The entire purpose of the Corwin Amendment was to get the original 7 seceding states back in. It failed. They were not interested in perpetual protection for slavery. What they were interested in was self determination so they could set their own trade and tax policies.
In which way did he orchestrate it?
He put Thomas Corwin up to it. He was the de facto leader of the party. He twisted arms to get Republicans to vote for it.
Buchanan said it.
Obviously Lincoln and the Northern states were willing to offer this up quite freely. They were not concerned with abolishing slavery. Far from it. The problem for them is the original 7 seceding states were not interested in protecting slavery. They too were focused on the money. Going their own way would allow them to keep the huge amounts of money their trade generated rather than sending it North. That's what both sides were fighting over.
That's nonsense. The previous administration had pushed for it. That's like blaming Trump for the pictures of caged children that were taken during the Obama administration.
That's obviously not nonsense. The Northern dominated Congress passed it with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority. Clearly they were willing to support slavery forever.
Right. The abolitionists weren't interested in banning slavery. The escaped slaves who joined the Union Army and Navy weren't interested in abolishing slavery. No one was interested in abolishing slavery. They just accidentally did it.
The abolitionists were sure. They were also a teeny tiny miniscule minority.
I can spam too.
That wasn't spam. That was noting WHY they cited that specifically. It was proof that the other side broke the deal...the other side was at fault. That was the harm they suffered which justified leaving.
Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]
Yes, Stephens did think that. He was also the Vice President and was powerless. So much so that he sat at home in Georgia while the Davis Administration set policy. Davis of course had the diametrically opposite view. But since we're quoting Stephens, what else did he say?
""If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity."
What did Stephens say about the North's motivations?
"“Their philanthropy yields to their interests. Notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor…The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after – though they come from the labor of the slave.”
We've been over that. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain about having to keep the country united when many opposed or didn't care about abolition. If you can't understand it by now, you won't if I explain it again.
You just said they were trying to prevent secession. OK. They were I agree. That said, they were willing to protect slavery forever to do so. Why was it so important to them that those states stay in? Why not just let them go with their slaveholding since Northerners were supposedly so opposed to slavery at the time? That way there would be 7 fewer states that still allowed it. Wouldn't they therefore be less tainted by association with quite as many states that still allowed slavery?.....or was there some other reason they were desperate to stop those states from leaving?
I know. All of those quotes above didn't come from the North, the UK, or South America.
OK? I've said some in the Southern states thought that holding onto slavery was important. The fact remains that everybody else got rid of slavery without a bloodbath. Almost all of them got rid of it via a compensated emancipation scheme. So why should we accept the claim that slavery here could only have been ended by a bloodbath or that it was "necessary"? All the other examples would argue to the contrary.
Fort Sumter wasn't their sovereign territory.
Yes it was.
Confederacy approves Black soldiers (March 13, 1865) The previous link does not make your case.
That's only the Confederate Congress. The fact remains that tens of thousands of Blacks - some slaves and some freedmen - had been serving in the Confederate Army for years. The Confederacy was.....a confederacy. They had no choice but to accept whatever units a state sent them. If a state allowed Blacks to serve in its units then that was it - they were part of those units. Whatever the Confederate Congress had to say about it was irrelevant.
From "Racism in the work of Charles Dickens", "Ackroyd also notes that Dickens did not believe that the North in the American Civil War was genuinely interested in the abolition of slavery, and he almost publicly supported the South for that reason."
Did you not see the various English quotes I posted saying exactly that? They noted that there was not anything the North would not offer by way of preserving and protecting slavery in order to get those states back in - because they wanted to keep sucking MONEY out of them. The Southern states for their part, wanted to leave for the exact same reason. Dickens called it "Solely a fiscal quarrel."
And from "Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War" "Dickens implicitly supported the South, suggesting that the Northern calls for abolition merely masked a desire for some type of economic gain."
He was spot on.
Of course he was right and wrong. Right in that the CW was about slavery, and wrong in that the North did follow through after winning.
No, he was 100% right. Both sides were fighting over money. The Southern states knew they would be financially much better off if they were independent. The Northern states ran the numbers and came to the same conclusion. That's why they didn't want the Southern states to leave. It was a fiscal quarrel like the vast majority of all wars throughout human history.
What about self determination for the slaves?
He put Thomas Corwin up to it.
How?
Obviously Lincoln and the Northern states were willing to offer this up quite freely.
They never offered anything. The previous congress approved largely on party lines, and the previous president who signed it was voted out and is considered one of the worst presidents in history. It was never ratified in any state until the slave holding states seceded and the war had already started. The North offered nothing because there was nothing to offer.
As usual you repeated this several times, so I cut the rest.
The abolitionists were sure. They were also a teeny tiny miniscule minority.
Then why did the declarations of secession cite them as a reason for seceding?
That wasn't spam. That was noting WHY they cited that specifically. It was proof that the other side broke the deal...the other side was at fault. That was the harm they suffered which justified leaving.
Did you not read where the "negro" was called inferior and his best use was as a slave? Comments like these aren't legal justification for anything.
Yes, Stephens did think that. He was also the Vice President and was powerless. So much so that he sat at home in Georgia while the Davis Administration set policy. Davis of course had the diametrically opposite view.
From Jefferson Davis, "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."
But since we're quoting Stephens, what else did he say?
""If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity."
Was he expecting vindication about what he said about the "negro"?
What did Stephens say about the North's motivations?
Why do I need to care what someone who called "the negro" an "inferior race" "that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" has to say about anything?
Yes it was.
We'll need to agree to disagree on this point. Both had their legal claims to Fort Sumter, and neither of us are going to convince each other or anyone else.
That's only the Confederate Congress. The fact remains that tens of thousands of Blacks - some slaves and some freedmen - had been serving in the Confederate Army for years. The Confederacy was.....a confederacy. They had no choice but to accept whatever units a state sent them. If a state allowed Blacks to serve in its units then that was it - they were part of those units. Whatever the Confederate Congress had to say about it was irrelevant.
OK, what were the numbers who weren't forced as slaves to serve or were slave owners themselves?
Did you not see the various English quotes I posted saying exactly that? They noted that there was not anything the North would not offer by way of preserving and protecting slavery in order to get those states back in - because they wanted to keep sucking MONEY out of them. The Southern states for their part, wanted to leave for the exact same reason. Dickens called it "Solely a fiscal quarrel."
Here are the quotes again.
From "Racism in the work of Charles Dickens", "Ackroyd also notes that Dickens did not believe that the North in the American Civil War was genuinely interested in the abolition of slavery, and he almost publicly supported the South for that reason."
And from "Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War" "Dickens implicitly supported the South, suggesting that the Northern calls for abolition merely masked a desire for some type of economic gain."
He was wrong, as the North did abolish slavery.