Posted on 12/08/2019 6:35:40 PM PST by bitt
Also this isn't much of a rebuttal. Usually you want to try something that addresses the actual facts of the topic and leave off attempting ad hominems.
To paraphrase Dickens, and in keeping with the season, if I could work my will, every idiot who goes about with "Lincoln started it" on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should!
Precisely. More’s the pity.
Others are not obliged to participate in your delusions.
Hence the term 'paraphrase' and it's obvious you have never read A Christmas Carol
I suppose it's because you didn't much care for what Dickens actually said on the matter, and of course I will remind you again that Dickens was very much anti-slavery, but could still see the truth of the situation.
Based on his single visit to the states he's what passes as an expert on the U.S. in your world. And as you are want to do, you take his opinions and treat them as fact.
Visit? How long did this "visit" take, and how many people in both the North and the South did he have discussions with?
You should read about his "visit" in his book.
I have conveniently provided you with a link to his entire book, and I have also conveniently provided you with an additional link to his commentary on slavery and I am very much in favor of letting the man speak for himself rather than paraphrasing something he said into something he did not say.
I think that just as now, you have to go to the foreign papers to read the truth about what is happening in America, so too you occasionally have to do the same in history. American narrators are often all too biased to be trusted as being objective.
Let us parse out this statement:
1. “We know the North had no concern for the slaves......” a) Who is “we”? b) Define “the North”. c)Please clarify, “no concern for the slaves.”
2. “........because the Northern Congress...”. Say what? It was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of Congress.
3. “.......and with Lincoln’s urging,....” Surely you meant to say Buchanan.
4. “......passed the Corwin Amendment.” Of course no such thing ever happened. An Amendment requires ratification by the States. And certain States had already seceded by the time President Lincoln mentioned the Corwin Amendment in his First Inaugural Address.
5. “....which would make the Union into a nation that passed a constitutional amendment to preserve slavery.” When you say “Union”, do you mean the entire nation? Or, do you intend to imply the “North” would end up being a separate “nation” that passed a constitutional amendment to “preserve slavery”? Of course, you and I both know that the “proposed amendment” did not have as its “intent” to preserve slavery for the whole United States. The proposed amendment put the issue of slavery up to each individual State. You know, like States Rights and such. I do recall the time when you made the comment on a CW thread that President Lincoln had declared that he “had no objection to Slavery being made express and irrevocable. Remember that? Good times.
Roughly five and a half months and I'm sure quite a few.
You should read about his "visit" in his book.
I've read it. You are aware the visit was 20 year before his letter containing that quote aren't you?
I think that just as now, you have to go to the foreign papers to read the truth about what is happening in America, so too you occasionally have to do the same in history. American narrators are often all too biased to be trusted as being objective.
Of course you are because without opinion presented as fact you would have nothing.
Powers that be in the North. You know, the Robber Barons, the Corrupt Politicians, the Tax and Spend Liberals, and most of the general public.
2. “........because the Northern Congress...”. Say what? It was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of Congress.
The seven Southern states that made up the original Confederacy had already seceded and withdrew their representatives. What was left was mostly Northern States, with Corwin assuring Ohio, and Seward assuring New York would pass the amendment.
When I say "Northern Congress", I mean what was left of Congress after the original seven confederate states had withdrawn. It was a North heavy Congress that passed that amendment.
3. “.......and with Lincoln’s urging,....” Surely you meant to say Buchanan.
Seward was Lincoln's front man on passage in the Senate. I've read articles that indicate Lincoln D@mn near wrote the amendment himself, and then used proxies to shift the "credit" onto other people. In any case, Lincoln did urge it's passage in his first inaugural address, and he took the additional step of writing letters to all the governors informing them of it's passage through the Congress.
4. “......passed the Corwin Amendment.” Of course no such thing ever happened.
It most certainly did pass the Congress, with mostly Northern State votes. The word "passed" is still correct in that context, and that is clearly the intended context because we all know it did not "pass" all the states.
Of course, you and I both know that the “proposed amendment” did not have as its “intent” to preserve slavery for the whole United States.
What does "intent" have to do with the consequences of what would actually happen if that amendment passed? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. "Intent" means nothing. Consequences mean everything, and the consequence of what they had done would have been to extend legal slavery far into the future.
Yes, their "intent" was to keep the Southern states in the Union, but their means of attempting it was to create a condition of perpetual legal slavery.
The point here is that they cared more about keeping control of the Southern states than they did about the slaves.
So, we get to the end of your spiel, and not one lie have you found in what I said. This validates my point that you are seeing something that wasn't there.
You couldn't even find a lie with all your parsing.
Hardly qualifies for the usage of the word "visit" to describe it, does it?
I've read it. You are aware the visit was 20 year before his letter containing that quote aren't you?
You think anything changed in the intervening years?
Of course you are because without opinion presented as fact you would have nothing.
I don't know, my arguments are pretty heavy with facts, such as the Congress passed the Corwin amendment. That is a fact.
This demonstrates that the Northern Congress was more interested in keeping control of the South than it was in helping the slaves, and I believe that is also a fact.
If you can somehow explain how this proposed amendment was in the best interests of slaves, i'll withdraw my claim.
The Corwin amendment was a last ditch effort by the north to keep the southern states in the Union. In fact President Buchanan specifically asked Congress to come up with laws to placate the south about slavery.
“While still in office until Lincoln’s inauguration, Democratic President James Buchanan declared secession to be a constitutional crisis and asked Congress to come up with a way to reassure the southern states that the incoming Republican administration under Lincoln would not outlaw slavery.
Specifically, Buchanan asked Congress for an “explanatory amendment” to the Constitution that would clearly confirm the right of the states to allow slavery. A three-member committee of the House of Representatives headed by Rep. Thomas Corwin of Ohio got to work on the task.”
And here is what President Lincoln said about the amendment in his first inaugural address;
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Certainly not a ringing endorsement. He then sent it off to the states for ratification without any comment.
Contrast those actions to the ones he took to get the other 13th Amendment passed and ratified. He went so far as to sign that one, which is not required by the constitution.
What would you call it?
You think anything changed in the intervening years?
Over 20 years? I'd say there were changes, yes.
I don't know, my arguments are pretty heavy with facts, such as the Congress passed the Corwin amendment. That is a fact.
Yes.
This demonstrates that the Northern Congress was more interested in keeping control of the South than it was in helping the slaves, and I believe that is also a fact.
That is your opinion.
If you can somehow explain how this proposed amendment was in the best interests of slaves, i'll withdraw my claim.
Why would I want to do that?
I would ask for a citation of the articles you have read that “indicate Lincoln D@mn near wrote the amendment himself and then used proxies to shift the “credit” onto other people.” But I would rather not know where your dirt comes from. Back at that time, as you will recall, Seward held the common misunderstanding that Lincoln was a ‘country bumpkin’. Later, Seward would say of Lincoln that, “He is the best among us”. As far as Lincoln “urging its passage” in his First Inaugural, he merely stated that he had no objection to it. You keep repeating that the Corwin Amendment passed, as if to imply it became an Amendment to the United States Constitution. “We” know, though, that in fact it was never ratified by more than two or three States and therefore never became an Amendment to the Constitution. It would be a good refresher for you to re-read Lincoln’s House Divided Speech. There he plainly and matter-of-factly lays out the entire scores of years of the plans of the Slave Powers to push and expand Slavery come hell or high water. In it he names names, in particular he names Taney, Douglas, Davis and possibly A,Stephens. Even you must understand that the Dred Scot decision put the issue of Slavery into the hands of the Federal Government to protect and defend and expand forever. (Speaking of States Rights) That decision also reversed one of our founding principles, that “all men are created equal”. The Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort to put the issue of Slavery back into the hands of each individual State.
At that time, Lincoln’s main concern was to stop any expansion of Slavery. Lincoln hated Slavery. Even despite what his own personal views of those who were there and then enslaved, Lincoln hated Slavery. That is what makes him great. And the fact that he died defending the U.S.Constitution. I also believe that Trump is the best thing to happen to this Country since Lincoln.
Why they did it is immaterial to the fact of what they had done. Had it gone through, they would have made slavery virtually impossible to abolish.
Again, the point here is that they cared more about keeping those Southern states than they did about slaves. In other words, the subsequent Northern claims to be fighting against slavery were just bunk. They didn't care about slavery until they saw they could use it as a propaganda tool to help them win and justify the war.
Certainly not a ringing endorsement. He then sent it off to the states for ratification without any comment.
You don't give Lincoln nearly enough credit. His point man in the Senate was Seward, who was also his Secretary of State. Lincoln's fingerprints are all over the creation of the Corwin amendment. I've read article detailing what parties were involved, when they met, what they decided to do, and it is clear these individuals were acting at Lincoln's behest.
Contrast those actions to the ones he took to get the other 13th Amendment passed and ratified. He went so far as to sign that one, which is not required by the constitution.
Having fought a war that killed 750,000 and faced with the prospect that the South would immediately pick up it's economic might that they just neutralized, Lincoln had very good economic and "threat to power" reasons for pushing the 13th amendment very hard.
Also it's not so much contrast as you might think. Lincoln sent letters to the governors of every state informing them that the Corwin Amendment had passed. This is also not required by the Constitution, and so far as I know, no other President had ever done such a thing before.
Lincoln was signaling to the people on his side that it was "okay" to approve this thing, but he didn't want to demonstrate that he was in favor of a thing so very contradictory to his asserted political views of that time.
And yes, Lincoln wheedled, bribed and threatened people to get them to vote for that replacement 13th amendment.
"Tour." "Temporary Residency." "In depth study."
Who knows what is the best term to describe it? But "visit" is an effort to substantially underplay what he did and how much he knew of the situation.
He knew quite a lot, and in a manner not so very different from Alexis de Tocqueville, who many people think did such a great job in understanding and explaining American culture of that era.
Over 20 years? I'd say there were changes, yes.
Regarding people's attitudes about slavery? Really? You think people changed their minds about that in 20 years?
This demonstrates that the Northern Congress was more interested in keeping control of the South than it was in helping the slaves, and I believe that is also a fact.
That is your opinion.
Pray tell give us another interpretation of how Congress would be expressing their concern for the slaves by passing an Amendment to make slavery virtually permanent?
This I gotta hear!
Why would I want to do that?
To support your claim that my version is an "opinion." If mine assertion is an opinion, let's hear your "opinion" of how congress was benefiting the slaves through the passage of this amendment.
I say the mostly Northern Congress didn't care about the slaves at all, you claim that is an "opinion", so fine, explain how they weren't indifferent to the slaves in the passage of this amendment.
LOL!. Of course you would.
Who knows what is the best term to describe it? But "visit" is an effort to substantially underplay what he did and how much he knew of the situation.
He knew enough that he hated slavery and hated the South for it's support of it. We know he left the U.S. badly disappointed. Interestingly economics was never mentioned in his American Notes
Regarding people's attitudes about slavery? Really? You think people changed their minds about that in 20 years.
In the North perhaps. Between 1842 and 1860 the abolition movement in the North picked up steam, particularly after the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852. Legislation trying to weaken the fugitive slave acts in the wake of the Prigg v. Pennsylvania increased. In the South, however, not so much. They continued as before with the devotion to slavery that so disgusted Dickens to begin with.
This demonstrates that the Northern Congress was more interested in keeping control of the South than it was in helping the slaves, and I believe that is also a fact.
LOL! You do so love spouting your opinions as if they were facts, don't you?
Pray tell give us another interpretation of how Congress would be expressing their concern for the slaves by passing an Amendment to make slavery virtually permanent?
It was a futile, knee-jerk reaction to restore the Union by giving the South at least part of what they were seceding over. Doomed to failure from the start since the Southern states had already adopted a constitution that protected slavery far more than the Corwin amendment ever could.
I say the mostly Northern Congress didn't care about the slaves at all, you claim that is an "opinion", so fine, explain how they weren't indifferent to the slaves in the passage of this amendment.
I agree in large part with your opinion that Congress didn't care about slaves. It was the South who were willing to leave over their slave institution. And they tried.
That you characterize it as "dirt" indicates you have no interest in being objective about this topic. You reject it out of hand without even knowing what it is.
But we all know you don't have any interest in learning anything that contradicts that which you wish to believe.
You keep repeating that the Corwin Amendment passed, as if to imply it became an Amendment to the United States Constitution.
We all know it didn't pass the ratification process, but it did in fact pass congress. It never occurred to me that anyone would make the mistake of assuming I meant it passed the states.
Once again my point is to illustrate that the mostly Northern congress was perfectly willing to sell the slaves down the river if they thought it would keep Washington DC control of the Southern states.
Do you not grasp that their concern was maintaining control, and that they had no concern for the slaves?
Even you must understand that the Dred Scot decision put the issue of Slavery into the hands of the Federal Government to protect and defend and expand forever.
The Dred Scot decision merely made people aware that the original compact of the constitution pretty much required the Federal government to protect and defend and allow it to expand. Prigg vs Pennsylvania made it clear that the states did not have to enforce this constitutional mandate, so if the states won't do it, who would?
Also, slavery wasn't going to "expand" into the western territories. It wasn't economically feasible there. It might have expanded into Mexico, and other foreign territories, but there was very little it could do to expand into regions that were not geographically suited for large scale plantation farming.
That decision also reversed one of our founding principles, that “all men are created equal”.
The thesis of the Declaration if a right to independence, not a commentary on slavery. When that phrase was written, few people considered it as applying to slaves. As every state in the Union was at that time a slave owning state, the intent in 1776 was to apply that phrase to themselves, not the slaves.
It was only later that larger groups of people started thinking that it ought to apply to the slaves too, but do not mistake the actual understanding of what they regarded it to mean in 1776.
I also believe that Trump is the best thing to happen to this Country since Lincoln.
Well this is clearly true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.