But as I already outlined, there were 15 states that still had slavery. There simply were nowhere near enough states to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the Corwin Amendment unless the states that still had slavery consented. Funny, you choose to ignore the basic math. Oh, and "anti-slavery" does not mean "abolitionist". The Republican Party was merely against the spread of slavery. They were not in favor of abolition. They themselves said so over and over again.
I don't care how bad it wasn't or when they were born. Any slave owner would have been intelligent to know that they wouldn't want to live and die as slaves or watch their children live and die as slaves. The abolitionists grew up during the same time and they understood this, and there were enough of them to get slavery abolished regardless of what you think their number was.
There were nowhere near enough of them to do that. Slavery was only banned after the war when Northern politicians were desperate to try to claim some noble purpose behind all the blood and carnage they caused when they started a war for money and empire.
Using these arguments to defend the confederacy only shows how bad they were.
No it doesn't. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was the contract made between the states. The Northern states broke it. That was the "injury" the Southern states could cite as providing legal justification to secede.
After the CW, their legal argument was completely abolished.
After
That's funny. It was about money, but they abolished the profitable slave trade.
The slave trade had been illegal since the Grandfather Clause in the constitution expired in 1810. Of course there was massive illicit slave trading that New Englanders continued well into the mid 19th century, but it had not been legal for over 50 years by the time the Southern states seceded.
I know. But sadly you're wrong, and I don't mean this as a dig at you. Human trafficking is alive and well even in this country, and thanks to the free traitors we are back to using slave labor to get our products cheap.
Of course there is still slavery in the US and elsewhere in modern countries. The difference is its at least de jure illegal now. I would add there is quite overt slavery in China which big companies like Nike and Apple and others are lobbying Congress not to sanction China for...so those greedy bastards can continue to profit from it by having those slaves make cheap goods they can then import into the US.
Since when could we trust our press for anything? After these last four years you should know better.
If such sentiments were widely unpopular in the North, they never would have printed them. The vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists. Only a tiny minority were.
That's like saying loosing your arm is better than losing your eyesight.
The individual owners of slaves had an economic incentive to try to keep them healthy and to at least not make their conditions so bad that they would run away at any opportunity. That is different than a program of extermination like the Nazis had in which they planned to work their slaves to death - or like the Soviets/CCP had and have in which they at best do not care if their slaves die because there are plenty more they can enslave. The treatment of an individual enslaved by a government is far worse - let alone the treatment of individuals deemed enemies of the state in totalitarian dictatorships like the State Socialists or National Socialists.
Then why did Georgia say they were?
Georgia's declaration said they were anti slavery - not that they were abolitionists. These are two different things.
I understand the math. They only got five states to ratify it, and they were after the CW had already started.
They got several Northern states to ratify it and this was before Lincoln started the war. They specifically got Northern states to ratify it to show the original 7 seceding states that they were serious about it. Had those states indicated that the Corwin Amendment would satisfy their concerns, they would have gotten even more Northern states to ratify it. Then the original 7 could have come back in and also ratified it to make sure it passed. Once they explicitly rejected it and refused to come back in, there was no point for Lincoln to push more Northern states to ratify it.
Virginia, who gave the treatment of the slave holding states as their reason. Do you need me to post what that treatment was about again?
Virginia's objection and the objection of the rest of the states in the Upper South was Lincoln choosing to launch a war of Aggression on the original 7 seceding states in order to impose a government upon them that they no longer consented to. Their objection was that the federal government was not respecting the states' right to self determination.
Fortunately, after the CW the Constitution was ammended. Accidentally I'm sure since they didn't mean to abolish slavery, right?
The 13th amendment passed with no problem. It was pushed through as a fig leaf to try to cover for the bloodbath Lincoln started. They had to tell all those voters in the Northern states their loved ones were killed or maimed for something other than to line the pockets of special interest groups.
I'm sure their statements for secession all say that.
Look at when they seceded. Look at what their newspapers and political leaders were saying.
They would have had to pass it first, and they never got close to that. No one even voted to ratify it until after the CW started, and that was only a last ditch effort to preserve the Union.
Oh, and "anti-slavery" does not mean "abolitionist".
I would refer you to Georgia's declaration of secession. Just search for the word "abolition".
The Republican Party was merely against the spread of slavery. They were not in favor of abolition.
What part of "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is unclear to you?
They themselves said so over and over again.
Frederick Douglas, who lived through these times as a freed slave, answered that here.
There were nowhere near enough of them (abolitionists) to do that. Slavery was only banned after the war when Northern politicians were desperate to try to claim some noble purpose behind all the blood and carnage they caused when they started a war for money and empire.
Then later, you posted.
It was pushed through as a fig leaf to try to cover for the bloodbath Lincoln started. They had to tell all those voters in the Northern states their loved ones were killed or maimed for something other than to line the pockets of special interest groups.
So you're saying the North used abolition to sell the war to the populace, even though only a tiny minority were abolitionists. That makes sense.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was the contract made between the states. The Northern states broke it. That was the "injury" the Southern states could cite as providing legal justification to secede.
The fact that they even saw it as a ligitimate reason tells me everything I need to know about the confederacy.
The slave trade had been illegal since the Grandfather Clause in the constitution expired in 1810. Of course there was massive illicit slave trading that New Englanders continued well into the mid 19th century, but it had not been legal for over 50 years by the time the Southern states seceded.
How does this refute my point, which was "That's funny. It was about money, but they abolished the profitable slave trade."?
I would add there is quite overt slavery in China which big companies like Nike and Apple and others are lobbying Congress not to sanction China for...so those greedy bastards can continue to profit from it by having those slaves make cheap goods they can then import into the US.
That's what I was referring to. We agree on this.
The individual owners of slaves had an economic incentive to try to keep them healthy and to at least not make their conditions so bad that they would run away at any opportunity.
And human traffickers have reason to keep their kidnapped women looking good so they can keep making money off of them. Are you serious?
That is different than a program of extermination like the Nazis had in which they planned to work their slaves to death - or like the Soviets/CCP had and have in which they at best do not care if their slaves die because there are plenty more they can enslave. The treatment of an individual enslaved by a government is far worse - let alone the treatment of individuals deemed enemies of the state in totalitarian dictatorships like the State Socialists or National Socialists.
I suppose next you're going to tell me no slaves were killed or maimed by their masters.
Georgia's declaration said they were anti slavery - not that they were abolitionists. These are two different things.
They were abolitionists, which made them anti-slavery. Georgia's statement used both terms.
They got several Northern states to ratify it and this was before Lincoln started the war.
At least one of those states, Maryland, sympathized with the confederacy.
They specifically got Northern states to ratify it to show the original 7 seceding states that they were serious about it. Had those states indicated that the Corwin Amendment would satisfy their concerns, they would have gotten even more Northern states to ratify it. Then the original 7 could have come back in and also ratified it to make sure it passed. Once they explicitly rejected it and refused to come back in, there was no point for Lincoln to push more Northern states to ratify it.
All conjecture. The North never came close to ratifying it.
Virginia's objection and the objection of the rest of the states in the Upper South was Lincoln choosing to launch a war of Aggression
You don't think taking slaves is an act of war on those taken, legal or not?
on the original 7 seceding Slaveholding states in order to impose a government upon them that they no longer consented to. Their objection was that the federal government was not respecting the states' right to self determination.
Fixed it, using their wording.
Look at when they seceded. Look at what their newspapers and political leaders were saying.
From Georgia: "or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
Also from Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."
From Mississippi: "It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."
From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery"