"What can we all learn from the Confederacy?" Topic

why did Lincoln want to keep the union together, why tie the North to a backward, under-industrialised, agrarian South following a recognised immoral system?

> Because, by virtue of the South's huge "King Cotton" export trade, the southern states represented the wealthiest region of the United States.

> Because, prior to the Civil War, the sole means of funding the operations of the federal government was via the national import tariff and, on average, something like 80+ pct of the revenue derived from the import tariffs was generated by purchases of imported goods by the southern states. There was no such thing as an income tax in the United States prior to the Civil War. Lincoln drove it through Congress in order to fund the war to prevent the secession of the southern states.

> Any assumption that slavery was at that time broadly viewed as an immoral system is in error. It is a false path to assume that the mores of mid-19th century America coincided with those of our 21st century. Slavery was at the time perfectly legal in the United State of America; and Lincoln had no compunctions (from a political point of view) about its continued practice within the existing slave states. Some, of course, did oppose slavery on moral grounds; but … many (probably most) others did not ….. for example William Tecumseh Sherman (see "Sherman – A Soldier's Passion for Order" by John F Marszalek, pp 45-46). At the end of the day, however, the record is abundantly clear that the war was never about the institution of slavery.

> Why then was Lincoln willing to fight to keep the Union together? Because the southern slave states were the wealthiest region of the nation and consequently the principal source for funding the operations of the national government and, as a consequence, the principal means of funding the industrial and infrastructure (railroads and canals, for example) expansion of the northern states, which was at the time deemed a national priority for the long-term health of the nation. There were of course long-term strategic considerations with a seceded South on the doorstep of the USA, but that was IMO a second-order issue.

The Civil War was about the very same thing that most wars have traditionally been fought over – power, money and the control of it.

B

The southern states represented the wealthiest region of the United States.

Blutarski:
Come on. A brief Google search will show that wasn't the case. It is true that the 1% of the wealthiest Southerners were three times as rich as the Northern 1%, partly because the the North's wealth wasn't concentrated at the top to the extent it was in the South.

Union and Confederate Resources, 1861
Union / Confederacy
Percent of nation's population 71% / 29%
Percent of nation's railroads 71% / 29%
Percent of nation's farm acreage 65% / 35%
Percent of nation's manufacturing workers 92% / 8%
Percent of nation's manufacturing output 92% / 8%
Number of factories 110,000 / 18,000
Railroad mileage 22,000 / 9,000

As North and South lined up for battle, clearly the preponderance of productive capacity, manpower, and agricultural potential lay on the side of the North. Its crops were worth more annually than those of the South, which had concentrated on growing cotton, tobacco, and rice.
Source Citation:
American Military History. Office of the Chief of Military History, United States Army. link

Either way, the record is abundantly clear that the war was never about slavery… The Civil War was about the very same thing that most wars have traditionally been fought over – power, money and the control of it.… The Civil War was about the very same thing that most wars have traditionally been fought over – power, money and the control of it.

Even if you accept that cynical conclusion, that every Southern State was gaslighting the world with their 'Declarations of Succession" where Slavery was the 'Cornerstone' of Southern Culture and THE reason for leaving the Union immediately after an outspoken anti-slavery President was elected, you have to admit:

Slavery was at the heart of the agrarian economic wealth of the South. Don't believe me. All Southern leaders at the time were saying the same thing. Slavery could certainly play into the "Power and Money" motivation.

But to say slavery had *nothing* to do with the war is simply not true, by any economic or political measure.

Lincoln was still President of the United States (aka the Union), even if a few of the states were missing.

why did Lincoln want to keep the union together, why tie the North to a backward, under-industrialised, agrarian South following a recognised immoral system ?

Because, as he said in his 1st inaugural address: His job was to be President of the whole country.

was western expansionism that critical to North and South?

All things are relative, but it was considered very important by both.

why go straight to violence without giving negotiation a chance?

There were efforts to negotiate, but the aims of the two sides were irreconcilable.

was the South really prepared for war or did they expect the North to "let it go"?

Neither side was prepared for war. The Confederates, with some exceptions, seemed to think it would be a short war, and that Britain and France would intervene in order to keep the flow of cotton coming.

why did the South think the civilised European powers would support them – were there pacts in place?

Because a shortage of cotton would cause massive unemployment in Europe. (Unfortunately for the Confederates, there had been bumper crops in the previous few years, so a surplus was already on hand.)

were any negotiations taking place prior to fort sumter?

Yes, Congress tried to work out a compromise, but as I said above the two sides were too far appart.

so when Lincoln was elected he was a known abolitionist it was the will of the majority of voters that he became president so abolition was de facto the will of the majority.

I did read somewhere that the intransience of the southern democrats split the party and thus gave the presidency to Lincoln. was this true?

how important was southern cotton to europe? India and Egypt were coming on stream as suppliers Ive not seen any quantified values for cotton exports and imports. Lancashire was the cotton part of the UK but by no means a vast proportion of the wealth of the UK.

if the Union blockade of the south during the war restricted the supply of cotton why did not the european powers step in to secure their "vital southern cotton" supplies? so was the blockade inefficient or did the southern leaders totally misread their importance to the rest of the world? no offence to the us navy but it was no threat to the royal navy and if britain wanted to break the blockade it could do so.

the slave trade was outlawed by britain at the start of the 19th century and large sums of money and thousand of sailors lives were spent to stop it. Slaves were being freed by purchase in the colonies this is a slight hint at britains dislike of slavery.

Publicly at least slavery was seen as an evil in britain with the non= conformist churches taking the lead and they could command a significant voting base. so no party could openly support the south, besides Victoria was not amused by slavery.

in fact did not britain want the war to carry on to remove any threat to canada real or imagined? and to make a bit of cash supplying both sides with arms.

The Union was still in existence.

South Carolina's secession article specifically dissolved the Union.

How many places do this? This legal unilateral secession argument occurs nowhere but out of the mouths of the Confederacy itself. A series of intricate, nonsensical fragments to prove that secession was legal. Good luck with that vast minority opinion residing in nothing more than the strongest wishful thinking in history.

Additionally, this sort of nonsensical blither declares it's the prevailing view and needs to be satisfactorily disapproved or the CSA was completely right in everything it did and stood for. Do we need to show respect for someone who tells you it's night when it's actually day and then demands that you either disprove their statement or that you have to agree with them? And if you don't, then, in addition, you're bullying them?

I understand that there are a lot of posters that don't understand US Law or the US Constitution and how it operates but to keep on ignoring someone else's knowledge and insisting that their own knowledge is paramount is a someone who just holds a personal viewpoint and nothing more. Especially when it is based solely on the lone, confederate argument and source.

Sorry, this isn't a viewpoint, it's nonsense. Actually, it's worse than nonsense. Don't believe me? Cool. Feast your eyes on this:

Historian Alan T. Nolan refers to the Lost Cause as "a rationalization, a cover-up". After describing the devastation that was the consequence of the war for the South, Nolan states:

Leaders of such a catastrophe must account for themselves. Justification is necessary. Those who followed their leaders into the catastrophe required similar rationalization. Clement A. Evans, a Georgia veteran who at one time commanded the United Confederate Veterans organization, said this: "If we cannot justify the South in the act of Secession, we will go down in History solely as a brave, impulsive but rash people who attempted in an illegal manner to overthrow the Union of our Country."[14]

link

Now, there are these persons who don't like being compared to Neo-confederates but I find it interesting that after weeks to be able to list all the wonderful, positive, lasting, admirable things created by the confederacy, there have been no answers. Nothing.

However, just as it states in the definition of Neo-confederacy, we are right back to the same place, ignore everything else that the Confederacy pulled and pound the table that the secession was legal…based on nothing more substantial that "It's just gotta be". As if this is looking at it from both sides. How is it looking at both sides when the only source to ever make the argument that the Confederacy was legal is the Confederacy itself?

Coincidence?

While we consider this, we are still waiting for all those good things the Confederacy accomplished.

Come on. A brief Google search will show that wasn't the case. It is true that the 1% of the wealthiest Southerners were three times as rich as the Northern 1%, partly because the the North's wealth wasn't concentrated at the top to the extent it was in the South.

McLaddie,

What I presented in my previous post derives from my collegiate study of 19thC US economic history. Research US finances, taxation policy, domestic industrial development policy, the US international trade balance, and the general economic development history of the USA in the decades leading up to the outbreak of the war. Review the growth of the global textile industry over the same period, the impact of the British invention of the power textile loom and the position of the US South as the principal supplier of raw cotton to Great Britain. Those who dismiss as inconsequential the long, acrimonious and divisive struggle between North and South over tariffs are foolish.

Or, feel free to ignore the above – totally up to you.

B

Is the study some place where it can be read? And telling us to research, when another supposeably has, and won't provide the support to back it up … ok. This isn't saying what's being claimed isn't relevant, although if the "study" was only on economics with a complete removal of slavery being a cause (as was stated), things at a minimum aren't adding up on the surface, Meanwhile, at a minimum leaving things out like other cultural, historical, social, and psychological factors as well. When folks start claiming it's all about economics, and rule out slavery as a cause, this completely discounts so much of the human experience, it's hard to take such comments seriously.

Also, it brings others to question who's ignoring what.

Gamespoet
My original post in question appeared at 2:01pm PST on 14 Jan 2023; McLaddie's response appeared 37 minutes later on the same day. I'm not sure exactly how deeply his research could have reached in a half-hour.

I did my research on this fifty years ago. Long gone now. And I'm sure that you are perfectly capable of doing your own homework.

If some measure of curiosity should inspire you to investigate the issues I have raised for your own satisfaction, today's internet should be of considerable assistance. OTOH, if you lack the interest to explore the issues I raised, that is totally up to you as well.

When folks start claiming it's all about economics, and rule out slavery as a cause, this completely discounts so much of the human experience, it's hard to take such comments seriously.

A cause????? I was under the impression that, from your point of view, the issue of slavery was THE CAUSE of the war, and that all else paled into microbial insignificance by comparison.

LOL.

B

IMO we don't really need people to document their college work here at TMP. I have no doubt that there was economic tension between North and South.

I disagree that slavery can be relegated to less than the principle cause of the war. Slaves were a major commodity of the economy of the South. Slavery touched everything. Slaves were not merely part of textile production. As I understand it, those who did not own slaves often aspired to do so. It was a mark of success to own slaves. They might provide labor for any household or farm function, or just about any other labor intensive endeavor. In short, part of a way of life. Their inherent value was a measure of wealth.

Again, as we say repeatedly, from the various articles of secession to the Cornerstone speech it is just not believable that slavery was not foundational to the rationale for secession, presented as it was in the words of slavery's own leaders.

It was the perceived threat to this foundation, not Lincoln's wish to preserve revenue for the Federal government, that drove the secession movement. Lincoln's commitment to preserve the Union as the ultimate duty of the President soon evolved into ending slavery as well.

Blutarski +1

" IMO we don't really need people to document their college work here at TMP. I have no doubt that there was economic tension between North and South."

Tort +1

Gamespoet
My original post in question appeared at 2:01pm PST on 14 Jan 2023; McLaddie's response appeared 37 minutes later on the same day. I'm not sure exactly how deeply his research could have reached in a half-hour.

I'm confused, and wasn't questioning his research or lack of such. Suspect this comment is coming from some sort of thought process, although at the moment it's eluding me.

I did my research on this fifty years ago. Long gone now. And I'm sure that you are perfectly capable of doing your own homework.

If some measure of curiosity should inspire you to investigate the issues I have raised for your own satisfaction, today's internet should be of considerable assistance. OTOH, if you lack the interest to explore the issues I raised, that is totally up to you as well.

My initial curiosity was when I was younger too, and my conclusion wasn't purely based on economics, so if some one is going to come along and share a system of belief where war is all about power, money, and control, and then makes the claim that the ACW was never about slavery, it could be good to have a stronger reason provided than the "do your own homework" mentality being exhibited. To have an economic perspective, bolstered by words like power, money, and control, while coupled with a statement that said, "At the end of the day, however, the record is abundantly clear that the war was never about the institution of slavery", as I said, it doesn't seem to add up on the surface. It also even seems like what's being said is that there wasn't an economic component to slavery, and I can't say that slavery didn't involve power, money, and control. And such a discrepancy also seems to move past the cultural, historical, social, and psychological aspects at the same time. When economics is brought up as the reason, and in a context where slavery is cast aside as if it played no role, than seems like it's not only an issue of the fuller human experience being discounted.

When folks start claiming it's all about economics, and rule out slavery as a cause, this completely discounts so much of the human experience, it's hard to take such comments seriously.

A cause????? I was under the impression that, from your point of view, the issue of slavery was THE CAUSE of the war, and that all else paled into microbial insignificance by comparison.

Seems like quite the assuming, misunderstanding, perhaps pretending happening there.

From OVI …

"IMO we don't really need people to document their college work here at TMP. I have no doubt that there was economic tension between North and South."

Tort +1

"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." Albert Einstein

Ok
Blutarski +2
Tort +2

I was grading low.

> Any assumption that slavery was at that time broadly viewed as an immoral system is in error. It is a false path to assume that the mores of mid-19th century America coincided with those of our 21st century.

Except that for some non-moral reason the majority of Southern States believed there was a movement to abolish slavery; strong enough to justify dissolving the Union.

And let me get this straight. We are using 21st century mores to judge 19th century ones? May I ask what century's mores should we use to interpret a lost 50 year old college term paper?

What makes us think they interpreted things properly back then? 50 years ago, textbooks were also asserting that blacks were much less intelligent than whites; do we have to accept that conclusion because the mores were different? We cant update intentions?

Slavery was at the time perfectly legal in the United State of America;

It was legal because the Slave States made sure it stayed legal. Legal does not equate with moral. However, CSA apologists do like to focus on the "legal" part as if it justifies their behavior.

Legal or not, slavery is at the core of what caused Europe to abstain from supporting the CSA. Maybe their mores were ahead of their times?

and Lincoln had no compunctions (from a political point of view) about its continued practice within the existing slave states.

This is false. Lincoln accepted slavery where it had been long established, refused to compel enforcement of the fugitive slave act, and wanted to re-abolish it in the territories. In fact, Lincoln felt slavery was morally wrong, but felt he had to tolerate it.

Some, of course, did oppose slavery on moral grounds; but … many (probably most) others did not ….. for example William Tecumseh Sherman (see "Sherman – A Soldier's Passion for Order" by John F Marszalek, pp 45-46). At the end of the day, however, the record is abundantly clear that the war was never about the institution of slavery.

And yet, it managed to abolish it…sheer coincidence?

> Why then was Lincoln willing to fight to keep the Union together? Because the southern slave states were the wealthiest region of the nation and consequently the principal source for funding the operations of the national government and, as a consequence, the principal means of funding the industrial and infrastructure (railroads and canals, for example) expansion of the northern states, which was at the time deemed a national priority for the long-term health of the nation. There were of course long-term strategic considerations with a seceded South on the doorstep of the USA, but that was IMO a second-order issue.

And yet, the Morrill Tariff got tied up in Congress and only passed because of Secession.

But it is further evidence that the Slave States were only interested in Union when it benefited them. Which is why, when they wanted out, they had to manufacture an ersatz legal theory which has been parroted by their sympathizers to this day.

The Civil War was about the very same thing that most wars have traditionally been fought over – power, money and the control of it.

And in this case, all of the South's power and money was produced by slave labor.

From OVI …

Blutarski +1

"IMO we don't really need people to document their college work here at TMP. I have no doubt that there was economic tension between North and South."

Tort +1

"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." Albert Einstein

Ok
Blutarski +2
Tort +2

I was grading low.

"Deep breaths are very helpful at shallow parties." Barbara Walters

so when Lincoln was elected he was a known abolitionist it was the will of the majority of voters that he became president so abolition was de facto the will of the majority.

Lincoln was not, strictly speaking, an abolitionist. He merely opposed the EXPANSION of slavery into the newly acquired (not-yet-states) territories. His view was that the Federal government had no power to interfere with slavery in the STATES (as opposed to territories).

HOWEVER, many people, especially in the South, did not make this distinction, and viewed all Republicans as Abolitionists.

South Carolina's secession article specifically dissolved the Union.

The powers that were, in SC, may have THOUGHT they had dissolved the entire Union but at best (worst) they had only removed themselves from it. But it still existed.

The powers that were, in SC, may have THOUGHT they had dissolved the entire Union but at best (worst) they had only removed themselves from it. But it still existed.

You are correct, sir. And to add to your statement, the Confederacy made a lot of decisions based on their unilateral beliefs or what they pretended they believed.

In some ways, the CSA was the First Post Modern Fantasy State.

And one month later, no one has anything we as a nation should be proud of about the Confederacy? Nothing we should teach our children to emulate or aspire to?

Blutarski:

I was responding to two particular post comments of yours and I identified them:

The southern states represented the wealthiest region of the United States.

And I pointed out that perhaps the Southern States held the wealthiest 1% in the U.S., but as a region, [I am assuming all southern states] it simply wasn't the wealthiest in whatever metrics you choose to apply.

IIRC, by the Civil War, the South in exporting raw materials and importing finished goods from Europe had a serious trade deficit and were in debt to Europe. One reason the CSA thought France and England would help save them.

Either way, the record is abundantly clear that the war was never about slavery… The Civil War was about the very same thing that most wars have traditionally been fought over – power, money and the control of it.

Never about slavery? That isn't what the southerners were saying at the time. Obviously, economics were involved, but slavery was at the heart of the South's economics. Their complaints about fugitive slaves, the North's lack of action against the 'theft' of slaves with the Underground Railroad, Bleeding Kansas, the desire for more farming land west, etc. etc. etc. Slavery was at the core of the South's economics.

Fifty years ago, I was studying history too. Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913) and his views were still popular in academia.

I believed then and still do, to hit this Johnny-one-note view of history,

"…the Civil War was about the very same thing that most wars have traditionally been fought over – power, money and the control of it"

reducing every other cause and what contemporaries say are their motivations to insignificance or just gaslighting on their part, is simply bad history.

That is not the same as ignoring economics or power politics as unimportant. Undoubtedly, they have been driving forces in historical events, but not the only ones.

Blutarski:

The Vice President of the Confederate States of American said this in his Cornerstone Speech in 1861:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas [from the U.S.]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
Thus, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

To say that it is ALL about money and power and has "nothing to do with slavery," not about what Stevens claimed was a primary motivation for succession is a problem. You have to either conclude that Stevens shared a widely held delusion about what was important [money and power] or that he was purposely lying to his contemporaries to hide the real motivation: power and money.

Or was it that many men were willing to fight and die for that 'cornerstone' belief beyond a thirst for money and the control of it?

As a Brit I didn't realise how deeply divided U.S. opinion was on the causes of your Civil War. Especially as to whether the South had a right to break from the Union. From my vantage point over the other side of the Atlantic and over 170 years after the event I'd break the debate into two parts. Why did it happen and secondly did the South have a right to leave the Union. To be honest I'd park the legality of secession issue. The original point of what can we learn from the Confederacy is more closely linked to the why.

As a Brit I didn't realise how deeply divided U.S. opinion was on the causes of your Civil War.

It's not deeply divided. 99% of intellectuals, historians etc agree on the causes and 1% live at the Neo-confederate Abbeville institute.

For the general population, the split might be higher, maybe 15% but they can only argue about it on Internet forums citing lost essays as authority.

Especially as to whether the South had a right to break from the Union.

Some hold a completely unexamined opinion that this is the case but outside of the Confederacy itself there aren't any legal cases/arguments/theories that agree about unilateral secession's legality.

Why did it happen and secondly did the South have a right to leave the Union. To be honest I'd park the legality of secession issue. The original point of what can we learn from the Confederacy is more closely linked to the why.

The South was only interested in the Union to the extent that they always got their way. Once they saw that they would be in the minority, they wanted out.

They ruined the Declaration of Independence, came damn close to ruining the Constitution and then split the country in two.

Hilariously, the 3/5ths compromise that gave them initial undue influence in the direction of the country began to run out because of Northern immigration. Immigration was limited to the North because the immigrants could not compete for jobs with Southern slavery.

Now there is good news and bad news. The good news is that Southerners are caring less and less about this Lost Cause business. The bad news is that the Lost Cause has caught fire with many in the North and internationally as a sort of invisible resistance to, well, let's say "change".

To be honest I'd park the legality of secession issue.

Elenderil:

The 'legality' of an issue depends on established, written laws. Assumptions, beliefs and unwritten laws don't apply to any legality. The original Articles of Confederation as written, acknowledged each state's sovereignty [final say] and independence. The Constitution did not.

As James Madison [Who wrote the Bill of Rights and Article ten regarding what powers the states retained]
wrote about the belief that states could withdraw from the Union. He thought:

To say that one state has the right to leave also suggests that other states have the right to leave the one state, jettisoning it from the Union when they wanted to. Such a compact proviso or right was not acceptable.

The belief written in the Declaration of Independence was a community had the right to leave an abusive government. Even there, Madison thought the compact members had to agree to the state's leaving.

Bottom line was the South believed they had the right to leave because of the history of the Revolution and 'states' rights.' Unlike the Articles of Confederation, there was no legal, written law or Constitutional article granting them that right.

Obviously, the Civil War was fought over that belief.
LEGALLY, the Union had the right to secure that union and LEGALLY, the South had no written right or power to leave.

On the other hand, the Thirteen Colonies had no legal right to take up arms against King George's government, but they did so, won the war and so secured recognition as an independent country. The same is true of Spanish colonies in Central and South America.
If the Confederacy had defeated the Union militarily and thus secured its independence, the act of secession would, effectively, have become legal.
The war, however, settled that particular issue in the Union's favour.

@Elenderil

I would advise you do your own research and make your own determinations. Secession and its illegality or legality, is a very complicated question. One that was argued, by far greater minds than mine on both sides of the spectrum, from the time the original Constitution was signed, until the Civil war decided it by force of arms. Great minds have said it was legal. Great minds have said was not. The "original" Constitution did not allow it, but it also did not forbid it.

"…..three of the original thirteen states-Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island-ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each of these states explicitly retained the right to secede. By accepting the right of these three states to leave the Union, has the United States not tacitly accepted the right of any state to leave?"

Jefferson

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it. Thomas Jefferson
First Inaugural Address"

Even those who espoused it at some point, sometimes would change their minds later and take the other side

On multiple occasions different areas of the US threatened secession prior to the Civil War. Either concession by both sides rectified the situation or an end to a war ended the reason for secession for those advocating it (war of 1812).

Check out:
The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798
Essex Junto
Hartford Convention in 1814
The Nullification Act of South Carolina

Read original speeches of Webster, Clay, Calhoun and so many others.
Read original papers of the time.
Read histories prior to the 1980's and then those since.

Lastly read about the "Corwin Admendment". A last minute attempt to stop secession and was supported by Lincoln.

Don't rely in TMP to make your determination. You might as well ask only the Irish who was at fault for the problems in Ireland, with England.

Do your own reading and determination.

The "original" Constitution did not allow it, but it also did not forbid it.

35thOVI:
I think it is always wise to recommend "do your own research."

Considering what the states felt was important to document in the Articles of Confederation, but not the Constitution, 'the also did not forbid it' is again, depending entirely on what isn't said.

There were and are a lot of opinions, beliefs, considerations and conclusions about the Southern States' rights to leave the Union. Some strongly held and some open to change. Who was or is correct is certainly open to interpretation regarding that 'right.'

However, within the definition of "legality," it is pretty cut and dried. Then again, in the whole unraveling of the Union leading to the Civil War, 'legality' usually came in a distant second or third compared to other priorities--and even then created more problems.

For instance, the Dred Scott Decision is seen as bad and racist today, creating serious resentment in the Northern free states. However, under the Constitution then, the Supreme Court really had little choice 'legally.' The Constitution and attendant laws said slaves were property.

@McLaddie 🙂 I don't think any group, prior to 1865, could agree on the legality or illegality. Even those who advocated one way and then changed their minds later, were in turmoil.

In the end, Union force of arms made the ultimate decision. Based on future wars, it was for the best for us and 2 World Wars.

From a letter of Madison to Hamilton, July 20, 1788:

"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification."