I think Constantine overstates the "antislavery" nature of the Union in 1860;
had the South stayed, the Democrats (controlled by southerners) would have still
held the Senate with no chance of Republicans ever controlling it; southerners
were still a majority on the Supreme Court, and counting the doughfaces on the
Court, it was *entirely* proslavey with McLean and Curtis gone; Lincoln won
close races in much of the North and might every well have lost in 1864;
furthermore, the proslavery Union of 1787 admitted that the national govt. could
ban slavery in the territories (Ordinance of 1787 repassed in 1790 or 91); the
south now had a Supreme Court decision saying this could not happen; If
anything, the laws of the nation were *more* proslavery in 1861 than 1787 or
1790 or even 1820.  The bargain of 1787 was not that the South would always
control the presidency, but that the U.S. Govt.  could NEVER end slavery in the
existing states; that remained and Lincoln recognized it.  Only the war allowed
that to change.

In 1787 the South was a minority, with according to the analysis of the age,
only 5 of 13 states.  Del. was considered northern.  By 1860 there were 15 slave
states (Del was now clearly southern) and only 18 free states; the South had a
greater % of the states in 1860 than 1789.

I would ask Constantine, whose analysis I also find interesting and useful, to
offer some concrete examples of how in 1861 the bargain was breached.

Paul Finkelman

Constantine Gutzman wrote:

> Paul Finkelman says, "All of Constantine's examples are of minority regions
> *forced* to join
> countries that were led by monarchs or dictators.  The Ukraine had no
> choice in joined in the USSR (which in any event denied all people their
> voice in the government.  After the fall of the USSR it was not
>  unreasonable to reconsider the relations between these places and the
>  new Russia.  Jefferson would argue they might have a right to revolt
>  because they were denied representation because the Soviet system, even
>  under Gorbachev, was not democracy.  The South was not forced to sign
>  the Constitution, or join the United States.  We might have been better
>  off if the South had created a separate slaveholding republic and the
>  North had been free to develop without the albatross of slavery.  But
>  that is not how it happened."
>
> One wonders when, exactly, Ukraine was forced to join the USSR, and where it
> was before.  The word "Ukraine," "Ukrainia" in Ukrainian, comes from an Old
> Slavic word for "borderland" (which is why the region of Croatia is called
> "Krajina," a cognate word).  Borderland of what?  Of Russia, of course.
> Ukraine and Russia were never separate, except momentarily, until now.
>
> Finkelman's point about the southern states joining the Union voluntarily
> only makes sense if the Union they tried to leave was the same as the one
> they agreed to join.  Of course, as many scholars (including Finkelman) have
> shown, the southerners agreed to join a pro-slavery Union, then left when
> the Union morphed into something else.  Despite the fact of slavery's
> immorality and of its centrality to their decision to secede, I do not see
> how the Union could be said to remain binding on them in those
> circumstances.
>
> As to his statement that "Jefferson would argue they might have a right to
> revolt
> because they were denied representation because the Soviet system, even
> under Gorbachev, was not democracy," I think it incorrect.  Jefferson never
> said that so long as the Union was a democracy, no state could leave.  In
> his famous June 1798 letter to John Taylor, he said that the time for
> secession had not YET arrived because Federalist policies might yet be
> negated.  The clear implication was that if they were not negated, the time
> for secession might arrive.
>
> Constantine Gutzman
> Prof. K.R. Constantine Gutzman
> Department of History
> Western Connecticut State University
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK  74104-3189

phone 918-631-3706
Fax   918-631-2194
e-mail:   [log in to unmask]

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html