Well, since I’m not getting any response to my futurology thread, let’s try this. I say bloody, sectional conflict was the natural result of structural compromises embedded in the Constitution. To wit:
[ul][li]The entrenchment of slavery as a Southern institution was aided by the three-fifths compromise, which guaranteed to slave owners the exercise of a voice disproportionate to their numbers. As a result, slave states received twenty-five additional seats in the House of Representatives, an institutionalization of slave-holding interests.[/li]
[li]Each state was given the right to choose “times, places, and manner” of elections (Article I, Sec. 4), as well as the right to decide who could and could not vote (Article I, Sec. 2), which secured political power for the slave-holding status quo within the Southern states.[/li]
[li]Equal state representation in the Senate provided slave states with a near veto over legislation and an absolute veto over constitutional amendments, so long as the number of states allowing slaves roughly equalled the number prohibiting them. This set the stage for enduring, open conflict between North and South, as each new state which gained admittance to the union found itself the subject of a high-stakes tug-of-war for political influence.[/ul][/li]
Southerners were fearful of Northern encroachment into their sovereign domain from the outset of the union. Attempts at nationalism–such as Henry Clay’s “American System”–were seen by Southern leaders as attacks upon their cultural autonomy. And Southern threats of secession became common reactions to any sectional conflict–be it economic (the Tariff of Abomination in 1828), racial (possible diplomatic recognition of Haiti in 1826), or political (the admission of California, leading to the Compromise of 1850). Lincoln’s election may have fueled other states to join in South Carolina’s zealotry for secession, but if it hadn’t been him it would have been someone else–there had been similar rumblings about the candidacy of John Fremont four years earlier.
Basically, I’m saying that the Framers were unwilling to deal substantively with the issue of slavery, and simply allowed for the question to be deferred (and its presence embodied within the Constitution) until it could no longer be ignored. Now, maybe they could have preempted future conflict by more firmly addressing the contradiction between the independence America had fought to gain and the continued existence of slavery within its borders. Had they done this, though, it’s likely that the Southern states would have refused to ratify the Constitution–and the U.S. might have begun its life not as one nation but two.
Instead, in the spirit of compromise which pervaded the Framing, the Constitution clearly allowed for the accommodation of Southern society–and in doing so, legitimized two versions of America would would necessarily prove bloodily incompatible eventually.
(It’s important to realize that the Southern leaders didn’t view their cause as revolutionary, but as a struggle to retain a way of life institutionalized in this country since its beginning. Jefferson Davis said, “We are resisting revolution. …We are not engaged in a Quixotic fight for the rights of man; our struggle is for inherited rights… We are upholding the doctrines of the Federal Constitution. We are conservative.”)
Thoughts?
And I was in a deliberative mood last night, so I started another thread, one with a more direct question. Thanks for the heads-up, though. It’s kinda weird, 'cause I actually was planning on saying “Cecil, sell Susie’s seashells soonest” later this afternoon. Now I might just hold off till next week.