Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
Presumably all the slave states would also ratify it, so that brings the total to 22 states that were pretty sure bets on ratification.

At the time the Corwin Amendment was introduced and voted on in Congress seven Southern states had already announced their secession. Why would they have a vote on ratification? They had already adopted a constitution that protected slavery to an extent undreamed of under the Corwin amendment. So of the states left, 18 would have had to ratify. I don't see where they come from.

So tepid that his own secretary of State was leading the effort in the Senate, and so timid that he not only called for it's passage in his first inaugural, he took the additional step of writing letters to the governors of every state to inform them of it's passage of the house and senate.

Plus added its ratification to the 1864 Republican platform. Plus personally lobbied for its passage among members of Congress. Lincoln's support and intervention was vital for getting the amendment through the lame-duck Congress.

And that's just the stuff that's not in dispute. If you look into it, you discover he was promoting it behind the scenes in every manner he possibly could, because when it comes down to it, Lincoln's concern was about the money, not about the slaves.

Your opinion is duly noted.

851 posted on 01/20/2020 3:08:08 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
Why would they have a vote on ratification?

They would have a vote because Lincoln and his supporters would insist they have a vote because it would bolster the point that they remained part of the Union.

Do not trouble yourself on this point. Lincoln would have insisted that their vote would count if they had gone to the trouble of having one.

They had already adopted a constitution that protected slavery to an extent undreamed of under the Corwin amendment.

I have read large parts of the Confederate constitution. It is mostly a copy of the US constitution with a lot of additions to express a clear support for slavery.

Was it more pro-slavery than the US constitution? Not that I recall. Clearer on the point, and avoiding the use of euphemisms like "person held to service or labor" blah blah blah. It was just more honest on the point.

So of the states left, 18 would have had to ratify. I don't see where they come from.

You are doing the secessionists work for them. By placing them out of the Union, you are verifying their claim that they are. I don't think Lincoln or others in the North would have been so dumb. In fact, Lincoln insisted all throughout the war that they had never left and remained under the authority of the rightful government.

Plus added its ratification to the 1864 Republican platform.

Lincoln added the Corwin amendment to the 1864 Republican platform? I think you are mistaken. I think you are referring to what actually became the 13th amendment.

854 posted on 01/20/2020 4:18:31 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 851 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson