Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Yes, yes...the North wanted those territories for their own purposes: Territories > States > Senators/Rep's > Political Power
What are you talking about here?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Creation of states for political purpose and gain, ie W VA and Nevada were created principly out of political advantage and need for there votes, and secondly for other reasons.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"W VA and Nevada were created principly out of political advantage and need for there votes, and secondly for other reasons."
I'm sure you have sources here.
You mean like the political pressure/speed of nevada admitance to the Union to make the passing of the 13th a viable proposition when the bordor states made it clear they would not pass it?, that kinda thing?, if so Blue and Grey Vol II covers that.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Yes, yes...the North wanted those territories for their own purposes: Territories > States > Senators/Rep's > Political Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
What are you talking about here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Creation of states for political purpose and gain, ie W VA and Nevada were created principly out of political advantage and need for there votes, and secondly for other reasons.
Hmm. I assume you are not actually Battalion, so you're speculating on what he might have meant or imposing your own thought upon it.
Battalion was commenting on the events in the 15 years before the Civil War, the period 1846-1860; you are commenting on events in 1863 (admission of West Virginia, June 20) and 1864 (admission of Nevada, October 31).
Naturally enough, the admission of states into the Union was a political matter. Existing states had opinions about it. There was lots of open debate, newspaper editorials, etc. on each and every one from Vermont in 1791 to Hawaii and Alaska in 1959. This is simply normal.
Battalion is implying some nefarious Northern purpose, it seems (although he generally tries to avoid saying what he means in clear terms when asked). It is unclear what you mean. Please explain, and be precise, so that we know if you are talking about your own views or Battalion's.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Battalion is implying some nefarious Northern purpose, it seems (although he generally tries to avoid saying what he means in clear terms when asked). It is unclear what you mean. Please explain, and be precise, so that we know if you are talking about your own views or Battalion's.
Tim
From inception the rational was to have 2 senators from each state to make equality voting have meaning, the proportional population representation was settled elswhere, what the 2 senators was for was to prevent larger power blocks from outvoting smaller, by subdivision at will of a stste to create more ssttes out of itself to increase its share of senate represenation.
The Republicans from political need, simply did this and acepted it by necisssity, so they indeed did do what the FF sought to prevent from occuring. The alternative was a harsher war still.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
From inception the rational was to have 2 senators from each state to make equality voting have meaning, the proportional population representation was settled elswhere, what the 2 senators was for was to prevent larger power blocks from outvoting smaller, by subdivision at will of a stste to create more ssttes out of itself to increase its share of senate represenation.
This is simply wrong. The purpose of the two Senators/state compromise was to make each state equal in voting power in one house of the Congress. It had nothing at all to do with the subdivision of states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
The Republicans from political need, simply did this and acepted it by necisssity, so they indeed did do what the FF sought to prevent from occuring. The alternative was a harsher war still.
Once again, you appear to have gone off on some personal tangent having nothing to do with the original point. How does this relate to Battalion's post?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
This is simply wrong. The purpose of the two Senators/state compromise was to make each state equal in voting power in one house of the Congress. It had nothing at all to do with the subdivision of states.
No, its acuarte. the ability of a large state to subdivide at will so as to gain more senate votes wasa mjor concern, hence the provisons to prevent such.
Quote:
Once again, you appear to have gone off on some personal tangent having nothing to do with the original point. How does this relate to Battalion's post?
Tim
#
No tangent, you posed a question, i answered that question.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
No, its acuarte. the ability of a large state to subdivide at will so as to gain more senate votes wasa mjor concern, hence the provisons to prevent such.
You will note that when Texas was admitted as a state in the 1840s, it was specifically given the ability to subdivide into four additional states for a total of five states. Is it your contention that no one was concerned about this issue by then, or that it was OK if the states were "Southern" or "slave" states?
You will also note that there is no concern for states subdividing until after you pass a compromise limiting each state to two votes.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
You will note that when Texas was admitted as a state in the 1840s, it was specifically given the ability to subdivide into four additional states for a total of five states. Is it your contention that no one was concerned about this issue by then, or that it was OK if the states were "Southern" or "slave" states?
No that was your claim, my claim was that there extreme concern over new states entry with its 2 sentate votes, which was why slsveand free came in to mainatin equal voting, and why LA Texdas alsmost cause secesion, and why NWT and SWT were so problamticlal becuase of the number of new slave or free states that could be joining the union. Which gre out of the major concern in 1798 over how to protect teh equal representaion of states in teh senate and to prevent at will subdivison of states to make new one for political gain.
Quote:
You will also note that there is no concern for states subdividing until after you pass a compromise limiting each state to two votes.
Tim
Its pretty hard to take advantge of the senate voting, by subdivision at will and entry into the Union to inhance a sectional vote, untill that voteing numbers is settled on, dontcha think?.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
