Fleming is a great american revolution historian but he is getting a lot of criticism for his position in his new book called "A disease in the public mind" which is:

Since the early days of the 19th century New England has always resented losing their political stronghold on the country to the south (think virginia dynasty & hartford convention). They saw themselves as the rightful heirs to the american political system because they were the birthplace of the american revolution. They latched on to the slavery issue because it was one of the few political stances that they could drum up serious political support for it and was a nice way to get back at the south.

Had the Articles of Confederation been approved, instead of our current Constitution, slavery would have been abolished with the founding of the nation, women would have been given the right to vote, and the power of the federal government would have been greatly restricted.

I don't know if I buy that entirely. The goal of abolitionists were fairly narrow and said next to nothing in terms of what to do after abolition. I don't think a political mindset for an entire region would be build around that.

I tend to agree with you, HOD. John Brown got tired of New Englander's discussions about abolition. He said that he was tired of talk, and what was needed was action. He was originally from Connecticut, but his actions weren't advocated by anyone in New England. He was a loose cannon, whose actions led directly to the Civil War.

I think the most accurate take on pre-civil war attitudes towards abolition etc is by Robert Penn Warren in his book The Legacy of The Civil War. In his 'treasure of virtue' idea he does a great job of demonstrating the shift in mindset that obliterated the old one and paved over its remains with a new one.

If you haven't read that book I think it's the single best book to read in connection to understanding the Civil War and its impact on America's psyche. It's really short anyways.

The Great Alibi and Treasure of Virtue perfectly encapsulate the two ideas that have crippled discussion regarding the war ever since it ended.

You can probably pick up a copy for $10-15 on Amazon.

Honestly, in today's highly politicized and racially charged world it's almost difficult to discuss the topic having not read it. It should be required reading in High Schools across the country.

(06-04-2014 01:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had the Articles of Confederation been approved, instead of our current Constitution, slavery would have been abolished with the founding of the nation, women would have been given the right to vote, and the power of the federal government would have been greatly restricted.

I don't believe for one minute that the Articles of Confederation would had had any affect on slavery because no slave state would adhere to such a measure. All sides knew slavery was going to be an issue, which is why it was specifically left out of the Constitution. It was the very first can kicked down the road.

(06-04-2014 01:51 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had the Articles of Confederation been approved, instead of our current Constitution, slavery would have been abolished with the founding of the nation, women would have been given the right to vote, and the power of the federal government would have been greatly restricted.

I don't believe for one minute that the Articles of Confederation would had had any affect on slavery because no slave state would adhere to such a measure. All sides knew slavery was going to be an issue, which is why it was specifically left out of the Constitution. It was the very first can kicked down the road.

Which ended with the Three-Fifths Compromise, which designated slaves as less than human.

(06-04-2014 01:51 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had the Articles of Confederation been approved, instead of our current Constitution, slavery would have been abolished with the founding of the nation, women would have been given the right to vote, and the power of the federal government would have been greatly restricted.

I don't believe for one minute that the Articles of Confederation would had had any affect on slavery because no slave state would adhere to such a measure. All sides knew slavery was going to be an issue, which is why it was specifically left out of the Constitution. It was the very first can kicked down the road.

what seems to get overlooked is that when the AoC were written the idea that slavery would die soon was a lot more realistic than in the next few decades.

in regards to the OP. I disagree because:
1. it completely ignores the moral aspect of the issue.

2. it is almost like a giant conspiracy theory. there is no way your typical NE voters are all voting out of spite like that.

The great untruth of the popular abolitionist movement is that it was a morality based one. Only a small minority of even strong abolitionist saw it as a moral crusade, and most of those were religious folks.

(06-04-2014 02:10 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:51 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had the Articles of Confederation been approved, instead of our current Constitution, slavery would have been abolished with the founding of the nation, women would have been given the right to vote, and the power of the federal government would have been greatly restricted.

I don't believe for one minute that the Articles of Confederation would had had any affect on slavery because no slave state would adhere to such a measure. All sides knew slavery was going to be an issue, which is why it was specifically left out of the Constitution. It was the very first can kicked down the road.

Which ended with the Three-Fifths Compromise, which designated slaves as less than human.

Only the first in a line of many such compromises. Ultimately, those Northern colonies valued Federal legitimacy more than the issue of slavery. Without such a concession, the is no nation to speak of. I think many of the original framers felt like john0 said; that economically slavery was on its way out anyway, no need to let this issue get in the way of the dream. Damn Eli Whitney!

(06-04-2014 02:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 02:10 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:51 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had the Articles of Confederation been approved, instead of our current Constitution, slavery would have been abolished with the founding of the nation, women would have been given the right to vote, and the power of the federal government would have been greatly restricted.

I don't believe for one minute that the Articles of Confederation would had had any affect on slavery because no slave state would adhere to such a measure. All sides knew slavery was going to be an issue, which is why it was specifically left out of the Constitution. It was the very first can kicked down the road.

Which ended with the Three-Fifths Compromise, which designated slaves as less than human.

Only the first in a line of many such compromises. Ultimately, those Northern colonies valued Federal legitimacy more than the issue of slavery. Without such a concession, the is no nation to speak of. I think many of the original framers felt like john0 said; that economically slavery was on its way out anyway, no need to let this issue get in the way of the dream. Damn Eli Whitney!

there really is no invention like the cotton gin that was built with good intentions and had horrible consequences.

John Brown was a terrorist and was a puppet of a small group of 6 that funded all that he did.

And Harper's Ferry, WV is forever grateful. Without John Brown, Harper's Ferry would be just another small WV town.

So the Federal Government had no issue with the evil consequences of the cotton gin huh? The Fed under Lincoln only wanted to increase the taxes on said crop to 80%. Wow the Northerners really felt others' pain.