IOTL many abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison were not fond of the constitution, with Garrison calling it a "An Agreement with Hell". In fact, his alliance with Frederick Douglass ended when Douglass adopted the more mainstream abolitionist view that the constitution could be interpreted as an anti-slavery document. Had most abolitionists agreed with Garrison and had wanted a new constitution, how would American history change?
WI: Abolitionists wanted new constitution
- Thread starter lerk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- constitution slavery
They ask for a new constitution but are ultimately happy with the Abolition amendment. I assume that their objection to the constitution was the system of checks and balances that kept getting in the way of implementing nation-wide anti-slavery laws, such as the over-representation of the Slave States in the Senate, 3/5th compromise, etc.
When the Amendment goes through then the argument against the Constitution is rendered moot.
When the Amendment goes through then the argument against the Constitution is rendered moot.
If it were a Constitutional Convention like the first, and they framed it as an "attempt to repair the wounds of our republic in the manner it was likewise born" they might have a shot.
Still, Lincoln wouldn't support it and neither would most War Democrats and Republicans.
Even trying to do so would have been an epic failure. It would never have come close to happening.
If they were going to do that, it would have to be for a hell of a lot more issues than just pissed-off slaves and abolitionists. OTL was rife with those, and three amendments was enough at the time.
Something like this would have to address everything from soup to nuts, and that includes secession, the states that broke away, and maybe if they’re smart all the damn holes that were in the Constitution in the first place, like presidential succession.
It wouldn't.
Abolitionists (as distinct from Free-Soilers) were too small a minority for it to matter greatly what they thought.
We're assuming the Civil War happens as in OTL but then instead of the 13th-15th Amendments the entire thing gets rewritten, right? Because that looks like a way more interesting (and plausible) scenario in terms of state formation. Presumably we see the following changes:
- Instead of the 13th Amendment, the new constitution says explicitly that all male citizens age 21 or more are eligible to vote, which would have enormous impact on the feasibility of Jim Crow.
- Right to privacy, couched in language like secrecy of the mail. It's something democrats in mid-19c Europe wrote into their constitutions, and the US would do the same.
- More explicit delineation of federal vs. state competencies. Giving the feds exclusive rights to regulate railroads is a near-certainty, and depending on whether there is a corresponding rule that roads are a state competency, this could seriously influence American transportation policy in the 20c.
- It's possible there would be no mandatory apportionment of taxes, making the 16th Amendment unnecessary. I'm less certain about this, because the GOP was the protectionist party and in the UK at least the push for income taxes came from the Liberals, while the Tories preferred to fund the government out of tariffs. But the GOP was never the do-nothing-keep-the-rotten-boroughs party that the 19c Tories were; a lot of American state formation came from the GOP, not the Democrats.
- The amendment process gets easier - 2/3 of both houses, no state ratification (the GOP would definitely be disempowering the states in advance of readmitting the South).
Re 21c contentious issues, I imagine there's no real change to either gun rights (that comma in the 2nd Amendment probably gets deleted, though) or citizenship (the people who wrote the 14th Amendment knew they were enshrining second-generation immigrant citizenship and were for that and against the Know-Nothings). Abortion rights get read politically the same way they are today. Whatever language the 1860s' Republicans put in about free enterprise does not change labor vs. business relationships one bit.
- Instead of the 13th Amendment, the new constitution says explicitly that all male citizens age 21 or more are eligible to vote, which would have enormous impact on the feasibility of Jim Crow.
- Right to privacy, couched in language like secrecy of the mail. It's something democrats in mid-19c Europe wrote into their constitutions, and the US would do the same.
- More explicit delineation of federal vs. state competencies. Giving the feds exclusive rights to regulate railroads is a near-certainty, and depending on whether there is a corresponding rule that roads are a state competency, this could seriously influence American transportation policy in the 20c.
- It's possible there would be no mandatory apportionment of taxes, making the 16th Amendment unnecessary. I'm less certain about this, because the GOP was the protectionist party and in the UK at least the push for income taxes came from the Liberals, while the Tories preferred to fund the government out of tariffs. But the GOP was never the do-nothing-keep-the-rotten-boroughs party that the 19c Tories were; a lot of American state formation came from the GOP, not the Democrats.
- The amendment process gets easier - 2/3 of both houses, no state ratification (the GOP would definitely be disempowering the states in advance of readmitting the South).
Re 21c contentious issues, I imagine there's no real change to either gun rights (that comma in the 2nd Amendment probably gets deleted, though) or citizenship (the people who wrote the 14th Amendment knew they were enshrining second-generation immigrant citizenship and were for that and against the Know-Nothings). Abortion rights get read politically the same way they are today. Whatever language the 1860s' Republicans put in about free enterprise does not change labor vs. business relationships one bit.