Should Lincoln Have Accepted the Crittenden Compromise

[paperview]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.
They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Crittenden Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amendments to the Constitution[edit]

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

Lincoln was absolutely correct in rejecting the compromise. It would have only put off the war, not averted it. The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man. The Declaration of Independence stated "All Men".

I'm curious about the logic behind your comment regarding the three-fifths compromise, since it was the north that wanted slaves to not count as people whereas the south wanted them to be counted as a full person. Can you explain?

Perhaps I misapprehend this post, the NORTH wanted slavery and the SOUTH was against owning human beings as property? Are you kidding? Besides contradicting history, it violates logic. I am not a lawyer and I will not play games and split hairs or words. The south wanted to maintain slavery and the north strove to end slavery, bluntly and as elementary as that.

No, the north did not want southern slaves counted as people at all, whereas the south wanted them counted as full people. The reason for this was because if slaves were counted as people then the south would be given far more representation in Congress based on their population. This is not to say that the south was against owning human beings as property, merely that they wanted their slaves to count as people so that they could have more power in the Congress. Though I will say that your comment, "the north strove to end slavery," is quite ludicrous. The idea that the north was interested in ending slavery is a myth. Genuine abolitionists were few and far between even in the north.

I agree. That was the point behind the southern strategy. The problem arises however, if slaves are chattel property in the eyes of the law, then how could they be counted as a whole, 1/2, 3/5, or any other fraction for purposes of representation in the House.

I didn't say it made logical sense, merely that that was their position.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs and taxes had nothing to do with the cause of the war at all. That is Beard revisionism. The fight over the Tariff of Abominations did reveal by 1833 that the two great nations of North and South had separate visions.

Read Vice-President Stephens 'cornerstone speech" as to the immediate cause of the war, particularly paragraph nine.

8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Except that Lincoln said the exact same thing in his first Inaugural Address.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

In other words, there will be an invasion and the use of force to collect the duties and imposts he believed the south owed to the federal government.

Hostilities had already begun at that point, on the part of the South.

Yes, when the north tried to invade southern territory.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To collect duties and taxes as the primary reason for the war when placed next to Stephen's cornerstone speech reveals the paucity of the "tariffs" excuse. Please try again.

It merely depends on who you see as having wanted the war.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln was a regional candidate who won a three way electoral race, with less than half the national vote. ....

That whole shpeele is the biggest pile of rubbish I have read in a long time.

Geezez.

That bit about "Jeff Davis also knew slavery wasn't going to expand geographically" is uproarious. Keeee-rist. What the hell was Bloody Kansas about and all that shit to try to expand it? And the insistence to enforce Dred Scott which would in essence make Free States have to follow Slave State rules - NO STATES RIGHTS! The irony! Yes, in their secession documents they were pissed to hell the Free states would want to have States Rights!

The whole damn thing was they wanted to seceed so they *could* expand geographically, to include Confederate colonies south of the border and Latin America. The Confederate constitution included the right to expand. That . was. the. plan. Dammit.

And the first stupid line there about Lincoln winning with "less than half the national vote."

Der. Most of the damn southern states didn't even put him on the ballot!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lincoln was a regional candidate who won a three way electoral race, with less than half the national vote. ....

That whole shpeele is the biggest pile of rubbish I have read in a long time.

Geezez.

That bit about "Jeff Davis also knew slavery wasn't going to expand geographically" is uproarious. Keeee-rist. What the hell was Bloody Kansas about and all that shit to try to expand it? And the insistence to enforce Dred Scott which would in essence make Free States have to follow Slave State rules - NO STATES RIGHTS! The irony! Yes, in their secession documents they were pissed to hell the Free states would want to have States Rights!

The whole damn thing was they wanted to seceed so they *could* expand geographically, to include Confederate colonies south of the border and Latin America. The Confederate constitution included the right to expand. That . was. the. plan. Dammit.

And the first stupid line there about Lincoln winning with "less than half the national vote."

Der. Most of the damn southern states didn't even put him on the ballot!

The portion I bolded above is absolutely correct. The states that seceded were angry that the northern states were using their states' rights powers to nullify the fugitive slave laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln was not a dictator after absolute power; however, he was willing to do what was necessary to preserve the Union.

All the South had to do (and refused) was to recognize electoral and constitutional process, respect federal property, and keep slavery out of the territories.

The secessionists acted out and Lincoln murdered the Old South, righteously so.

Slavery was the primary cause of the war, the argument over tariffs but a minor symptom.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln was a regional candidate who won a three way electoral race, with less than half the national vote. ....

That whole shpeele is the biggest pile of rubbish I have read in a long time.

Geezez.

That bit about "Jeff Davis also knew slavery wasn't going to expand geographically" is uproarious. Keeee-rist. What the hell was Bloody Kansas about and all that shit to try to expand it? And the insistence to enforce Dred Scott which would in essence make Free States have to follow Slave State rules - NO STATES RIGHTS! The irony! Yes, in their secession documents they were pissed to hell the Free states would want to have States Rights!

The whole damn thing was they wanted to seceed so they *could* expand geographically, to include Confederate colonies south of the border and Latin America. The Confederate constitution included the right to expand. That . was. the. plan. Dammit.

And the first stupid line there about Lincoln winning with "less than half the national vote."

Der. Most of the damn southern states didn't even put him on the ballot!

The portion I bolded above is absolutely correct. The states that seceded were angry that the northern states were using their states' rights powers to nullify the fugitive slave laws.

So the South wanted it both ways: states rights to keep slavery and the feds to enforce the fugitive slave law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tariffs and taxes had nothing to do with the cause of the war at all. That is Beard revisionism. The fight over the Tariff of Abominations did reveal by 1833 that the two great nations of North and South had separate visions.

Read Vice-President Stephens 'cornerstone speech" as to the immediate cause of the war, particularly paragraph nine.

8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Except that Lincoln said the exact same thing in his first Inaugural Address.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

In other words, there will be an invasion and the use of force to collect the duties and imposts he believed the south owed to the federal government.

Hostilities had already begun at that point, on the part of the South.

Yes, when the north tried to invade southern territory.

False. Texas "arrested" the entire US troop presence before the war.

The South begun the war because it would not respect constitutional and electoral process.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lincoln was a regional candidate who won a three way electoral race, with less than half the national vote. ....

That whole shpeele is the biggest pile of rubbish I have read in a long time.

Geezez.

That bit about "Jeff Davis also knew slavery wasn't going to expand geographically" is uproarious. Keeee-rist. What the hell was Bloody Kansas about and all that shit to try to expand it? And the insistence to enforce Dred Scott which would in essence make Free States have to follow Slave State rules - NO STATES RIGHTS! The irony! Yes, in their secession documents they were pissed to hell the Free states would want to have States Rights!

The whole damn thing was they wanted to seceed so they *could* expand geographically, to include Confederate colonies south of the border and Latin America. The Confederate constitution included the right to expand. That . was. the. plan. Dammit.

And the first stupid line there about Lincoln winning with "less than half the national vote."

Der. Most of the damn southern states didn't even put him on the ballot!

The portion I bolded above is absolutely correct. The states that seceded were angry that the northern states were using their states' rights powers to nullify the fugitive slave laws.

So the South wanted it both ways: states rights to keep slavery and the feds to enforce the fugitive slave law.

In a sense, yes.

 

[rightwinger]

Crittenden Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amendments to the Constitution[edit]

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

Lincoln was absolutely correct in rejecting the compromise. It would have only put off the war, not averted it. The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man. The Declaration of Independence stated "All Men".

I'm curious about the logic behind your comment regarding the three-fifths compromise, since it was the north that wanted slaves to not count as people whereas the south wanted them to be counted as a full person. Can you explain?

Perhaps I misapprehend this post, the NORTH wanted slavery and the SOUTH was against owning human beings as property? Are you kidding? Besides contradicting history, it violates logic. I am not a lawyer and I will not play games and split hairs or words. The south wanted to maintain slavery and the north strove to end slavery, bluntly and as elementary as that.

No, the north did not want southern slaves counted as people at all, whereas the south wanted them counted as full people. The reason for this was because if slaves were counted as people then the south would be given far more representation in Congress based on their population. This is not to say that the south was against owning human beings as property, merely that they wanted their slaves to count as people so that they could have more power in the Congress. Though I will say that your comment, "the north strove to end slavery," is quite ludicrous. The idea that the north was interested in ending slavery is a myth. Genuine abolitionists were few and far between even in the north.

The south wanted slaves counted as people when it came to apportioning representatives who could ensure they remained slaves

They did not want them counted as people when it came to human rights

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs and taxes had nothing to do with the cause of the war at all. That is Beard revisionism. The fight over the Tariff of Abominations did reveal by 1833 that the two great nations of North and South had separate visions.

Read Vice-President Stephens 'cornerstone speech" as to the immediate cause of the war, particularly paragraph nine.

8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Except that Lincoln said the exact same thing in his first Inaugural Address.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

In other words, there will be an invasion and the use of force to collect the duties and imposts he believed the south owed to the federal government.

Hostilities had already begun at that point, on the part of the South.

Yes, when the north tried to invade southern territory.

False. Texas "arrested" the entire US troop presence before the war.

The South begun the war because it would not respect constitutional and electoral process.

Arrested them where? In southern territory, perhaps?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Crittenden Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amendments to the Constitution[edit]

1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]

Lincoln was absolutely correct in rejecting the compromise. It would have only put off the war, not averted it. The Civil War was inevitable when the Constitution stated that there was such a thing as 3/5's of a man. The Declaration of Independence stated "All Men".

I'm curious about the logic behind your comment regarding the three-fifths compromise, since it was the north that wanted slaves to not count as people whereas the south wanted them to be counted as a full person. Can you explain?

Perhaps I misapprehend this post, the NORTH wanted slavery and the SOUTH was against owning human beings as property? Are you kidding? Besides contradicting history, it violates logic. I am not a lawyer and I will not play games and split hairs or words. The south wanted to maintain slavery and the north strove to end slavery, bluntly and as elementary as that.

No, the north did not want southern slaves counted as people at all, whereas the south wanted them counted as full people. The reason for this was because if slaves were counted as people then the south would be given far more representation in Congress based on their population. This is not to say that the south was against owning human beings as property, merely that they wanted their slaves to count as people so that they could have more power in the Congress. Though I will say that your comment, "the north strove to end slavery," is quite ludicrous. The idea that the north was interested in ending slavery is a myth. Genuine abolitionists were few and far between even in the north.

The south wanted slaves counted as people when it came to apportioning representatives who could ensure they remained slaves

They did not want them counted as people when it came to human rights

Correct, but that does not explain what point Old Rocks was trying to make with his comment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, Texas did not have the authority to arrest federal troops.

Lincoln would not permit constitutional electoral authority to be abused by the states.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, Texas did not have the authority to arrest federal troops.

Lincoln would not permit constitutional electoral authority to be abused by the states.

Nor did the colonies have the authority to do anything to British troops. It hardly matters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, it mattered. The colonists and the Union triumphed, which was best for all colonists and Americans as a whole, though hard on loyalists, indigenous tribes, southerners, and slaves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So if the south had won then Texas would have retroactively had the right to arrest those federal troops. Like I said, it doesn't matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So if the south had won then Texas would have retroactively had the right to arrest those federal troops. Like I said, it doesn't matter.

Nonsense logic, my friend. But if it comforts you, fine.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So if the south had won then Texas would have retroactively had the right to arrest those federal troops. Like I said, it doesn't matter.

Nonsense logic, my friend. But if it comforts you, fine.

It's the same logic you just used when you said, "The colonists and the Union triumphed..."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. Mine was a statement of fact, yours but one of supposition thus immaterial.