| January 17 |  |
Editor says, what if the US Civil War was avoided? muses Eric Lipps. Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
This story was published in the January 2013 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1861, the so-called "Crittenden Compromise" is narrowly passed by the U.S. Congress, averting the threatened secession of slaveholding southern states.
The Crittenden Compromise by Eric LippsThe Compromise, proposed by Kentucky Sen. John J. Crittenden (pictured) the previous December, is highly controversial. In its original form, it included several constitutional amendments which effectively locked in slavery forever where it then existed, made all laws in free states which interfered with the Fugitive Act or similar legislation unconstitutional, forbade Congress from interfering in the interstate slave trade or from abridging slavery in areas under federal control within a slave state, and extended the Mason-Dixon Line at 36o30' across the continent to the Pacific. Slavery was to be forever legal below that line. Only this last provision and the prohibition against federal encroachment on slavery in slave-state territory under federal control have survived, in effect cutting North America in two sections, slaveholding and non-slaveholding, and leaving the issue of fugitive slaves an open source of contention.
Also abandoned, despite furious lobbying by southern congressmen, was the provision that the Compromise could not be overturned by any constitutional amendment adopted thereafter. A nasty floor fight in the Senate over this issue nearly sank the Compromise, which was rescued only when Crittenden and Mississippi's Jefferson Davis came to an agreement that the Compromise could be altered or ended by constitutional amendment but not by any federal law or resolution.
Outgoing President James Buchanan welcomes "this peaceful resolution of the trouble between the sections of this country, which might otherwise have had to be tried by force of arms". Others warn that the issue has not been settled, and that Buchanan's trial by arms has merely been postponed. Among them is President-elect Abraham Lincoln, who declares, "A nation cannot forever endure half-slave and half-free". Lincoln's statement sets the stage for what will be a turbulent presidency.
Entry posted by
Eric Lipps
© Eric Lipps,2007-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Abraham Lincoln, Crittenden Compromise, Slavery, Civil War, America.
~ Also if you reflect on the Sons of Confederacy award to southern fighting slave Siles Chandler in 1994 what I find interesting is the lifespan of the institution in a breakaway state. Working on a related thread on this topic now..
~ By that time I think the South had worked itself into such a frenzy that secession would have happened, no matter what.
~ This level of interference in the rights of states could have sparked considerable successionist agitation in the north.
~ Zero chance this one flies. The killer is the personal liberty laws. North was not willing to take Dixie dictation. The probable compromise would be to give slave holders inconvenienced by this a right to bring suit against the USG for fair market value of lost property.
~ Zero chance of this. California was already a Free State and would never go along with being divided in half -- there weren't that many pro-slavers in California anyway. Known locally as "Chivalry Democrats" or the 'Shivs" -- they were a small group traditionally allied with Irish Catholic pols. Fresh in everyone's mind at the time were the two Committees of Vigilance uprisings of 1851 and 1855 -- both organized to suppress criminal gangs associated with the Shivs and the Irish. The 1855 Committee had a strength of 5,000 men. it included four future Union Army generals and a colonel who was killed at Gettysburg. if word of this reached California, there would be Shivs, Irish pols, and Australians (their favored goons) hanging from every tree in the state.
~
~ Congress has no power to partition a state. California was a Free State, and would remain one. This "compromise" wouldn't have made the South more populous, or richer. History was moving against the south economically, and any further delay would have strengthened the north.
~ Yes this would have required cooperation from the CA legislature or a constitutional amendment. So would have much of the proposed compromise. So once one is drafting an omnibus amendment one more clause on CA is easy. The killer is personal liberty. Even northern racists found the slave catchers annoying.
~ Shouldn't that be "Mississippi's Jefferson Davis"? (or could be part of the POD) Fixed - thanks. Ed
~ Under the Constitution, Congress can indeed partition a state--IF it has that state's consent. Whether California would have provided that consent I don't know, but I don't see it as unbelievable.
~ Whoops--it should read "Mississippi's" Jefferson DaVIS, NOT "vIRGINIA'S". My bad. Fixed - thanks. Ed
~ A partition of California -- it would have sparked a civil war. The pro-Southern Shivs already lost to the Vigilantes -- twice -- and they would lose again. And this time, it would be very, very, bloody. In 1855, the Vigilantes were able to organize 5,000 men -- many of them French and German military veterans, into battalions. There was simply no center of Southern population that would allow them to do anything like that. it might take a few weeks to put them down, but the Shivs would lose. Northerners controlled the ships and could have occupied Los Angeles and San Diego at will. If Texan volunteers tried to come to the Shivs' aid, they wouldn't have any better luck than they did during the Civil War, when local New Mexico volunteers drove them out. (And the idea that 3/4 of the states would have agreed to splitting California is not realistic.)
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
