Posted on 02/24/2019 7:57:47 AM PST by tcrlaf
DiogenesLamp: "And they were right.
Lincoln killed 750,000 people...
Most destructive president in American History."
That would be Jefferson Davis, who started Civil War, declared war on the United States, waged war in Union states & territories, then refused to end it on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender!
Obviously DiogenesLamp was lied to and now repeats those lies endlessly on these threads, even concocting some new lies of his own.
DiogenesLamp: "Abraham Lincoln promoted an Amendment to the Constitution to protect slavery."
Called the Corwin Amendment, it was effectively the Democrat Sen. Jefferson Davis & President Buchanan Amendment.
Both pushed for it and Buchanan even signed it.
Lincoln effectively killed it by refusing to aggressively support it.
The 13th Amendment Lincoln did support was passed & fully ratified within 12 months.
DiogenesLamp: "The claim that the war was about slavery was after the fact justification for the bloodshed and destruction."
From Day One in December 1860 secession was all about slavery and Fire Eaters were not ashamed to say so.
Fort Sumter was not about slavery, but within weeks slavery became a war issue in the form of "Contraband of War" and Congressional acts of confiscation & compensated emancipation years before Lincoln's final Proclamation in 1863.
So there was never a time when slavery was not an issue and it became increasingly so during the Civil War.
Pure fantasy -- a cockamamie concoction mostly of DiogenesLamp's own imagination, with much aid from Karl Marx's dialectical economics.
We can start here: for every alleged "Wealthy Northerner" who benefitted from the Civil War, several others were destroyed economically by it, especially those with business interests in the South.
You will not waste the hours of my day.
Noise. I have no problem with the truth. It just isn’t what you keep claiming it is.
Naw, you just can't handle the truth.
You run from it, you flee from it squealing whenever it shows up on these threads.
You're only here to spread your Lost Cause lies and you have no answers when the truth arrives.
You put forth this sort of nonsense precisely because you do not wish to hear anything that contradicts those things which you wish to believe.
Corwin Amendment.
But you can never "contradict" the truth with lies, and your Lost Cause myths were a pack of lies from Day One.
Even casual readings of real history will show you that things were not what Lost Causers claim.
Consdier this example I've posted now several times:
Corwin Amendment.
Misnamed.
It was originally the Democrat Sen. Jefferson Davis proposal, pushed and signed by Democrat President Buchanan over opposition from most Republicans.
New York Republican Senator William Seward did play an important role, but Lincoln did not.
Lincoln believed Corwin was, in our terms, a nothing-burger, pure eyewash which changed nothing then already understood.
So President Lincoln did not support or push for it and allowed it to die a natural death, with just three Northern and two Southern state ratifications.
Two of those later rescinded their ratifications.
By stark contrast the 13th Amendment Lincoln strongly supported was passed & ratified in 12 months, eventually approved by all 36 states of the time, none ever rescinded their ratifications.
So if Corwin is your best weapon against Northern abolitionism, it's a nothing-burger.
You got nothing except Lost Causer lies, FRiend.
Lincoln urged the passage of the Corwin amendment, greatly strengthening protection for the institution of slavery, and prohibiting any further efforts to end it outside of each individual state legislature.
No, Lincoln's "urge" consisted entirely of these words:
DiogenesLamp: "...greatly strengthening protection for the institution of slavery, and prohibiting any further efforts to end it outside of each individual state legislature."
Sure, that was Jefferson Davis' intention when he first proposed it in December 1860, but in fact Corwin added nothing new and could never be used to prevent future amendments from abolishing it.
For an example of amendment repealing amendment, see the 18th and 21st.
Bottom line: true to your Marxist training, you reduce everything to economics, "money flows" and class warfare, but the reality is abolition had a strong & growing base in the North, rightly perceived & feared by Southern slavers.
It drove them to declare secession and kept them fighting long after common sense would have told them it's time for "let's make a deal".
Had the Southern states showed signs that it would work, Lincoln would be known as the President that guaranteed more future slavery.
Do you not see how insane you are, when the words are right there in front of you and still you lie about them?
Lincoln did not "urge", he merely did not object.
Read it!
DiogenesLamp: "His Secretary of State had already been working behind the scenes to push congressmen and Senators into passing it."
Senator Seward was not yet Secretary of State because Buchanan was still president and Democrats still controlled the Senate, until they walked out -- even then the total was 25 Democrats to 26 Republicans.
But the vast majority of Lincoln Republicans voted against Corwin in both House and Senate.
So two-thirds of votes for Corwin came from Democrats and no Democrat opposed it -- not one.
Republican Senator Seward, who would today be called a RINO, did eventually round up the 1/3 of Republicans needed to pass Corwin.
Sure, I "get" that you desperately need to blame Lincoln for Corwin, but Corwin's bill was for Democrats & Seward RINOs, from which Lincoln was able to hold 2/3 of Republicans in opposition.
DiogenesLamp: "so the only thing left was to use that same influence to get the states to approve it. "
Sorry, but despite your desperate wishes, there's no evidence Lincoln ever lifted a finger to push Corwin's ratification.
Contrast that to the 13th Amendment in 1865.
DiogenesLamp: "Had the Southern states showed signs that it would work, Lincoln would be known as the President that guaranteed more future slavery."
Sure, just as President Wilson is now known as the President who forever Prohibited booze in America with the 18th Amendment.
Oh, wait... the 21st did what?
Lincoln's opinion was Corwin changed nothing and if it made some slaveholders happy, he didn't object.
The 13th Amendment which Lincoln fully supported took care of all that.
Had Lincoln been successful, he would be known as the President who helped to keep slavery alive longer than it would have otherwise lasted.
He would be known as *THE* slavery President.
Sorry, but you have no evidence -- none, zero, nada evidence -- that Lincoln ever lifted a finger to support Corwin, beyond his "no objection" comment.
Sure, then as now there were plenty of RINOs, but 2/3 of Congress's Lincoln Republicans stood firm in opposition.
DiogenesLamp: "He would be known as *THE* slavery President."
Just as Wilson is now known as *THE* Prohibition President, right?
Oh wait... what happened to Prohibition?
He sure has a unique way of standing history and common sense on its ear, doesn’t he?!
Take a deep breath, Jer.
So FDR trying to pad the Supreme Court doesn’t register with this guy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.