Should Lincoln Have Accepted the Crittenden Compromise

[JakeStarkey]

Picare ignored the my correction of his lie, "Picaro, telling obvious lies such as 'Jake, for instance, apparently thinks states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York were somehow southern slave states that seceded, for some reason known only to him' not only gives people tremendous fun at your expense, such nonsense forever damages your rep on the subject beyond repair."

That is the type of nonsense he puts out as rebuttal when cornered.

 

[Picaro]

Picare ignored the my correction of his lie, "Picaro, telling obvious lies such as 'Jake, for instance, apparently thinks states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York were somehow southern slave states that seceded, for some reason known only to him' not only gives people tremendous fun at your expense, such nonsense forever damages your rep on the subject beyond repair."

That is the type of nonsense he puts out as rebuttal when cornered.

you have no idea if anybody is lying here, Jake; you just don't know anything about the topic or the beginnings of the Civil War. The fact that you don't know you said what I said you said is just more proof of that, that's all. Calling people 'liars' is just desperation, and just more evidence Jake can't go more than a post or two before having to resort to childish taunts and name-calling.

Another example of Jake not knowing anything is his not even noticing a mistake I did make in an earlier post, re 'North' Carolina, when it should have been 'South' Carolina, but such obvious mistakes are bound to escape Jake's notice, since he has no earthly idea what he's babbling on about.

 

[Bush92]

Lincoln committed murder alright. Millennials are weakest generation.

Lincoln also ordered Pope into Minnesota for the sole purpose of exterminating the Sioux there, rather than paying them what the had government owed them for their lands sold in 1852; he printed up plenty of money to stuff the pockets of his cronies and his Party's hacks with, but couldn't find any for paying legitimate debts owed. The only reason some them weren't murdered outright was concern over how that would look in Europe, so he and Pope only murdered a few dozen of them, a big disappointment for Lincoln and Pope. The Sioux committed the horrible crime of of suffering from a famine and wanted to be paid what they were owed. The PC Police never seem to want to discuss that, much less the illegality of Lincoln's mass murders of Southerners. Lincoln's murders of the Sioux set the precedent for dealing with Indian tribes for the rest of the century.

Largest mass execution in American history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Picare ignored the my correction of his lie, "Picaro, telling obvious lies such as 'Jake, for instance, apparently thinks states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York were somehow southern slave states that seceded, for some reason known only to him' not only gives people tremendous fun at your expense, such nonsense forever damages your rep on the subject beyond repair."

That is the type of nonsense he puts out as rebuttal when cornered.

you have no idea if anybody is lying here, Jake; you just don't know anything about the topic or the beginnings of the Civil War. The fact that you don't know you said what I said you said is just more proof of that, that's all. Calling people 'liars' is just desperation, and just more evidence Jake can't go more than a post or two before having to resort to childish taunts and name-calling.

Another example of Jake not knowing anything is his not even noticing a mistake I did make in an earlier post, re 'North' Carolina, when it should have been 'South' Carolina, but such obvious mistakes are bound to escape Jake's notice, since he has no earthly idea what he's babbling on about.

I quoted you, Picaro.

You lied. At this point, I am not look for your little errors.

You don't have a clue as to the topic.

Tis what it is.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I think it was a no-brainer that Lincoln should have accepted the Crittenden Compromise (CC). The CC granted the South basically meaningless but face-saving concessions. In practical terms, the CC would have settled every important slavery-related issue in the North's favor.

Among other things, the CC would have had the effect of repealing the Dred Scott decision. It also would have set up a system of compensated emancipation for slaves emancipated with force, would have removed the financial incentive for fugitive-slave-law courts to rule against the slave, and would have banned slavery from at least 75% of the western territories. More importantly, it would have halted secession and restored the Union peacefully.

What is especially tragic is that not only did the Republicans block the CC in the Senate, but they blocked an effort to hold a national referendum on the CC--because they knew a large majority of Americans would vote for it.

I agree with scholars like Albert Kirwan that the issue of the extension of slavery in the territories was a phantom issue by 1860, if not a bit sooner, which is why I think it was a shame that the Republicans torpedoed the CC.

I think the issue of slavery's extension was much more a matter of principle and honor with the South than a matter of any expectation that slavery would or could ever take hold in the territories.

By 1860 it was clear that there was no chance that slavery would be adopted in the territories. I think the Crittenden concession of allowing slavery in barely 25% of the territories was meaningless in practical terms, but it was enough to assuage the South's misguided sense of principle and honor on the issue.

At the most, Southern slavery would have continued for another 20 or 30 years--maybe 40 years at the absolute extreme. Among the Northern states that abolished slavery, the process took over 40 years from the time the first state became a "free state" and the time the last slave was freed in the free states (and of course some Northern/Union states remained slave states until after the war).

I believe Senator Crittenden was one of the true heroes of the secession crisis, and I wish his counsel had been followed. I don't excuse the South for its misguided, unethical posturing over slavery in the territories and for its unwise decision to secede in response to a fair election, but I think America would have been much better off, both then and now, if Crittenden's compromise plan had been adopted.

 

[bendog]

I don't see how Lincoln politically could have accepted the Crittenden Compromise. He was elected on a platform of not allowing any expansion of slavery, but the Compromise explicitly allowed for a continuation of expansion on basically the Missouri compromise "rules." The Senate voted it down 25-23 BEFORE Lincoln's inauguration. Further, four states had already seceded when it was voted down by the Senate. all 25 votes were gopers, but six senators from seceeding states abstained. So, Lincoln never really had the opportunity to accept it. In hindsight, one can maybe say "could woulda shoulda," but the Compromise asked the republicans give up their central plank, and they'd just won the election. So, imo, it's just another sad footnote to the failure of James Buchanan.

Crittenden Compromise is killed in Senate mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 1 16 1861

 

[mikegriffith1]

I don't see how Lincoln politically could have accepted the Crittenden Compromise. He was elected on a platform of not allowing any expansion of slavery, but the Compromise explicitly allowed for a continuation of expansion on basically the Missouri compromise "rules." The Senate voted it down 25-23 BEFORE Lincoln's inauguration. Further, four states had already seceded when it was voted down by the Senate. all 25 votes were gopers, but six senators from seceeding states abstained. So, Lincoln never really had the opportunity to accept it. In hindsight, one can maybe say "could woulda shoulda," but the Compromise asked the republicans give up their central plank, and they'd just won the election. So, imo, it's just another sad footnote to the failure of James Buchanan.

Lincoln could have easily politically accepted the Crittenden Compromise because it was extremely popular, which was why the Republicans didn't dare allow a national referendum on it. Even a good number of Republicans supported it.

Yes, he had been elected on a platform that called for no slavery expansion into the territories, but that was before secession started. Few Northern citizens believed the South would secede in response to Lincoln's election. The fact that states were leaving the Union changed everything. So Lincoln could have easily supported the Crittenden plan and probably would have greatly enhanced his standing with the people. Keep in mind that Lincoln only received 39.9% of the popular vote. 60% of voters had voted for candidates who wanted compromise on the issue.

 

[bendog]

Mike, his own party just voted it down prior to his inauguration. It would be true that had the senators of seceding states voted with the minority who voted for it, it would have passed. But they didn't. Further, Lincoln's platform was "no new slave territory." He was elected with a minority, as you say. Imagine the political carnage he'd have incurred amongst his own supporters if he told them they'd won an election but now he was abandoning the central issue of his candidacy.

The compromise might have been possible in 1858 or so if a national and unifying leader had pushed it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mike, his own party just voted it down prior to his inauguration.

But the Republicans in Congress voted it down only because Lincoln told them to do so. If Lincoln, as president-elect, had told them to support it, they would have supported it. We know that a number of them wanted to support it, but Lincoln was adamant and they didn't want to buck party discipline.

It would be true that had the senators of seceding states voted with the minority who voted for it, it would have passed. But they didn't.

They didn't because they knew that for the CC to be the most credible and enduring it had to receive bipartisan support, as had all other similar compromises. A "compromise" passed on a purely sectional vote could be much more easily and quickly undone by the next president, who was Lincoln. Lincoln once again was the key. The Southern senators knew that if they passed the CC on a purely sectional basis, it could end up being worthless if Lincoln refused to support it.

Further, Lincoln's platform was "no new slave territory."

But that's just the point: The CC would have ended slavery in the few areas of the territories where it then existed and would have allowed it only in the region where it was already clear that slavery would never take hold. This was simply a bogus issue, as historians like Albert Kirwan have shown at great length. It was irresponsible for the Republicans to keep stirring up passions over it when it was already very clear that slavery was not going to ever take hold in the territories.

He was elected with a minority, as you say. Imagine the political carnage he'd have incurred amongst his own supporters if he told them they'd won an election but now he was abandoning the central issue of his candidacy.

One, that would have been far, far better than the bloody, horrific war that followed. Two, that's what true statesman do when necessary--they buck their own party's desires. Three, the situation had changed radically from just a few months earlier when Lincoln was elected and now quite a few Republicans, including Republican newspapers, were calling for accepting the CC.

It was mainly only the Radical Republicans who were ardently against it. So the political carnage would have been minimal because the CC was extremely popular, which was why the Radicals didn't even want to allow a national, non-binding referendum on it--they knew the pressure to pass it on a bipartisan basis would be irresistible if it received a large majority in a national referendum.

The compromise might have been possible in 1858 or so if a national and unifying leader had pushed it.

The CC was entirely possible in 1861 and in fact was wildly, overwhelmingly supported by newspapers across the spectrum and in petitions that were pouring into the capital by the thousands (many of them with hundreds and even thousands of signatures, which was quite unheard of until that time). Even Greeley admitted that if put to a popular vote, the CC would pass by a wide margin.

The problem was that Lincoln refused to support it, even though it favored the North on every slavery-related issue, even though it banned slavery from the few territorial areas where it (barely) existed, and even though the 25% of the territories where it permitted slavery was a region that clearly was never going to be plausible for slavery to take hold.

Lincoln's senseless, stubborn refusal to compromise was a tragedy that paved the way for a horrible war that not only killed nearly 700,000 Americans and wounded millions but also caused bitterness and strife for decades after it ended.

If we had had a true statesman like Clay or Webster or Crittenden, or even if we'd had Seward or Douglas, war would have been avoided, secession would have ended and collapsed, the Union would have been saved, and slavery would have died a natural death in a matter of a few decades. Let's keep in mind that it took 40 years for the free states to abolish slavery--from the time the first free state passed an emancipation law until the time the last slave in the free states was freed was over 40 years, and the world didn't end because emancipation was so gradual.