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.
Massachusetts and one or two other New England states voted against this resolution.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
I guess there was money involved.
Let's be blunt here: other than your obvious bias, do you have anything at all to support what you just said? Or is this merely yet another unsupported inuendo from you?
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.
Massachusetts and one or two other New England states voted against this resolution.
I guess there was money involved.
Below is the first six sections of Article 13. Notice Sec. 6 as it is the reason why the entire article was voted down. It cites Sec. 1, 3, 5, and 6 and parts of US Constitution that would require all states to accept any ammendments or changes to Article 13 and to parts of the Constitution. No wonder it was voted down!
Article 13, Sec. 1. In all the present territory of the United States, north of the parallel of 36 degrees 30 minutes of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present Territory south of that line, the status of persons held to involuntary servitude or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said Territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, accoring to the course of the common law. When any territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide.
Sec. 2. No Territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery and for naval and commercial stations, depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall Territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from States from each class of States heretobefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty.
Sec. 3. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit Representatives and others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage, and the right during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in or through and State or Territory, or of sale or traffic, against the laws thereof. Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to labor or service than on land. The bringing into the District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service, for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred to other places for sale as merchandize, is prohibited.
Sec. 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.
Sec. 5. The foreign slave trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor, into the United States and the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof.
Sec. 6. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with this section of these amendments and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
No comment on the "African apprentice" schemes? Where was the money going on that one?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Chinese population, United States Census (Note the number of males to females. This is a prime indicator of a slave trade operation.)...
What makes you think that?
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.
*Normal immigration would have close to a 50/50 ratio.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
*Normal immigration would have close to a 50/50 ratio.
Thanks for the Census tables.
You may be right about the immigration ratios, but do you have anything else to support that they should be 50/50? Its not hard to imagine where primarily men would immigrate to an area where primarily man labor were needed.
*Normal immigration would have close to a 50/50 ratio.
Well, no, that is not true; in particular it is not true when applied to frontier or newly developed areas.
For example, you posted this: ===== 1860 Male 33,554 Female 1,804 CA & OR 35,358 (Total United States-35,565)
=====
This is not very much different than the Foreign-born white population in California at the time:
White Males 116,570
White Females 29,507
It has nothing to do with slavery. It does have a lot to do with men (particularly young men) moving to a rough and developing place in hope of opportunity. The fact that the opportunity they were looking for does not make sense to you doesn't make it slavery.
BTW, in case you are wondering, the foreign-born white population of Oregon in 1860 shows almost exactly the same pattern:
White Males 4,136
White Females 982
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.
Well, no, that is not true; in particular it is not true when applied to frontier or newly developed areas.
For example, you posted this: ===== 1860 Male 33,554 Female 1,804 CA & OR 35,358 (Total United States-35,565)
=====
This is not very much different than the Foreign-born white population in California at the time:
White Males 116,570
White Females 29,507
As I said- it is a prime indicator (especially when it is constant for 20 years)...not proof unto itself
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
It has nothing to do with slavery. It does have a lot to do with men (particularly young men) moving to a rough and developing place in hope of opportunity. The fact that the opportunity they were looking for does not make sense to you doesn't make it slavery.
You need to check what contemporaries were saying about this trade. Why did the US government pass a law against it in 1862?...and again in 1868? (though it appears the laws were never enforced till about 1882- Chinese Exclusion Act)
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
