Greenville
Banned
What if an Republican American president was elected into office before 1860 and managed to use the anti-slavery majority in both houses of Congress to ban slavery fully either through a constitutional amendment or otherwise?
Also, it most assuredly won't be by Constitutional Amendment (at least until the South has seceded as OTL), as there is no conceivable way you could get the required supermajority of states to agree to it.
You'd have to have individual states ban slavery that didn't in OTL.
Bribes worked in the 1920s, in the 1830s it should be easier to pass them out undetected than 90 years later
Sure, S Carolina is famously too small to be a republic and too big to be an insane asylum, but if they knew that there was no chance any state north of them would secede, would even they be crazy enough to try to take on the Union?
I'm curious how many states would have to be firmly in the 'never secede' camp to convince the ardent secessionists that they didn't have a chance.
Sure, S Carolina is famously too small to be a republic and too big to be an insane asylum, but if they knew that there was no chance any state north of them would secede, would even they be crazy enough to try to take on the Union?
Sure, S Carolina is famously too small to be a republic and too big to be an insane asylum, but if they knew that there was no chance any state north of them would secede, would even they be crazy enough to try to take on the Union?
Indeed. They were prepared to go it alone iOTL until Andrew Jackson threatened the wrath of God on them.Yes, they would...
Indeed. They were prepared to go it alone iOTL until Andrew Jackson threatened the wrath of God on them.
Since the US is supposedly a union of States, freely entered into, and there is no explicit prohibition of secession in the Constitution, and 'that which is not forbidden is allowed', I think the Southern States had every right to secede. Of course, the CSA would have been a 3rd World hellhole, but that was there choice.
The concept that secession is 'unconstitutional' requires ... creative ... thinking. (Of course, the SCOTUS does that from time to time.)
As others have pointed out in other threads, 'perpetual' in a treaty simply means that there's no specific end date.By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
As others have pointed out in other threads, 'perpetual' in a treaty simply means that there's no specific end date.