The War of North Rebellion
- FortBrooke1824
- hawglips
- hawglips
- FortBrooke1824
- FortBrooke1824
- Wrap10
- FortBrooke1824
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» FortBrooke1824 - A different spin
While most of us have heard the term War of Northern Aggression I have decided to coin a new term at least for me LOL as the War of Northern Rebellion.I realize I'm putting myself out on a limb here for my facts may not be correct however here goes nothing.
It seems to me that the South ever since the days of George Washington held the power in the United States government up until the days of the Civil War.
Most if not all of the Presidents who held two terms prior to the War were former slave holders. The majority of the members of the Supreme Court until that time were from the South. The chairman of the Ways and Means committee and the Speaker of the House most of the time were from the South.
But I started to think why? When you think about it only one in ten people in the South even had slaves yet the same one out of ten constantly held important positions in government Congressmen,Senators, Governors in both state and federal positions.
Then I started to think back to the 3/5 rule which was made basically so the South would enter the Union to start with. In my opinion the 3/5 rule gave the South the power they enjoyed up until the Civil War. Of course women and children could not vote back then. You could take the position that the average male was voting for his entire family during an election. However if a slave owner had 100 slaves then the way I understand it he had 60 votes and 61 includeing himself. And if he had 300 slaves then he had 181 total votes, against that one say up in Illinois.
This type of power would help me to understand why such things as the Fugitive Slave law and future territories were needed by these people of enmorous power.
It would also seem that the South was most fearful of a slave rebellion. ie Nat Turners or John Browns. It would also explain why some members of our government prior to the War wanted to free slaves in the District of Columbia. The states held that decision on their own but DC was not a state but rather the federal government. So strong was the fear that if slavery were out lawed in DC that soon parts of Maryland and Virginia might have slave up risings.
With the split of the Democrats in 1860 the Republicans and many Northern people may have felt for the first time they controlled the government and not the South. And that is why I have coined the phase the War of Northern Rebellion. There are only about 100 names for our American Civil War whats wrong with one more? LOL
-- posted by FortBrooke1824
» hawglips - Re: A different spin
In response to message posted by FortBrooke1824:"However if a slave owner had 100 slaves then the way I understand it he had 60 votes and 61 includeing himself. And if he had 300 slaves then he had 181 total votes, against that one say up in Illinois."
Dennis, is this correct?
The way I understand it, the Constitution merely used the 3/5 rule to award seats in Congress according to population. The benefit was extended to districts generally, and not to any voter over another.
As the (1/10) slave owner within a congressional district benefitted by the 3/5 rule, so did all of the remaining (9/10) voters in that district. The district benefitted as a whole by the number of slaves residing there, with no extra voting power given to the slave owner in particular.
Hal
-- posted by hawglips
» FortBrooke1824 - No it does not look right Hal
I would say you are right on the 3/5's issue-- posted by FortBrooke1824
» FortBrooke1824 - Hal when you say that the district benefitted as a whole by the
Hal when you say that the district benefitted as a whole by the slaves living there are you sugguesting that the slave owners were acting in their behalf at the voting booth?I did not think that you were but the way it was worded (and I do the same thing at times) made me wonder.
-- posted by FortBrooke1824
» Wrap10 - Re: Hal when you say that the district benefitted as a whole by
In response to message posted by FortBrooke1824:Hal is right on the 3/5th clause. It was used to allocate seats in the House to the slave states, and also for allocating electoral votes. It was not actually broken down by individual slave owners. One person still only got one vote, whether he had no slaves or a thousand slaves. But, his state would gain extra votes in Congress, and also in national elections.
But I think the larger point you were making about the North is valid. The 3/5th clause was intended to help maintain the balance of power between the two sections at the national level. But in reality, it helped the South to dominate that balance of power for most of the years leading up to the war. This came to be a source of great resentment in the North.
It is often referred to as the War of Northern Aggression by some folks even today, but I don't think there's much question that many northerners at the time viewed it as a war of defense, in the larger sense of the word. They were protecting the Union, and all they felt it stood for, against an attempt to destroy it. That was how the collective North looked at it. I touched on this briefly in an article series about the three major war theaters.
-- posted by Wrap10
» FortBrooke1824 - The South was in the saddle
Yes Wrap you are correct about the 3/5 rule being used to bring a balance. While watching a book review on C-SPAN the other day an author was trying to make this same point.He said the South was dominate in the elections from Washington to Buchanan for the most part. The 3/5 rule kept getting more and more votes for the South.
So there might be a valid case for the War of Northern Rebellion in the political sense of the word. The War of Northern Agression to me just referred to the US troops invading the South.
Thanks for setting me on the right course Perry and Hal.
-- posted by FortBrooke1824
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.