Replies

"...thereby inflating their representation in Congress and making the goal of freedom a slower and more difficult goal to achieve."

If you are insinuating that the US Congress was working on freedom for slaves in 1861, sadly you are mistaken. Perhaps you have not heard of the Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution.

The Corwin Amendment to the United States Constitution, Number 13, Would Legalize Slavery throughout the Country.

2/28/1861 Congress wrote and passed the Corwin Amendment, also known as the Slavery Amendment. In a remarkable attempt to keep Southern States from leaving the Union, a 13th Amendment to the Constitution, was whittled out of the Crittenden Compromise of the second session of the Thirty-sixth Congress.

It would legalize slavery everywhere in the Union.

It was submitted to both houses of Congress on February 28, later approved, and submitted to the states for ratification on March 9, 1861. It declared in part that:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor service by the laws of said State”.

Before being sent to the states, during the last hour of President Buchanan’s tenure, he affixed his signature to the document

The President’s signature was considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, the proposal would be submitted to the States for ratification.

Newly inaugurated President Lincoln later signed the document’s letter of introduction to the state governors, and asked for their approval.

It was quickly ratified by Maryland and Ohio. Its passage by other states was haulted by Lincoln's call for troops.

It would legalize slavery everywhere in the Union.

The text you provide clearly does not support that interpretation.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor service by the laws of said State”.

D-uh, the Corwin Amendment did not "legalize slavery everywhere in the Union." It allowed states to make their own laws regarding slavery, and forbade constitutional action to abolish slavery, i.e. it asserted "state's rights," what you guys want. It would not legalize slavery in Michigan or Vermont or give it additional protection in the free states.

Nor did it represent Congress's ideal intention with regard to slavery. It was a last ditch compromise effort to save the union. Moreover, the Corwin Amendment was an attempt to head off the Crittenden compromise which would have made slavery legal in the territories." Neither proposed amendment would have "legalized slavery throughout the country but at least the Corwin version would have left the non-slave territories free.

Whether the Corwin Amendment would have been ratified and what status an "unamendable amendment" would have are debatable questions with no easy answers. The supporters of the amendment widely regarded the amendment as simply reasserting the Constitution's provisions with regard to slavery, not as some radical change.

The Corwin Amendment certainly wasn't our nation's finest hour. It was an attempt to prevent the country from falling apart by trying to satisfy Southern demands for Constitutional protections for slavery.

If you are insinuating that the US Congress was working on freedom for slaves in 1861, sadly you are mistaken. Perhaps you have not heard of the Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution.

If you are insinuating that Dred Scott was issued in 1861 then you are sadly mistaken. The decision was issued in 1856.

The Corwin Amendment to the United States Constitution, Number 13, Would Legalize Slavery throughout the Country.

Absolute nonsense, as you would know if you bothered reading the amendment to begin with. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." If slavery was legal in Alabama then Congress couldn't end it, though Alabama could have had they wanted to. But if slavery was illegal in Michigan then the Corwin Amendment did not mean that it was suddenly legal. Michigan could continue to ban it. The Corwin Amendment was, in its own way, no different from clauses in the confederate constituiton which established slavery in the confederacy and ensured the central government could not interfere with it.