The Constitution and the Issue of Slavery, A new Look at it. (part II )

Prior to the Civil war and prior to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States the Union was made up of 34 States, 16 that could be called slave States. This left 18 States that were identified a free States at the time. Based on these simple facts one could assume that ratification of any amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery would be considered as very improbable.

While there were threats of secession prior to Lincoln's election history reports that it was his election that became the straw that broke the camel's back. Seven States seceded from the union prior to his inauguration. And upon the attack at Fort Sumter four more States seceded from the union. These eleven States made up what is called the Confederacy.

Neither President Buchanan nor President Lincoln recognized a State's right to secede from the union and thus considered what the southern States did as a rebellion. They considered secession as going against the will of the founding fathers of setting up a perpetual union.

This is opposed to the idea of the Constitution being a compact or contract among the States which each State entered into willingly therefore should be allowed to leave willingly. It is this concept that is the foundational basis of State rights or State sovereignty.

While everyone is in agreement that the slave issue was the dominant issue of the day and it was that issue that ultimately led to its unfortunate bloody conclusion the right of the present States to have legalized slavery was not the focus of the debate. It was the expansion of slavery into new territories which could be a real threat to the political fortunes of this nation that was the focus. This was characterized by use of the term of “slave power” by northern politicians.

“The problem posed by slavery, according to many Northern politicians, was not so much the mistreatment of slaves (a theme that abolitionists emphasized), but rather the political threat to American republicanism, especially as embraced in Northern free states. The Free Soil Party first raised this warning in 1848, arguing that the annexation of Texas as a slave state was a terrible mistake. The Free Soilers rhetoric was taken up by the Republican party as it emerged in 1854.”

“Worse, said the Republicans, the Slave Power, deeply entrenched in the "Solid South", was systematically seizing control of the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. Senator and governor Salmon P. Chase of Ohio was an articulate enemy of the Slave Power, as was Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts.”

It was in the election of Lincoln that some saw that "slave power" was broken and a good reason for the secession of the Southern States from the union as exemplified by the words of Salmon Chase in congratulating Lincoln for winning the election;

“The object of my wishes and labors for nineteen years is accomplished in the overthrow of the Slave Power, ...”

In conclusion with this knowledge I know a different viewpoint but also brings up a big question of the intent of the founding fathers in regards to what they expected the Constitution to mean. Did they see it as a compact or did they see it as creating a perpetual union?

All Quotes were taken from the Wikipedia on the subject of Slave Power