|
From 1820-1850 the rule was for every Free state admitted, a Slave state was admitted to keep the number of Senators equal. With the California Gold Rush California, only annexed in 1848 (But Americans had been living in California since the 1820s) had the 50,000 residents to meet the minimum threshold to become a state. Texas had come into the Union in 1845 and with its admission there were no areas suitable for Cotton Farming (except with extensive irrigation that has permitted Cotton to be grown even in Southern California today). Oklahoma, was below the line for Slave states but had been reserved for Native Americans since at least the 1830s thus NOT admissible (Even if Oklahoma had 50,000 residents in 1850). Thus in 185o the South was facing a crisis of its own creation. The South had been the area of the US most in favor of the War with Mexico, seeing the areas to the America's south West, present day Arizona and New Mexico, potential slave states, but the people who went through that area during the War with Mexico quickly reported it was unsuitable for Cotton and thus NOT a good area for slaves. The California Gold Rush and the subsequent rapid increase in the population of California to 50,000 plus (Mostly in what is now Northern California, Southern California had a very small population of Mexican descent). California meet the requirements for state hood but given that most of its population was from New England and opposed to Slavery, wanted to come in as a "Free State". Thus the South, which had supported the war with Mexico, faced a situation where the equal representation in the Senate was doomed do to admission of the first state from the area taken from Mexico. The South almost went into revolt on that prospect and to calm the South down the "Compromise of 1850" was adopted. The South accepted California into the Union, but in exchange for several things the South Wanted (One of which was an more effective FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act).
My point is the filibuster did NOT stop any debate on Slavery in the Senate, the Senate never had the votes to pass any law on Slavery till after 1850. After 1850 the South made it clear it would revolt if slavery was even threatened, thus the US Supreme Court wrote the Dred Scott Case as part of the effort to keep the South in the Union, and the Presidents of the 1850s all promised to veto any law that restricted Slavery. Even Lincoln said he would NOT disturb Slavery in the state where it existed, but the mere fact Lincoln was elected without a single vote from the South AND from an Anti-Slavery party the south did revolt.
Now, while the Senate, prior to the Civil War, did NOT have any rule as to discussing Slavery, the House of Representatives did. This was technically to protect the minority rights of South (The South had long lost the population race to the North by 1820, thus the South's efforts after 1820 was to the Senate alone). This ended in the 1840s but given the situation in the Senate not a factor till the 1850s.
My point is the filibuster was NOT needed by the Antebellum South. Prior to 1850 the South had 50% of all senators (And often the Vice President or the President) thus the South did NOT need to exercise the Filibuster and thus was NOT used. In the 1850s the South no longer had 50% of the Senate but the situation in the Country was deteriorating. Yes in the 1850s the US was booming, Railroads expanded heavy in the 1850s, Gold from California permitted the US, for the first time in US History, to rely only on US minted coins (the US only "retired" Spanish pieces of Eight i.e. the Mexican Dollar, as legal tender in 1857), and the South was exporting more and more Cotton to England (something like 90% of US Exports in 1860 was Cotton). Yes the US was booming, was the country was dividing on the issue of Slavery. Politicians of the time period were more concerned about trying to keep the country together then anything else (Thus the President of the US knew of the Dred Scott Decision before it was published, thus President Buchanan could say he would support whatever the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott, knowing what it would be but also knowing that any American who heard his statement would assume he made it without knowing how the court would rule). It has been said that President Buchanan's viewed his chief job as President was to avoid a civil war during his Presidency (He failed, the Civil War started AFTER Lincoln was elected but before Lincoln took office).
Just pointing out that even in the 1850s the Filibuster was NOT viewed by the South as its main weapon. Till 1860 every winning President had had to have won at least one Southern State to get elected. In 1860 Lincoln won the Presidency without a Single Southern Vote. The South then revolted rather then rely on the Filibuster. Given the rules in regard to the Filibuster it would have been of little use. You needed at least 1/3 of the Senate to exercise it AND you were in effect shutting down the Government (Which is what happened in 1864 during the Civil Rights Filibuster). No one was willing to do that in the 1850s so it was not used in regard to Slavery (And used rarely till the present rule was adopted in 1972, reduced the votes needed to stop a filibuster from 67 to 60 but apparently dropped the requirement that you keep on speaking ON THAT SAME SUBJECT, all that is needed today is to say you have the Votes to exercise a Filibuster then the Senate goes on to other business. You do NOT shut down the Government under this system, but all that did was drop the cost to exercise a Filibuster. What we need is to return to the old 2/3 rule AND that other business does NOT take place till the filibuster is withdrawn.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
