Replies

FLT-bird: "The problem with this, is that its all lies the way BroJoeK tells it.
The truth is, the Northern was willing to pass a constitutional amendment to expressly protect slavery effectively forever."

100% of Democrats voted for Corwin, the majority of Republicans opposed it.
Northern Democrats were, of course, allies of Southern Democrat secessionists, and were eager to do whatever they could to preserve as many Democratic seats in Congress as possible.
All Republicans opposed expanding slavery, but some -- a minority -- were willing to give Union slaveholders assurances that Congress would not pass laws to abolish slavery nationally.
Under Corwin, states were still free to abolish slavery on their own.

FLT-bird: "Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
Get it?
States did not have to have slavery to join the CSA and states that were in the CSA were free to abolish slavery. "

That only means you didn't actually read the Confederate constitution.
In fact, it explicitly prohibits any restrictions on slavery.

Article I Section 9(4): No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]
Article IV Section 2(1) "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."[31]
Article IV Section 3(3) In all such [Confederate] territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[32]
Article I Section 9(1): "The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden..."

In the Confederacy, congress could not abolish slavery in states or territories, nor could states refuse to recognize slavery laws of other states.
So even if a Confederate state tried to abolish slavery, it's state laws would be trumped by the Confederate constitution and effectively rendered meaningless.

The Confederate constitution did allow importing slaves from the United States.

FLT-bird: "They could not deny transit of their territory by citizens of other Confederate States with their slaves, but they could ban it within their own state if they so chose.
This was no different from the law in the United States at the time after the Dred Scott decision.
Similarly, allowing slaves to be traded between states but not allowing the Atlantic slave trade was no different from the law in the US prior to 1860.
The Confederate Constitution simply did not differ from the US Constitution in this regard."

Prior to Dred Scott (1857), slaves who were kept beyond legal limits in a free-state were declared freed.
The hope of overturning Dred Scott was a key reason why anti-slavery Republicans became majorities in most Northern states.

The Confederate constitution did allow imports of slaves from the United States.

FLT-bird quoting Divine: ". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia.
What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim.
The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction."

The "Old Union" was a "slaveholders' reactionary utopia".
In 1860, Republicans had never been in power nationally when Southern Democrats began declaring secession and their new slaveholders' utopia.

FLT-bird: "The Corwin Amendment was named after Republican Senator Thomas Corwin.
It was not only backed but was in fact orchestrated by Lincoln.
It was also backed by Republican William Seward."

Corwin was signed, not by Lincoln, but by Democrat President Buchanan.

Aside from saying he would not oppose it, there's no evidence of Lincoln directing Seward regarding Corwin.

FLT-bird: "Lincoln ensured its passage in 5 Northern states and doubtless it would have been ratified by more had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it.
And yes, it was most certainly intended to lure them back into the US.
They turned it down because slavery was not the Southern states' primary concern."

According to Lincoln, Corwin did not change the Constitution as he understood it.
But, any of the several other proposed amendments, which did offer slavery more protections, those Lincoln and Republicans did oppose.
Nothing in Corwin offered Confederate states the blanket levels of protection for slavery found in the new Confederate constitution.

No Confederate state "turned down" Corwin because it was never "offered" to them, and none ever considered it.
Had they done so, they would have immediately realized that the Confederate constitution provided them much stronger guarantees for slavery than the Union Constitution ever could.

On grounds of protecting slavery alone, Corwin was of no value to Confederate states.
It did, however, reassure some Union slave-states (KY & MD) that Congress would not pass laws abolishing slavery.

Lincoln's letter of transmittal to the states said nothing supporting or opposing the proposed Corwin amendment.

Bottom line: Corwin was strongly supported by 100% of Democrats in Congress and Democrat Pres. Buchanan, obviously hoping to hold onto as many Democrat states as possible.

Corwin was opposed by the majority of Republicans, though not by Pres. Lincoln who said it made no change to the Constitution as he had always understood it.

100% of Democrats voted for Corwin, the majority of Republicans opposed it. Northern Democrats were, of course, allies of Southern Democrat secessionists, and were eager to do whatever they could to preserve as many Democratic seats in Congress as possible. All Republicans opposed expanding slavery, but some -- a minority -- were willing to give Union slaveholders assurances that Congress would not pass laws to abolish slavery nationally. Under Corwin, states were still free to abolish slavery on their own.

I said "the North". You try to obfuscate by talking about Republicans and Democrats. The North included Democrats. It also included prominent Republicans like Thomas Corwin who sponsored the Corwin amendment, William Seward who supported it and Abe Lincoln who supported it and pushed it as hard as he could. The North was willing to expressly protect slavery effectively forever.

States did not have to have slavery to join the CSA and states that were in the CSA were free to abolish slavery. " That only means you didn't actually read the Confederate constitution. In fact, it explicitly prohibits any restrictions on slavery. Article I Section 9(4): No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]

This shows you do not understand the Confederate Constitution. This applied to the Confederate government. ie IT could not pass laws to abolish slavery. Sovereign states in the CSA certainly could. They were not bound by limitations placed on the Confederate government.

Article IV Section 2(1) "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."[31]

Exactly as the law was under the US Constitution in the wake of the Dred Scott decision.

Article IV Section 3(3) In all such [Confederate] territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[32]

That was the status quo ante in the US after the Dred Scott decision.

Article I Section 9(1): "The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden..."

See above, That was the same as the law that existed in the US at the time.

In the Confederacy, congress could not abolish slavery in states or territories, nor could states refuse to recognize slavery laws of other states. So even if a Confederate state tried to abolish slavery, it's state laws would be trumped by the Confederate constitution and effectively rendered meaningless.

FALSE! Individual states were not bound by the restrictions placed on the Confederate government. States in the CSA could not prevent citizens of other Confederate states from transiting through their territory with their slaves - but that was the situation in the US at the time too after Dred Scott.

The Confederate constitution did allow importing slaves from the United States.

They kept the situation the same as it was prior to secession.

Prior to Dred Scott (1857), slaves who were kept beyond legal limits in a free-state were declared freed. The hope of overturning Dred Scott was a key reason why anti-slavery Republicans became majorities in most Northern states.

So we agree then that the laws in the CSA regarding slavery were the same as the laws in the US regarding slavery at that time.

The Confederate constitution did allow imports of slaves from the United States.,/p>

Which was no different than what the law was in the US prior to secession.

The "Old Union" was a "slaveholders' reactionary utopia". In 1860, Republicans had never been in power nationally when Southern Democrats began declaring secession and their new slaveholders' utopia.

The laws in the CSA regarding slavery were not different from the laws in the USA regarding slavery at the time of secession.

Seward acted on his own, not by Lincoln's direction -- at that time Seward considered Lincoln to be a country bumpkin to be humored, not a national leader to be followed. Seward's efforts resulted in 100% support from Democrats and a minority of Republicans for Corwin's amendment. The majority of Republicans opposed Corwin. Corwin was signed, not by Lincoln, but by Democrat President Buchanan. Aside from saying he would not oppose it, there's no evidence of Lincoln directing Seward regarding Corwin.

So as I said, the North was willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. If you doubt that Lincoln orchestrated it you need to do some more reading. Try Team of Rivals by admitted plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin. She praises him to the heavens for orchestrating the passage of the Corwin Amendment.

According to Lincoln, Corwin did not change the Constitution as he understood it. But, any of the several other proposed amendments, which did offer slavery more protections, those Lincoln and Republicans did oppose. Nothing in Corwin offered Confederate states the blanket levels of protection for slavery found in the new Confederate constitution.

The only protection for slavery in the Confederate Constitution that was different from the US Constitution was a guarantee that the Confederate government itself would not ban slavery.

No Confederate state "turned down" Corwin because it was never "offered" to them, and none ever considered it. Had they done so, they would have immediately realized that the Confederate constitution provided them much stronger guarantees for slavery than the Union Constitution ever could.

All 7 seceding states turned down the offer of the Corwin Amendment because they refused to return to the US after it was expressly offered to them by Lincoln in his first inaugural address.

On grounds of protecting slavery alone, Corwin was of no value to Confederate states. It did, however, reassure some Union slave-states (KY & MD) that Congress would not pass laws abolishing slavery.

Not True. It made it clear to everybody that the US could never abolish slavery without the consent of the slaveholding states. That was certainly of value to those states.

Lincoln's letter of transmittal to the states said nothing supporting or opposing the proposed Corwin amendment.

his first inaugural address sure did.

Bottom line: Corwin was strongly supported by 100% of Democrats in Congress and Democrat Pres. Buchanan, obviously hoping to hold onto as many Democrat states as possible. Corwin was opposed by the majority of Republicans, though not by Pres. Lincoln who said it made no change to the Constitution as he had always understood it.

Bottom line: the North was willing to expressly protect slavery effectively forever in the US Constitution. The 7 seceding states turned that offer down.