Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
In other words, permanent slavery in the United States.

What you persist in ignoring is that the Corwin Amendment only protected slavery where it existed while the Confederate constitution mandated the legality of slavery in every square inch of territory the Confederacy had or would ever acquire in the future. Given the two choices which do you think the Southern slaveocracy would prefer?

152 posted on 05/03/2019 2:11:55 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg

Don’t forget that degeneratelamp also believes that the Dred Scott ruling resulted in a prohibition against any state banning slavery.


155 posted on 05/03/2019 2:15:42 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg
What you persist in ignoring is that the Corwin Amendment only protected slavery where it existed...

It existed in the United States. Specifically in 15 states prior to secession, and 16 after West Virginia split.

Passing the Corwin amendment meant it would linger until the very last state voluntarily gave it up.

Now what was it again they claimed they were fighting over?

207 posted on 05/03/2019 4:46:09 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson