[jeffersondem]

“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.”

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.

[DoodleDawg]

But later they did - after 600,000 men had been safely buried. And after surviving opponents had been stripped of the right to vote.

Check your timeline and states that ratified the 13th Amendment.

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.

Since you aren't familiar with the 13th Amendment ratification is it any wonder you keep returning to this ridiculous comparison?