Lincoln orchestrated the Corwin Amendment. It was not ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. The original 7 seceding states had seceded, duh! The Union could have ratified the amendment if they had intended to, but even Buchanan admitted it was just an attempt to prevent secession.
It does not matter that it was Buchanan who signed it rather than Lincoln. Lincoln would have signed it because once again, he orchestrated it.
In which way did he orchestrate it?
You say it was to "prevent" secession. So?
Buchanan said it.
The fact is that the North was so willing to bargain away any prospect of banning slavery that they were perfectly happy to offer it up right away.
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.
Nonsense like this leads me to believe you're one of those lefty dems who are trying to stick our side with their history.
Get it? The North was not interested in banning slavery.
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.
Yes the 4 states which did issue declarations of causes did mention the North's violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution.....because that was irrefutable proof that the Northern states had broken the deal.
I can spam too.
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.]
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom:
Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
From Selected Quotations from 1830-1865
And, from the declarations of secession.
From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
Not only I say that. They themselves said they did not enter the war to abolish slavery. Yet you refuse to take them at their word.
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.
Racism was universal in the world at the time.
Granted.
Hardly anybody was on board with abolishing slavery.
Nope, just enough to abolish it after the war.
Practically everybody else in Europe and the Americas got rid of slavery without a massive bloodbath at this time.
I know. All of those quotes above didn't come from the North, the UK, or South America.
You have it backwards. South Carolina is sovereign. Any claims of the federal government meant nothing to them in their sovereign territory.
Fort Sumter wasn't their sovereign territory.
No, I meant 1810. That's when slave trading became illegal in the United States. Yankee slave traders continued however well into the mid 19th century - illegally - by greasing the palms of corrupt government officials.
I never denied the illegal slave trade continued, in fact I pointed that out.
BTW, other than the examples of individual troops there were accounts of entire companies and of "thousands, manifestly a part of the Confederate Army."
Confederacy approves Black soldiers (March 13, 1865)
The previous link does not make your case.
I should have known you wouldn't read them. Allow me to help.
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."
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.
The Original 7 seceding states had seceded, duh! The Union could have ratified the amendment if they had intended to, but even Buchanan admitted it was just an attempt to prevent secession.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.