lincoln as being the aggressor, as I do, then you would point out his threats to invade in his first Inaugural Address, as I did.

If telling the South that he would guarantee those states would follow constitutional, electoral process, then by your definition Lincoln threatened war. The point is that, however, the states did not have the right to determine the limitations of that process, yet took upon themselves to do so. Lincoln murdered the Old South for it. Presidentially so.

 

[Bush92]

Stalin said: "It is the victors who write the history."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Like all good Marxists, who can create nothing of their own, just like all libertarians, Stalin stole the line from Churchill.

 

[Bush92]

Like all good Marxists, who can create nothing of their own, just like all libertarians, Stalin stole the line from Churchill.

And they have been rewriting history on our college campuses and public schools ever since.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the libertarians and far right certainly have been trying along with the Marxists, but the good responsible Americans from right to left don't let your kind do anything of the sort. Even the crazies like PC or M. D. or Uncensored or JimBowie here, or the Mises school or the David Bartons out there, try but don't get away it.

 

[Bush92]

No, the libertarians and far right certainly have been trying along with the Marxists, but the good responsible Americans from right to left don't let your kind do anything of the sort. Even the crazies like PC or M. D. or Uncensored or JimBowie here, or the Mises school or the David Bartons out there, try but don't get away it.

You are the crazy. When have I done anything of the sort?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I said your sort.

 

[Bush92]

No, the libertarians and far right certainly have been trying along with the Marxists, but the good responsible Americans from right to left don't let your kind do anything of the sort. Even the crazies like PC or M. D. or Uncensored or JimBowie here, or the Mises school or the David Bartons out there, try but don't get away it.

You are not a moderate. You are a left wing extremist. Therefore you have a mixed up view of the world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, I am moderate mainstream and you are a far right reactionary weirdo out of step with America and the future.

 

[Bush92]

Yup, I am moderate mainstream and you are a far right reactionary weirdo out of step with America and the future.

You are not mainstream by a long shot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says the far right reactionary weirdo who is out of step with modern America and the 21st Century.

I know that when you realized this was so that it hurt; of course it did.

The OP is Should Lincoln Have Accepted the Crittenden Compromise and you think he should have, right?

 

[Bush92]

Says the far right reactionary weirdo who is out of step with modern America and the 21st Century.

I know that when you realized this was so that it hurt; of course it did.

The OP is Should Lincoln Have Accepted the Crittenden Compromise and you think he should have, right?

Lincoln should have, and what do you like most about future of American demographics...do tell.