well I agree with Constantine that separation have destroyed slvery more quickly, but the expamles he offers are hardly the stuff of a breach of understanding. Constantine Gutzman wrote: > Paul Finkelman says, "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." In > my understanding, there were two main ways. First, the personal liberty > laws were violations of the Constitution's clear requirement that fugitive > slaves be returned to their masters. (Here, I agree with Justice Joseph > Story, not Prof. Finkelman, on the issue of the fugitive slave clause's role > in insuring that the southernmost two states would join the Union in the > first place; yet, I concede that the evidence is not clear-cut. Still, even > if I didn't agree with Story, the fugitive slave clause was part of the > original Constitution.) > > Secondly, Lincoln's election as a purely sectional candidate whose platform > included both of the positions southerners had found most threatening ever > since 1787 (anti-slavery and the promise of a record high tariff -- bane of > George Mason, Patrick Henry, William Branch Giles, Littleton Waller > Tazewell, and a host of other Virginian statesmen, not to mention of other > southerners) augured permanent subjugation of the South. (Yes, I know, > Lincoln repeatedly said that his had not been an anti-slavery candidacy. He > also said, however, that slavery would die as a result of his policy of > keeping it out of the territories. Even if one doubts that > prognostication's validity, the man who made it cannot be seen as having > been other than anti-slavery. Indeed, I do not quite know why anyone wants > to deny that Lincoln was anti-slavery, except that denying it helps absolve > him of responsibility for the outcome of the secession crisis.) > > I agree with Garrison that the original Constitution was a covenant with > death. However, it seems to me that the way to get out of it was not simply > to insist on having the full benefit of union with slaveholders (e.g., the > tariff revenues) without any of the pain. Instead, allowing withdrawal of > the southern states from the Union would have given the North a perfectly > just ground for refusing to return fugitives. In relatively short order, I > think, a societal crisis similar to that which resulted from the war would > have followed upon Union refusal to help enforce the slave system -- or even > Union encouragement of slaves to flee. Of course, that is speculation. > > 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