american slavery

[fatherphil]

could lincoln have ever abolished it without going to war or the supreme court?

[Beth]

I'm not sure. I think that force probably would have been necessary to end slavery in the South. From all I have read and seen about the Civil War and Abolitionist Movement, the South was particularly resistant in granting the slaves freedom.

[PinkRose]

every knows the south was the cotton picking capital. they had it the worst.

[Godless Dave]

No, it would have taken a constitutional amendment (in fact, it DID take a constitutional amendment). And Lincoln never intended to abolish it, only contain it to the states where it existed when he was elected. The slave states feared that if most of the west entered the union as non-slave states, they would be outnumbered and the constitutional amendment would happen.

It's worth remembering Lincoln only freed the slaves in the Confederate states. The "border" states still had slavery until the amdenment was passed after the war.

[Ymir's blood]

could lincoln have ever abolished it without going to war or the supreme court?
While Lincoln was opposed to slavery, it is doubtful he would have tried to have ended it during his term in office. First of all, he lacked the authority to do so. Secondly, Lincoln stated publicly that if it came down to saving the Union or abolishing slavery, he would choose the former. By seceding and attacking Fort Sumpter, the southern states allowed him to do both.

Had the south remained in the Union, Lincoln's ability to directly attack slavery would have been very limited. His administration certainly would have been hostile to the expansion of slavery into the territories and probably would have appointed anti-slavery individuals to Federal posts whenever possible.

[fatherphil]

how many states voted on the amendment? were southern states given a vote?

[Ymir's blood]

The rebel states had to ratify the 13th Amendment before they were allowed representation in Congress. Prior to that, they didn't have Senators or Representatives and presumably were unable to vote on the amendment in the Senate or Congress.

Eventually, all thirty-six states ratified the ammendment.

[fatherphil]

so the supreme court would have been lincoln's only way to effect a change. was this what the south was afraid of since they had the numbers to block an amendment before the war?

[Ymir's blood]

The Supreme Court at the time was decidedly pro-slavery, considering that it was the same court that issued the Dredd Scott ruling. The South believed that slavery could only survive if it expanded into new states formed from the western territories.

One important point that is overlooked today but was probably well understood by the southern firebrands was that Lincoln's election marked the end of the South's hegemony in the Federal Government. Lincoln didn't win because the Democratic ticket was split. He garnered more electoral votes than both Breckinridge and Douglas combined. Further eroding the South's political position, the burgeoning population of the north with its large influx of immigrants meant that the legislative branch likely would have soon been dominated by northern politicians rather than split between the two sections of the country.

The early part of the Nineteenth Century saw numerous clashes between north and south on the issues relating to slavery. The South at the time was politically powerful enough to advance its agenda or at least hold its ground. With a hostile president and a minority in Congress, any further expansion of slavery would have been impossible.

Edited to add that the tilt towards Northern dominance in the Federal Government would have eventually removed the Supreme Court as an ally.

[Gurdur]

The early part of the Nineteenth Century saw numerous clashes between north and south on the issues relating to slavery...
Yes, indeedy. The American Civil War (ACW) could have started in 1830 or anytime after that; as it is, it in practice did not start with Fort Sumpter, it started before Lincoln came in, with the mini-wars in Kansas and Missouri.

[godfry n. glad]

Good stuff, YB. Are you a civil war buff, or was it a passing interest?

I agree with your assessment. It's an excellent synopsis.

[godfry n. glad]

The early part of the Nineteenth Century saw numerous clashes between north and south on the issues relating to slavery...
Yes, indeedy. The American Civil War (ACW) could have started in 1830 or anytime after that; as it is, it in practice did not start with Fort Sumpter, it started before Lincoln came in, with the mini-wars in Kansas and Missouri.

Actually, from what I understand, there was a very good likelihood that slavery might have extinguished itself in English North America as being uneconomical, had not the cotton gin been invented and introduced (warrented, earlier than 1830). It gave new life to the cotton industry in the south and justified the need for cultivators and pickers in the cotton fields. Why do you select 1830?

I'm operating here without sources and drawing upon what I remember of US economic history, rather than social policy history. I also have not kept up with this topic for some time, so I'm fully open to critique.

[Crumb]

This is a very interesting thread. :1thumbup: Thanks guys and thanks fatherphil for starting it. :yup:

[Godless Dave]

so the supreme court would have been lincoln's only way to effect a change. was this what the south was afraid of since they had the numbers to block an amendment before the war?

They had the numbers if you only counted the existing states. But the western territories were being becoming settled heavily enough that they would soon be lobbying for statehood. It was anybody's guess how they would go regarding slavery.

[godfry n. glad]

so the supreme court would have been lincoln's only way to effect a change. was this what the south was afraid of since they had the numbers to block an amendment before the war?

They had the numbers if you only counted the existing states. But the western territories were being becoming settled heavily enough that they would soon be lobbying for statehood. It was anybody's guess how they would go regarding slavery.

So they wanted to guarantee that either the remaining western territories entered as allowing slavery, or at minimum, one slave state for each new free state. That way they could hold on to power through the Senate, even though it was obvious they would lose control of the House of Representatives (the massive numbers of immigrants pouring into New York, Philedelphia and Boston).

As noted, the inexorable change in numbers had finally affected the Presidential electors with the election of Lincoln and it was clear the gig was up and it was now or never for State's Rights and a Confederation of States (and King Cotton). The South thought they could buy help with cotton. It's been credibly posited that the Emancipation Proclamation was written to keep Britain and France from entering the dispute on the CSA side. Those nations wanted to break the cotton embargo placed by the Union Navy.

(An interesting side note here. Uzbekistan, in central Asia, had cotton introduced as a cash crop in the mid-1860s. - Guess why.- That country is now one of the world's largest producers of cotton. As a result, the Aral Sea is disappearing and the soils of central Asia are being tainted. )

[Ymir's blood]

Good stuff, YB. Are you a civil war buff, or was it a passing interest?
I like reading about it and the Nineteenth Century. My primary interest is in the social and political aspects more than the battles.

[fatherphil]

the sad thing is the south might have been able to retain political power if they enfranchised their slaves as free citizens and kept them as a cheap labor force.

[godfry n. glad]

the sad thing is the south might have been able to retain political power if they enfranchised their slaves as free citizens and kept them as a cheap labor force.

I'm not clear on why that is a sad thing. Could you please explain?

The slaveholding states held prevailing power for many years because of the counting of disenfranchised, dispossessed, non-voting, non-opinion-expressing chattel counted as 3/5 of a citizen in terms of allocating seats in the House of Representatives. Ergo, the South got it's due....all the way around. They brought it down on their own heads. I don't feel sad at all.

[Gurdur]

Why do you select 1830?.
I'll do a new thread OP on that soon, to answer that and more.

[Godless Dave]

the sad thing is the south might have been able to retain political power if they enfranchised their slaves as free citizens and kept them as a cheap labor force.

Seems to me that's what they ended up doing.

[godfry n. glad]

the sad thing is the south might have been able to retain political power if they enfranchised their slaves as free citizens and kept them as a cheap labor force.

Seems to me that's what they ended up doing.

Yeah, but it took some time to dismantle the Reconstruction and get a Supreme Court decision to assure second-class status of the former slaves before the economic oppression was a fact.

[fatherphil]

the sad thing is the south might have been able to retain political power if they enfranchised their slaves as free citizens and kept them as a cheap labor force.

Seems to me that's what they ended up doing.

true

[Shake]

Ever since I read it, when I come across a thread about Lincoln's intentions or feelings wrt slavery, I have to recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/037540158X/internetinfidels), which gave some good insights. The posts by Ymir's blood would make me think he might have read this, too.