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

To: OIFVeteran
What you keep forgetting is he was supported by the Republican lead congress.

Which voted to strengthen protection for slavery through the Corwin amendment. This action makes it clear that neither side cared about slavery.

Both sides accepted it as the norm going forward.

No Republican (chase, seward) who won the nomination and the presidency would have just let the southern states go.

I'm glad you said this. I interpret it to mean that one way or another, the Union was going to fight them to stop them from leaving.

No one was going to let them leave in peace. And why is that? We let the Philippines go. We let Cuba go. We still tell Puerto Rico they can leave if they wish.

What was it about the money producing Southern states that made them so important to the Union government?

843 posted on 05/14/2019 4:39:19 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran
OIFVeteran: "...he was supported by the Republican lead congress."

DiogenesLamp: "Which voted to strengthen protection for slavery through the Corwin amendment.
This action makes it clear that neither side cared about slavery."

Totally false, which Diogeneslamp would well understand if not so blindly denying history.

  1. Corwin began as one of many Democrat "compromise" proposals to keep their fellow Democrats from seceeding.

  2. Corwin was supported by 100% of Democrats and signed by Democrat President Buchanan, not Lincoln.

  3. Corwin was opposed by the majority of Republicans in Congress.

  4. Lincoln did not oppose Corwin because, he said, it made no real change to the Constitution.
So Diogeneslamp thinks he's found in Corwin a mighty weapon he can wield against Lincoln and Republicans generally.
But as with everything else Lost Cause, it's only a "weapon" if you first buy their lies.
846 posted on 05/15/2019 10:16:19 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran
Diogeneslamp: "No one was going to let them leave in peace.
And why is that?
We let the Philippines go.
We let Cuba go.
We still tell Puerto Rico they can leave if they wish.
What was it about the money producing Southern states that made them so important to the Union government?"

And yet another dud argument which should embarrass Diogeneslamp to make.
None of those were states who'd ratified the Constitution.

And none declared unilateral secession at pleasure.

847 posted on 05/15/2019 10:25:46 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | 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