[FLT-bird]

BROJOEK:Naw, the US had debated slavery related issues since 1776.

Yeah. Discussions started in late 1860 right after the election and everyone knew secession was coming.

BROJOEK: In the end, Sen. Davis's insistence -- that Congress had no authority to abolish slavery within states -- made its way into both the new CSA Constitution and the proposed US Corwin Amendment. Davis's other proposals regarding slavery in territories and an alleged slaveholders' "right of soujourn" were rejected by Republicans in December 1860, hence secession of Mississippi (#2 to secede) and other Deep South states.

No. Slave owners had the right of transit already as per the Dred Scott decision. There was nothing to decide, as the Supreme Court had already ruled. The idea of a constitutional amendment expressly protecting slavery was one that occurred to lots of people - not just Davis as you would have it. Had Southern states really been concerned about the continuation of slavery, they could have simply accepted the Corwin amendment - yet they did not.

BROJOEK: Naw... the Corwin Amendment was eagerly accepted and adopted by the Montgomery, Alabama Constitutional Convention into their new CSA constitution, along with Jefferson Davis's other proposals to Congress from February 2, 1860.

Yeah. They could have just accepted it and stayed in the US where slavery was not threatened in any case. That way they could have avoided the risk of war. Yet they rejected it.

BROJOEK: Confederates loved Corwin and copied and pasted it into their Montgomery constitution:

The Corwin Amendment came out before the Confederate Constitution. Your timeline is backwards.

BROJOEK: regarding CSA constitution's use of words like "slave": "They were simply more honest honest." Fixed it.

Fixed it back

BROJOEK: So far as I can tell, that was exactly Abraham Lincoln's opinion in 1860. Lincoln then saw no need for an amendment along lines of Sen. Davis's February 1860 proposal, eventually adopted in Corwin in March 1861. As far as Lincoln was concerned, such an amendment was unnecessary, but, if it helped keep the Union together, he did not oppose it.

Correct! Lincoln was of the opinion that the Corwin Amendment merely explicitly spelled out that which already existed under the US Constitution. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Lest anyone think it was, explicit protection of slavery in the US Constitution was a bargaining chip the North was quite happy to offer. The original 7 seceding states turned it down.

BROJOEK: Just as the 1787 US Constitution granted no authority to Federal government to abolish slavery in states, it also granted Federal government no authority to limit states from restricting and abolishing slavery themselves -- suggestions to the contrary from Crazy Roger Taney's 1857 Dred Scott ruling notwithstanding.

This was not contrary to the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scott ruling. All a slave owner could do was transit with his slaves. He could not reside in a state that had abolished slavery. He could not employ his slaves in an enterprise there.

BROJOEK: And yet... and yet... the fact remains that the Confederacy's largest source for imported slaves would be the USA, and those imports were not outlawed. Therefore, the CSA's constitutional provision is meaningless eyewash.

And yet the ONLY POSSIBLE place slaves could be imported was from the same places they could be "imported" from before. The situation was not changed. Banned was the African Slave Trade as well as the importation of slaves from foreign countries which the US Constitution allowed for 20 years.

BROJOEK: And yet... and yet... Crazy Roger placed no time limit on his new-found "slaveholders' right of sojourn". Dred Scott himself had lived for many years in free states and territories, and yet... and yet... in Crazy Rogers' eyes that was not enough to make poor Dred Scott a free man, much less a full US citizen. Why is that, you might ask? Answer: because Crazy Roger was a raging Democrat lunatic, and for no other conceivable reason.

And yet, and yet, that was the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court. Not litigated or decided by the Dred Scott case was how long a slave owner could have to transit with his slaves. States could enact laws governing that and declare that any state on its territory longer than a reasonable period for transit were thereby deemed to be legally emancipated. This almost certainly have been upheld by the Supreme Court of the US since all they had ruled was that a slave owner had the right of transit with his property - not that the state ban on slavery was repealed as you would have it.

BROJOEK: Your constant references to alleged historian Doris Kerns Goodwin notwithstanding, there is no actual evidence for Lincoln's direct involvement with Corwin either in Congress or in states.

There is eyewitness testimony from numerous sources that Lincoln worked directly with Republicans in Congress to draft the Corwin Amendment, get it introduced in Congress and get it passed both by Congress as well as by multiple Northern states.

BROJOEK: The majority unanimous ravings of Southern Democrat lunatics of the US Supreme Court issued their ruling and as such it was the highly disputed law of the land."

No matter how much you or anybody else does not like it, that was the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and as such was the law of the land. Your incessant childish namecalling changes nothing.

BROJOEK: You can easily credit Crazy Roger with electing Republican majorities to Congress and Lincoln as president, in response to Crazy's Dred Scott opinion.

That might've affected politics. Then again, most people were far more concerned about the Morrill Tariff which was working its way through Congress at this time.

BROJOEK: Believe me, I do understand why you want to minimize Crazy Roger's raging insanities, and make him appear like any other normal human being, and therefore you ignore his worst lunacies and focus on just what might possibly be defended. And the reasons are obvious -- in 1857 Crazy Roger was not alone in his opinions and they were shared widely by slaveholders and slavery defenders throughout the South. They were all just as crazy as Roger was. Do I need to list out for you all the craziness Democrats like Crazy Roger inflicted on the USA in 1857?

Believe me, I understand why you act like a gradeschool kid on the playground and splutter idiotic insults and try to pretend that it was all one man. But it wasn't. It was the majority opinion of the SCOTUS.

No matter how much you don't like it, people in the past were different and had a different worldview. All of the original 13 colonies had slavery. The overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. To them slavery was something that could be compromised over and that would die off in time. They were right about the latter. Industrialization did kill off slavery throughout the Western world. What they really got wrong was: 1) they should have expressly stated that any state could unilaterally secede 2) they should have placed limits on the General Welfare clause (as Patrick Henry pointed out) 3) they should have limited the federal government's ability to borrow money (as Thomas Jefferson lamented they had not)

Had they done those things whatever disputes arose between the states could have been resolved AND the massive leviathan in Washington DC would not have been able to unconstitutionally usurp all the power it has from the states.

BROJOEK: Nooooo... it was far more than a "vague hope" because our Founders were willing to take legal actions to restrict and abolish slavery wherever possible, a prime example being abolition of slavery in the Old Northwest Territories in 1787.

They hoped it would wither away in the future and sought to restrict its spread as it was.

BROJOEK: Further, by 1787, abolition was already the law in Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Pennsylvania -- a total of 65% of all Northern state area.

Wrong. Rhode Island and Connecticut passed bills banning slavery in 1843 and 1848, respectively, and New Hampshire passed a final abolition bill in 1857. Vermont was not admitted as a state until 1791. Massachusetts had abolished slavery in 1783-84.

"Pennsylvania was the first to agree to gradual abolition during the Revolution. First, the Executive Council suggested to the Assembly in 1778 that they stop further importation of slaves as a first step towards emancipation. An initial emancipation bill, framed that year, called for the children of slaves born after the effective date to be freed after serving 18 years for females and 21 years for males. It also ordered slaves arriving with new residents of the state freed within six months, although they could be indentured until the age of 28 for minors or for four years for adults. Passage of the law was delayed due to the war but the ideas were reinforced in 1779 when the Council declared that slavery was incongruent with the goals of the Revolution and a disgrace to a people who were then fighting for the cause of liberty. When the state returned to the abolition bill they revised it so that all children under the bill would serve until the age of twenty-eight. This law was passed in 1780; it did not free any slave born before that year and the first emancipation under the law would not happen until 1808. With its provisions for 28 years in bondage, the law gave a two generation grace period for slavery to die out. Total abolition did not happen in Pennsylvania until 1847."

https://civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2017/1/3/when-did-slavery-really-end-in-the-north#:~:text=Rhode%20Island%20and%20Connecticut%20passed,final%20abolition%20bill%20in%201857.

BROJOEK: So, if we add the 65% of Northern States area plus the Northwest Territories, then we see that in 1787, almost exactly half of the entirety of US square miles were under laws abolishing slavery -- that was vastly more than a "vague hope".

What we see is that you are grossly ignorant about the history of slavery in the North.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird on Crittenden Compromise items: "Discussions started in late 1860 right after the election and everyone knew secession was coming."

No, however, specific proposals from Mississippi Democrat Sen. Davis -- which had been rejected by Congress in February, 1860 -- were in December dusted off and reconsidered, and again mostly rejected, in the Crittenden Compromise of December 1860.
As a result of these rejections, Mississippi led other Deep South states into secession.

FLT-bird: "Slave owners had the right of transit already as per the Dred Scott decision.
There was nothing to decide, as the Supreme Court had already ruled."

Contrary to your claims here, the issue in 1860 was far from settled, which is why:

1. Northern courts totally ignored Crazy Roger's insane rantings, except to condemn them and reaffirm their own anti-slavery laws.

2. Mississippi Sen. Davis's February 1860 proposal -- that Congress act to guarantee a "right of any citizen of the United States to take his slaver property into the common Territories" -- clearly implied the SCOTUS Dred Scott ravings did not settle the matter.

3. In December 1860, in Congress the Crittenden Committee looked at many proposed "compromises" to stop secessions, including the "right to sojourn", many such rejected by Republicans.

4. In March 1861 the CSA constitution again asserted a slaveholder's "right of sojourn" with his slaves, thus revealing the issue was far from settled, even in the new Confederacy.

FLT-bird: "The idea of a constitutional amendment expressly protecting slavery was one that occurred to lots of people - not just Davis as you would have it.
Had Southern states really been concerned about the continuation of slavery, they could have simply accepted the Corwin amendment - yet they did not."

Contrary to your repeated claims, the Montgomery Constitutional Convention totally accepted and embraced the idea of Corwin and so inserted it into their own CSA constitution.
Any suggestion otherwise is just crazy.

FLT-bird quoting BROJOEK: "Confederates loved Corwin and copied and pasted it into their Montgomery constitution"

FLT-bird: "The Corwin Amendment came out before the Confederate Constitution.
Your timeline is backwards."

Read what you quoted me as saying again.
The fact remains -- all your denials notwithstanding -- that Confederates loved and embraced Corwin so much they copied and pasted it directly into their own Montgomery CSA constitution.

FLT-bird: "Lest anyone think it was, explicit protection of slavery in the US Constitution was a bargaining chip the North was quite happy to offer.
The original 7 seceding states turned it down."

Naw... Confederates didn't "turn it down" because that was never even a question for them.
They did fully accept, embrace and then copy and paste the Corwin idea into their own Montgomery CSA constitution, along with several other pro-slavery provisions which Republicans had rejected in December 1860.

FLT-bird: "This was not contrary to the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scott ruling.
All a slave owner could do was transit with his slaves.
He could not reside in a state that had abolished slavery.
He could not employ his slaves in an enterprise there."

Those are all lies.
The truth is that Crazy Roger Taney (why do you think I call him "Crazy Roger"??) abolished all such restrictions on the alleged "right to sojourn" in free states and territories!!!

Crazy Roger claimed there were no limits on a slaveholder's rights to take his "property" into other states and stay there as long as he wanted.

Consider the case of Dred Scott, the man, a slave taken from the slave-state of Missouri to the free-state of Illinois and lived there for six years!!, from 1830 to 1836, and then was taken to the free-territory of Wisconsin for another four years!!, from 1836 to 1840.
So Dred Scott had lived in free-states or territories for 10 years and yet Crazy Roger still claimed that was not long enough to declare the man, Dred Scott (or his family), freed.

Indeed, the lunatic Crazy Roger Taney and his insane Democrat fellow SCOTUS justices declared that not only could Dred Scott never be freed by living in free states & territories, but also, that even if Dred Scott were voluntarily freed, as an African-American, the man could never become a US citizen with all the rights and privileges of other US citizens, i.e., voting, juries, military service, etc.

How is you do not yet grasp the depths of depravity in Crazy Roger Taney's Dred Scott opinions??

FLT-bird: "And yet, and yet, that was the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court.
Not litigated or decided by the Dred Scott case was how long a slave owner could have to transit with his slaves.
States could enact laws governing that and declare that any state on its territory longer than a reasonable period for transit were thereby deemed to be legally emancipated."

Again, those are lies.
The truth is that Crazy Roger's Dred Scott ravings effectively declared all such laws unconstitutional and invalid, and removed all limitations on the lengths of time slaveholders could "sojourn" with their "property" in free-states & territories.

See my link above for actual Crazy Roger quotes.

FLT-bird: "There is eyewitness testimony from numerous sources that Lincoln worked directly with Republicans in Congress to draft the Corwin Amendment, get it introduced in Congress and get it passed both by Congress as well as by multiple Northern states."

None of which you've presented here for closer inspection.

FLT-bird: "No matter how much you or anybody else does not like it, that was the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and as such was the law of the land.
Your incessant childish namecalling changes nothing."

Nooo... "Crazy Roger" is not "name-calling", it is a factual description of a raving lunatic, as were his fellow Democrat SCOTUS justices, as are Democrats today.
Indeed, the very word, "Democratic" from the beginning in the 1790s meant, "stark raving Jacobin lunatics" of the French Revolution.
So, while Thomas Jefferson called himself a small-r republican, his Federalist opponents called his party the Democratic-republicans, by which they meant "lunatics".
And, of course, Jeffersonians were perfectly happy with the designation and so kept the name "Democratics".

So, Democrats always were, and remain insane, none more so than Crazy Roger Taney.

FLT-bird: "That might've affected politics.
Then again, most people were far more concerned about the Morrill Tariff which was working its way through Congress at this time."

And yet nobody in any document of the time mentioned the Morrill Tariff as a reason for secession.
What every such document did mention, some of them exclusively, was slavery.

FLT-bird: "Wrong.
Rhode Island and Connecticut passed bills banning slavery in 1843 and 1848, respectively, and New Hampshire passed a final abolition bill in 1857.
Vermont was not admitted as a state until 1791.
Massachusetts had abolished slavery in 1783-84."

Again, you're just lying.
The truth is that all of those states, plus the entirety of the Old Northwest Territories had begun to abolish slavery before the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

1. 1777 Vermont
2. 1780 Pennsylvania
3. 1783 Massachusetts
4. 1783 New Hampshire
5. 1784 Conncecticut
6. 1784 Rhode Island
7. 1787 Old Northwest Territories, which became Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and about 1/3 of Minnesota.

Further, by the time of the 1787 Convention, over half of the delegates did not own slaves.

So, bottom line: your repeated claims -- that our Founders didn't care about slavery and weren't working to abolish it -- those claims are simply untrue.