I wasn't aware of this proposed 13th Amendment. Thanks for the information.
For someone who claims to support the northern tyrant, do you even bother to read what he said beyond that literal doublespeak called the Gettysburg Address? From his first inaugural address
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it...I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Now mind you this came out of the mouth of the slaveholder lawyer, the man who operated as a citizen of the state of Illinois for 7 years that did not allow blacks to move into the state (the northern black codes)
By its very design, the Proclamation was unenforceable in those states to which it applied because they were still in rebellion. But it helped to undermine slavery in those states.
This is some sort of joke right? lincoln himself admitted by the end of 1862 the US had reached the last straw in the war. Most of the support was gone, which led to the Draft Riots in New York in '63, and the only thing the Emancipation Proclamation did was to gather moral support in the north for continuance of the war. Yes, abe had to turn to the very group, that he was quoted as saying he did not want to be painted with an 'abolitionist brush', for continued support in the war. Less than 200,000 people belonged to Abolitionist groups in the north before the proclamation but the numbers swelled afterwards in 64 and 65
But, there is ample evidence that Lincoln thought that slavery was a doomed institution.
You think? Come on now, even DiLorenzo points out in his latest work, that slavery was dying worldwide. Only a few places actually had a war involving the end of slavery of 2 out of 3, historians admit slavery was a red herring to wave in front of the people to gain support for governmental change. Want to take a guess what the third one was? In every other major nation, slavery had about died out. If you bothered reading the Confederate Constitution, slave trade was banned except for receiving slaves from the United States. Now if we are to believe these history books written by such worshippers as McPherson and Sandburg, the whole north was up in arms over the abolishment of slavery and there wasn't a slave to be found up north. So if there were no more slaves in the north, there would be no more slaves coming into the Confederacy. Also I'd like to see where good ol' abe was in relation to teaching the slaves. Perhaps he was closer to his yankee brethren in Conneticut that outlawed teaching a slave to read and write in 1836 versus men like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee that not only taught their slaves but were training them for the day they would be released. Do a little search on lincoln's 'root,pig, or perish' ideals. He could have cared less.
Liberals tend to overlook economic implications of all public policy issues. Owing a slave had an implicit cost. Most employees in the period at the bottom end of the agricultural economy were earning only subsistence wages--a slave included not only the subsistence but also other costs related to security and management. Those costs did not make the institution uneconomic until the cotton gin--however at the point use of the gin because widespread, the cotton farmer with slaves made less money, or lost money, to the farmer who did not have slaves. That spelled clear ultimate end to the system at a finite point in future history.
The death of over 400,000 Americans was simply not necessary to enforce the ultimate end of slavery. The only slavery issue was timing.
You're finally admitting it protected slave imports? You have improved a little, at least.
Perhaps he was closer to his yankee brethren in Conneticut that outlawed teaching a slave to read and write in 1836
Jesus, billbears, you crack me up. Connecticut passed a law forbidding the teaching of slaves to read? All 25 or so of them? Literate slaves were a big problem were they? And I suppose it was perfectly legal to teach slaves to read in Virginia or Mississippi or Georgia or South Carolina? Heck, in South Carolina it was illegal for a black man and a white man to look out the same window, so you want us to believe that they could be taught to read?
...versus men like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee that not only taught their slaves but were training them for the day they would be released
Oh so now it's Jackson and Lee teaching them to read, is it? Preparing them for their release, were they? In a pigs ear, billbears. Jackson taught Sunday school, there is no evidence he taught them to read. Six of the slaves in the school were his own. And far from preparing them for freedom, Jackson saw them for what they were to him - property. An investment. He thought so much of their wellbeing that he had no qualms about selling a couple of his slaves in order to buy a house. Prepare them for freedom? Pull the other one, billbears, it has bells on it.
Do a little search on lincoln's 'root,pig, or perish' ideals. He could have cared less.
And what was he to do, billbears? If there hadn't been a rebellion, what could Lincoln had done? Could he have freed the slaves? No, that would require a Constitutional amendment. Could he have gotten such an amendment through the Senate? Hardly, there were 15 slave states, 30 senators. In order to pass an amendment over their objection would have taken 61 votes. That would have required 46 states, something that didn't happen until the very early 1900's. On the other hand there was a war. Would the southern slave owners free them on their own? Not hardly, they went to war to protect the right to do just the opposite. Would free blacks have any sort of rights or freedoms down south? History has shown us that no, they wouldn't. When you get right down to it, billbears, what Lincoln was telling them was that he could get them their freedom and that was about it. And that freedom would come in the face of the most vile racist hatred directed towards them, and it would be even worse for them down south. So all Lincoln could do was tell them that they would have to fend for themselves and make a go of it or die trying. And he was right, too.