The very good reason that such an amendment was not introduced was because there wasn’t a snow ball’s chance in hell of it ever being passed. The slave states could block any such attempt. Add to this fact that a gag rule about discussing slavery had been enforced in congress since the 1830s so you couldn’t even talk about such an amendment.
You mean there wasn't sufficient will of the people to create an amendment banning it? Well isn't that the reason the amendment process is in the constitution; To keep changes from occurring for which their is insufficient support?
It is a fiction that the 13th amendment was legally passed. That was just the wielding of raw military power to oppress states and force them to vote for what the dictator said, and that's all it was.
The slave states could block any such attempt.
Yes they could, and D@mn them for preventing people from re-writting the constitution without actually having to amend it through the legal process.
Stubborn bastards, don't they know it's a "living constitution"? It should mean whatever northeaster liberals want it to mean.
Add to this fact that a gag rule about discussing slavery had been enforced in congress since the 1830s so you couldn’t even talk about such an amendment.
I guess @$$hole Charles Sumner didn't get the memo.
It sounds like you are saying the North didn't have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment.
But later they did - after 600,000 men had been safely buried. And after surviving opponents had been stripped of the right to vote.
If what you say is true, what the North needed to get their way was a war. War cloaks a lot, including extra-constitutional methods.
But first the North would need a pretext for open-ended war. That, and hot blood, they found with their Navy at the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
I mean, the Fort Sumter incident.