View single post by Texas Defender
 Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 11:15 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Texas Defender

Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920

  back to top

Hank C-

  I advanced the Kentucky Secession Ordinance as giving a Constitutional justification for secession. I never said that it was ratified. The secessionist faction did not control a majority of the state legislature at the outbreak of hostilities.

  To Mr. Lincoln, it would not have mattered if it had been ratified or not. In 1860, he believed that the threat of the states to secede was all bluff. In 1861, his position was that they had never actually left the Union, regardless of what their legislatures did.

  As for the attitudes of those in the different regions toward the Constitution, there were obviously different views of what the Constitution said in the majority in different places. Generally speaking, most southerners believed that the Constitution allowed the states to leave the Union, that it had been a voluntary compact of the states that would not necessarily last forever. To most in  the north, the Union was perpetual, and the states could not choose to leave it.

  During the history of the Republic, it was not only the southern states that at one time or another , considered secession as a possible course of action. During the war of 1812, some in the north had a different view of states rights and secession than they exhibited in 1860.

The Hartford Convention

  The difference of opinion between those who maintained that secession was legal and those who maintained that it wasn't was not resolved by the Supreme Court until 1869. However,it was resolved by the bayonet in 1865.

  We're in agreement that it was no coincidence that slavery was legal in all of the states that seceded. Due to westward expansion of the Republic over some decades, north and south had had to make various agreements (Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, etc) to keep the pot from boiling over at an earlier time than it did. The south favored expansion of slavery into the territories in an attempt to keep from losing political power. Obviously different conditions of soil and climate in different places made large scale practice of slavery less practical in some places, but the southerners though it critical that slavery be kept legal regardless.

  In the north, slavery on a large scale wasn't practical, but it continued to be practiced even in some of the original northern states into the 1840s. There were still a few slaves in NJ until they were freed when the 13th Amendment was ratified in December of 1865. (Six months after slaves in Texas were told that the war was over and they were now free). Slavery also remained legal in some of the border states after hostilities ended.

Slavery in the North

Last edited on Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 12:25 am by Texas Defender

 Close Window