Replies

A president has no role in a constitutional amendment. All he is really saying with what you provided, is that if ratified, he will offer no objection, and will honor it, as it becomes part of the constitution. But he never endorsed it or spoke against it. He chose instead to remain silent. He even clarified that he was not diverting from his chosen silence, but was only now speaking on it merely to clarify what actions he will take if ratified, which he said would be nothing except accepting it.

That changes nothing with regards to what I said.

I still stand by my original statement. The issue of slavery is why they walked away from the Whig Party and formed a 3rd part, which they called the Republican Party. His hands were tied with regards to abolishing slavery. His only option left was to have it not ratified.

You have to remember that the Free Soil Party abandoned there party & joined the Republican party.

They just might have done so to water down the Republican Party. After all, they were willing to allow slavery in the states where it currently existed, in both northern & southern states.

So, were these Free Soil mergers the difference needed to provide the 2/3 majority needed to pass the amendment, and Republicans who were never a part of the Free Soil party, all voted no on the amendment? I contend that was a possibility. If that is the case, then the Republican Party being passionate supporters of abolishing slavery remains in tact, & negates your assertion. Now, I am not saying that is the case, just that it is a possibility.

I'm not sure I could do the research needed to make a qualified bonified determination. Research is not really a specialty of mine, & my declining eyesight hampers that endeavor also.

Was Fort Sumter used as a fulcrum to interrupt the ratification process? I contend that too has a high probability of being the case. But like the previous stated possibility, the same thing applies. But the timing couldn't have more fortuitus could it have been? Perhaps that was more of a divine intervention than a calculated/coordinated event.

BTW, I stand corrected. Besides Ohio & Maryland ratifying the amendment Illinois supposedly ratified it also. some dispute Illinois’ ratification vote. I do not know what the why may be either, with regard to the dispute.

Ohio was the first state to ratify the amendment, and Maryland and Illinois followed suit, but the onset of the Civil War interrupted the states’ ratification of the amendment.

SOURCE of the bold verbiage listed immediately above

If they thought it would have worked to bring back the Southern states, they *WOULD* have passed it.

They did pass it, so they must have thought it would work.

The Civil War overtook it.

Yep, that is why it was never ratified, but 22 possibly 3 states did ratify it.

I have no doubt that the southern & northern states where slavery still existed would have ratified the amendment, and it would have become law. I never said it wouldn't have, I merely stated it was never ratified.

So they said. Voting for it says otherwise.

No, that was just the quick conclusion you came to because you thought it proved your argument. I provided a perfectly plausible, possible counter that you can continue researching to see if you can find the counts of the Free Soil members who came to the Republican party, the ayes & nays vote count for the Corwin amendment to prove or disprove if any of the Republicans who voted aye were never members of the Free Soil party. Which of course would prove that not all members who originally formed the Republican Party were passionate supporters of abolishing slavery.

I certainly would be interested in learning the truth, regardless who the truth supports. Because the truth matters more to me. 🙂

Like you, I will stop here because I too chose to rest on my hypothesis that throws doubt on your conclusion. 😋

Because to me, this is really not that important. If you want to prove your conclusion, be my guest, but please provide your source material this time, instead of just a copy/paste of verbiage.

I took what you provided because I realized it did not validate anything you had said, but id did validate what I had said, that he remained quiet on the topic.

A president has no role in a constitutional amendment.

This is correct, which makes you wonder why he went to so much trouble to insert himself into the process.

All he is really saying with what you provided, is that if ratified, he will offer no objection, and will honor it, as it becomes part of the constitution.

You are judging his actions based simply on that bit I quoted from his first inaugural. I am judging his actions based on all the other things he did regarding the Corwin Amendment. I have read credible articles suggesting *HE* wrote the original version of it. The article explained how it went from one of his water carriers to another, while he went to some efforts to keep his fingerprints off of it, but everyone in between was one of his stooges.

And then he personally wrote letters to the governors of all the seceded states informing them of the passage of the Corwin amendment through congress, even though as you say, the president has no official role in the passage of Constitutional amendments.

Why would he do that?

One can only conclude he did that because he thought it would help pass the amendment.

They just might have done so to water down the Republican Party. After all, they were willing to allow slavery in the states where it currently existed, in both northern & southern states.

And the point I was getting at, which I may not have clearly conveyed to you is that they were fine leaving slavery where it was, because the slave state's representatives in Congress were a minority and could be routinely outvoted by the Northern coalition of states.

But allowing any territories to become states that would align themselves with the Southern coalition of states, would allow the Southern coalition to reach the point where they could block legislation, or pass legislation favorable to themselves. (As the Northern coalition was already doing.)

At stake was control of congress, and the vast amount of money that could be gained or lost through that control.

A few years ago I have come to suspect that the issue wasn't really slaves in the territory, the issue was loss of control of congress, with "slaves in the territory" as just a means of opposing states coming into the Union that would side with the Southern states on legislative issues.

In other words, it was being done to keep the money, by keeping the status quo for the people controlling the government at that time.

Well I can name two Republicans that certainly voted for it. Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, for whom the amendment was named, and William Seward of New York. (And Lincoln's appointed Secretary of State)

I suppose we could get a roll call of all who voted for it. I'm sure all the Democrats did, but the Congress at the time was controlled by Republicans, and enough of them would have to cross over to make it happen.

Was Fort Sumter used as a fulcrum to interrupt the ratification process? I contend that too has a high probability of being the case.

Then why write to all the seceded state governors regarding the passage of the Corwin Amendment?

Lincoln initiated the fleet of warships going to Charleston in March of 1861. He interestingly sent them after congress had adjourned and therefore any attempts to stop him by congress were unlikely.

They did pass it, so they must have thought it would work.

Yes, I know they passed it through CONGRESS, but they would have passed it through the states as well if they had thought it would work.

The seceded states convinced them it was futile, though I believe one of the Northern states ratified it *AFTER* the war had already started.

No, that was just the quick conclusion you came to because you thought it proved your argument.

Republican congressmen voting *FOR* a pro-slavery amendment would seemingly prove my argument. I am at a loss as to how you can see this action as anti-slavery.

I certainly would be interested in learning the truth, regardless who the truth supports. Because the truth matters more to me. 🙂

And this is the mindset everyone should have. We should not believe things simply because this is what we wish to believe, we should believe things because the evidence demonstrates them to be the truth.

I took what you provided because I realized it did not validate anything you had said, but id did validate what I had said, that he remained quiet on the topic.

I will see if I can find some of the articles I have read regarding Lincolns behind the scenes involvement in creating and attempting to pass the Corwin Amendment.