Replies

The part where you say the amendment would have “preserved slavery indefinitely”.

That is exactly correct. So long as any state wanted to have slavery, Slavery in the United States would have continued to be legal.

Do you not know what the word "indefinitely" means? It means of no known definite time.

That is exactly what the Lincoln/Corwin amendment would have done.

it was a last ditch effort by the North to give the South no reason to leave and one final attempt to preserve the Union.

Why would they possibly want to preserve a Union with all those nasty slaveholders in it? What possible reason would they have to force people they hate to remain in their Union?

Now I keep pointing out that the slaveholders were putting 200 Million dollars per year of European money into the US economy, and this was paying about 73% of all the taxes in the nation, but you people would rather believe they had some *OTHER* reason for wanting to keep the Southern states in their Union.

What was that reason again?

To say it would have preserved Slavery indefinitely is a terrible judgement by you on the Southern States. Not to mention that you are contradicting yourself, as you have told us (in other threads) that Slavery was surely going to die out on its own.

Both are true. "Indefinitely" means of "no defined time." (look it up.)

Slavery would have gone away on it's own, and one only need look at the progress of the states since 1776 in giving it up. It was tougher to give it up in states that had more economic benefit from it, but this would wane over time and eventually they would have all given it up voluntarily.

There was no reason to kill 750,000 people and establish a Washington DC supremacy over the states.

Your post started off badly and went downhill from there.
The definition of “indefinitely” is: “without any limit of time”. Please double check what dictionary you are using.......... and check out the synonyms, e.g., “endlessly” and “forever” are the top two.

You say, “So long as any state wanted to have slavery, Slavery in the United States would have continued to be legal”. Let me fix that for you: So long as any state wanted to have slavery, Slavery in that State would have continued to be legal. The whole idea being that the issue of the legality of Slavery would endlessly and forever be out of the hands of DC. (And likewise, as I like to think, out of the hands of the US Supreme Court). It would be a “States Right”. You do like those, don’t you?

DL: Why would they possibly want to preserve a Union with all those nasty slaveholders in it? What possible reason would they have to force people they hate to remain in their Union?

That is just silly talk.

DL: “Now I keep pointing out that the slaveholders were putting 200 Million dollars per year of European money into the US economy, and this was paying about 73% of all the taxes in the nation, but you people would rather believe they had some *OTHER* reason for wanting to keep the Southern states in their Union. What was that reason again?

Please read Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address in its entirety. It should relieve your troubled mind.

HD: To say it would have preserved Slavery indefinitely is a terrible judgement by you on the Southern States. Not to mention that you are contradicting yourself, as you have told us (in other threads) that Slavery was surely going to die out on its own.

DL: Both are true. "Indefinitely" means of "no defined time." (look it up.)

See above.

DL: Slavery would have gone away on it's own, and one only need look at the progress of the states since 1776 in giving it up. It was tougher to give it up in states that had more economic benefit from it, but this would wane over time and eventually they would have all given it up voluntarily. There was no reason to kill 750,000 people and establish a Washington DC supremacy over the states.

Here you are just backpedaling and attempting misdirection. Here’s a tip for you: when you are going to backpedal, lead with your ass........ and follow it. You’ll appear less wobbly.

No need to reply.

DiogenesLamp: "Now I keep pointing out that the slaveholders were putting 200 Million dollars per year of European money into the US economy, and this was paying about 73% of all the taxes in the nation..."

Well... at least the $200 million part is correct, for cotton exports, but the rest is nonsense, and that's because:

Sure, in 1860 $200 million was a lot of money, but it was under 5% of total US GDP, around $4.4 billion, and only 1% of total US asset values, around $20 billion.
The claim that $200 million in exports "paid for" 73% of US tariffs on imports, is nonsense, since at best that $200 million was only 50% of total exports and therefore could at most "pay for" only 50% of US imports tariffs.
But that $200 million in Deep South cotton exports actually paid for 0% of US imports directly, since Southerners spent that entire $200 million on manufactured "imports" from the North.
Northerners then spent that $200 million, in earnings, on raw material imports to make products for the South and at the same time, to pay US import tariffs, nearly 100%.

So naturally DiogenesLamp leaves out that important step, of Southern "imports" from the North to make it sound like Northerners got a "free ride" at Southern expense.

That's not what happened.