Rebels in Border States Didn't Fight for Slavery

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The decision in Dred Scott v Sandford, like any other Supreme Court decision, could have been overturned by act of Congress or by subsequent Supreme Court decision.
As the ruling was congress had no authority, it would take a 2/3rds amendment to overturn, which they didn't have the votes......
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Perhaps it was only a "meaningless vow or campaign promise", but it was one that Lincoln also made and explained in his first inaugural address. Lincoln recognized he did not have Constitutional authority, nor did Congress, to ban slavery in the States where it already existed.
And Dred Scott had clearly defined Lincoln or Congress had no authority in the territories either.... it was a pretty clear ruling
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Good to hear from Mr. Cooper and I agree that Lincoln had hoped that there was more of a Union sentiment in the South than he eventually found, but secession had been in the works long before he was elected and we both know if ANY Republican candiidate had been elected, the slaveholding South would have seceded anyway, experienced or not.

Unionblue
All of the other candidates that received electoral votes in the Presidential election in Nov. 1860 had more national political experience than Lincoln did. Also, they had all dealt with southern politicians and were more familiar with them than Lincoln was. The unwillingness to compromise was not just mainly on the southern side either. Lincoln rejected the Crittenden Compromise and other compromises that were proposed by members of Congress. The southern states were opposed to the Republican Party but after Lincoln's election, his refusal to compromise assured that the secession crisis would not be averted.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
All of the other candidates that received electoral votes in the Presidential election in Nov. 1860 had more national political experience than Lincoln did. Also, they had all dealt with southern politicians and were more familiar with them than Lincoln was.

Hmmm. I wonder why they didn't get any more votes then?

The unwillingness to compromise was not just mainly on the southern side either. Lincoln rejected the Crittenden Compromise and other compromises that were proposed by members of Congress. The southern states were opposed to the Republican Party but after Lincoln's election, his refusal to compromise assured that the secession crisis would not be averted.

I still wonder why all the war-like actions taken by the slaveholding South get no recognition whatsoever as their own refusel, long before Lincoln takes office, are not considered refusals to compromise. Simply seems to me to ignore such actions are an attempt to let the South slide in robes of pure white.

Unionblue
 
Last edited:

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
There actually was nothing prohibiting the expansion of slavery in 1861. That had been settled as far as law by Dred Scott, actually during the Civil War the Union in fact added a new slave state in 1863, West Virginia......curiously enough AFTER the emancipation proclamation.....
Then WHY were the secessionists so up in arms about not being able to spread slavery into the territories, who's wiffle-waffling here now, you, or them? Was it not an issue used to create an excuse to secede, or not, which is it?

Kevin Dally
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Then WHY were the secessionists so up in arms about not being able to spread slavery into the territories, who's wiffle-waffling here now, you, or them? Was it not an issue used to create an excuse to secede, or not, which is it?

Kevin Dally
You'd have to ask them, I haven't wiffle waffled at all, there was no legal basis on which to prohibit its expansion after dred scott....legally it was settled.

Perhaps after events in KS, the FSL, and Lincolns campaign platform they felt the north hadn't and wasn't going to respect the rule of law....certainly some hadn't/didn't, but as a matter of law it had actually been settled. Personally I think without secession they could have maintained it in the courts.
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
You'd have to ask them, I haven't wiffle waffled at all, there was no legal basis on which to prohibit its expansion after dred scott....legally it was settled.

Perhaps after events in KS, the FSL, and Lincolns campaign platform they felt the north hadn't and wasn't going to respect the rule of law....certainly some hadn't/didn't, but as a matter of law it had actually been settled. Personally I think without secession they could have maintained it in the courts.
If it was so settled, then there was no need for secession. No matter what the slavers "felt", no action by the Lincoln Presidency was taken, when the pro secessionist folk decided to take illegal actions that was not theirs to take, and as a result are responsible for 700+ thousand deaths!
They chose, and forced war.

Kevin Dally
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
If it was so settled, then there was no need for secession. No matter what the slavers "felt", no action by the Lincoln Presidency was taken, when the pro secessionist folk decided to take illegal actions that was not theirs to take, and as a result are responsible for 700+ thousand deaths!
They chose, and forced war.

Kevin Dally
Noted you've provided nothing to suggest Dred Scott wasnt in effect, it certainly hadn't been overturned.

Personally if your asking me if it was a good thing that they did, I'm on the fence, I'd agree the cost of the war was high and could have been prevented without secession.......however without secession and the war, slavery IMO would have gone on at least another 20 yrs, possibly 40-50........Its hard for me to compare the two evils and judge which would have been the lesser.

I have no problem that with secession we ended slavery in 4 years compared to the alternative which would have perpetuated slavery an undetermined period. If your arguing as it seems you would have preferred to seen slavery extended decades, I'll agree to disagree

Even if expansion was prohibited, which you've provided no legal basis for to counter dred scott.......it would take decades to politically reach a 2/3rd majority in the senate.....as the south simply could drag its feet on admitting any new states.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Archieclement
I somewhat in agreement with your above post #74, but with a few comments. It may be a “meaningless vow” in your mind (Lincoln’s political vow of no slavery expansion), with your good argument, but to the 19th century fire eater militant slaveholders and his apologists; it was an insult and drove them to a bloody war that killed over 600,000 Americans. Remember their theory: slavery expands, or it dies. I even agree in theory that his vow would face hardship if the southern militants had not started the Civil War. Thusly, I am glad the War commenced 1861 by acts of the warmongering hordes so that slavery would die.
On the other issue you imposed: that of Northerners went to War with the mentality of majority wanting slavery protected may be a bit off. It appears to me more correct to say most Northerners went to War to keep the Union intact, and there was a general indifference to whether slavery lives or dies. We agreed to the existence of that wonderful significant minority of abolitionists who were living before their time. It was only later upon arrival of those massive death notices numbers, and the heroic performance of the Negro Federal Troops fighting, and dying beside their fellow white Northerner Soldier, that lead to a majority support for Negro rights and Emancipation Proclamation. It being part of the war effort against Confederate insurrection and need to punish them.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Archieclement
I somewhat in agreement with your above post #74, but with a few comments. It may be a “meaningless vow” in your mind (Lincoln’s political vow of no slavery expansion), with your good argument, but to the 19th century fire eater militant slaveholders and his apologists; it was an insult and drove them to a bloody war that killed over 600,000 Americans. Remember their theory: slavery expands, or it dies. I even agree in theory that his vow would face hardship if the southern militants had not started the Civil War. Thusly, I am glad the War commenced 1861 by acts of the warmongering hordes so that slavery would die.
On the other issue you imposed: that of Northerners went to War with the mentality of majority wanting slavery protected may be a bit off. It appears to me more correct to say most Northerners went to War to keep the Union intact, and there was a general indifference to whether slavery lives or dies. We agreed to the existence of that wonderful significant minority of abolitionists who were living before their time. It was only later upon arrival of those massive death notices numbers, and the heroic performance of the Negro Federal Troops fighting, and dying beside their fellow white Northerner Soldier, that lead to a majority support for Negro rights and Emancipation Proclamation. It being part of the war effort against Confederate insurrection and need to punish them.
I would think it was an insult then...and would be today if someone campaigned on primarily an illegal campaign promise as there was no basis on which to carry the promise out. Not arguing it necessarily made secession right. but when combined with defience of the FSL and events in KS, I can see where it would have lead to frustration and disillusionment with the north politically.

As to whether the north was indifferent it doesn't matter.......I responded to one who had suggested everyone enlisting is fighting for the governments stated goals, and in 1861 both sides stated goal was the protection/continuation of slavery.......I get tired of those who ignore that simple truth.....they apparently have some agenda to attempt to paint Union soldiers as saints who went to war to expressly end slavery.....when the events and facts of the timeline of the ACW show that to be exactly that.........a myth. They went to war with the understanding the US was continuing slavery............the same as the CS soldiers understood.
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Unionblue
The reasons the other candidates didn't get more votes in the Presidential election of 1860 was due to the split in the Democrat Party. The Democrats had divided into two rival factions which split the vote on a national level. In addition, there was also a third party candidate that ran in the election from the Constitutional Union Party. The election of Lincoln was really a result of the failure of the two party system to operate in a normal fashion. Lincoln won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote and his name wasn't on the ballot in most of the southern states. Finally, I never said that Lincoln was the only one who was unwilling to compromise. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned the southern fire-eaters were one of the groups that was responsible for the war.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Seward called it a irrepressible Conflict. Lincoln said a House Divided can’t stand. Northerners cheered with John Brown’s Raid. Both Seward, Lincoln’s and Brown’s positions were of disunion. Seward latter said, he didn’t mean it. Lincoln qualifies his position with a slow gradual abolition of 100 years. Abolitionist were hard core disunionist.

With the election of a anti-Southern Party. The Lower Souths position of disunion surprised no one.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The reasons the other candidates didn't get more votes in the Presidential election of 1860 was due to the split in the Democrat Party. The Democrats had divided into two rival factions which split the vote on a national level. In addition, there was also a third party candidate that ran in the election from the Constitutional Union Party. The election of Lincoln was really a result of the failure of the two party system to operate in a normal fashion. Lincoln won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote and his name wasn't on the ballot in most of the southern states. Finally, I never said that Lincoln was the only one who was unwilling to compromise. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned the southern fire-eaters were one of the groups that was responsible for the war.

Politics as normal for the time. Lincoln and the other three parties were not the first to have multiple candidates. There was no "two-party system" firmly in place at the time.

And why did the Democratic Party split? Because no protection of slavery was offered in the partry platform. When it wasn't, who split the aparty.

Southern slaveholders.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Politics as normal for the time. Lincoln and the other three parties were not the first to have multiple candidates. There was no "two-party system" firmly in place at the time.

And why did the Democratic Party split? Because no protection of slavery was offered in the partry platform. When it wasn't, who split the aparty.

Southern slaveholders.

Would think it could be argued the Northern Democrats were who were responsible for the split as they had no real clout by themselves, so should have compromised......…they came in 4th in electoral votes only carrying 1 compared to 11 states by Southern Democrats and 3 by the upstart Constitutional Whig/Union

It does seem by not compromising the Northern Democrats emerged the biggest losers in an electoral system
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Politics as normal for the time. Lincoln and the other three parties were not the first to have multiple candidates. There was no "two-party system" firmly in place at the time.

And why did the Democratic Party split? Because no protection of slavery was offered in the partry platform. When it wasn't, who split the aparty.

Southern slaveholders.
I am afraid that simply isn't true. The two party system existed in the USA well before the Civil War. Yes, there have been third party candidates but the Presidential elections have traditionally been dominated by two national political parties. The original two party system featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic Republican Party in the 1790's. The traditional two party system failed in the election of 1860 when the Democrat Party split into two rival factions which resulted in the election of Lincoln.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Would think it could be argued the Northern Democrats were who were responsible for the split as they had no real clout by themselves, so should have compromised......…they came in 4th in electoral votes only carrying 1 compared to 11 states by Southern Democrats and 3 by the upstart Constitutional Whig/Union

It does seem by not compromising the Northern Democrats emerged the biggest losers in an electoral system

That's a view from one side of the room.

The other view is there was a good chance for the Democrats to win the 1860 election if the Southern slaveholding states had not been so intent to bring about an intentional split in order to hasten their goal of secession.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I am afraid that simply isn't true. The two party system existed in the USA well before the Civil War. Yes, there have been third party candidates but the Presidential elections have traditionally been dominated by two national political parties. The original two party system featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic Republican Party in the 1790's. The traditional two party system failed in the election of 1860 when the Democrat Party split into two rival factions which resulted in the election of Lincoln.

What is true that multiple candidates had campaigned long before 1860 and posed no real problem with the results of such multiple candidates. Perhaps the Democratic Party failed when it split, but the party system was alive and well, even when there were four such parties in 1860.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
That's a view from one side of the room.

The other view is there was a good chance for the Democrats to win the 1860 election if the Southern slaveholding states had not been so intent to bring about an intentional split in order to hasten their goal of secession.
Well its the view from the side of the room capable of carrying 14 states to 1.........If the northern democrats had thought they were the true power brokers in the Democrat party, events proved them sadly mistaken.
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
The road to winning the presidency in 1860 was impacted by the need to win enough electoral votes. The 11 Southern Democratic states would not provide enough electoral votes to win the presidency. I have serious doubts that the Southern Democrats believed they would win any Northern states. In truth Lincoln won the needed electoral votes rather easily. Most Northern voters did not support protecting and expanding slavery.
 
Top