Replies

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.

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.

on Alexander Stephens: "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?"

Alabama put out no "Reasons for Secession" document, but their Ordinance of Secession did include:

"Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama,"

Four of the first seven secession states did produce "Reasons for Secession" plus Robert Rhett and Alexander Stephens wrote their own well known reasons.
Every such document included slavery and for some it was the only major issue.
These percentage numbers come from here:

"Reasons for Secession" Documents before Fort Sumter

Reasons for Secession	S. Carolina	Mississippi	Georgia	Texas	Rbt. Rhett	A. Stephens	AVERAGE OF 6
Historical context	41%	20%	23%	21%	20%	20%	24%
Slavery	20%	73%	56%	54%	35%	50%	48%
States' Rights	37%	3%	4%	15%	15%	10%	14%
Lincoln's election	2%	4%	4%	4%	5%	0%	3%
Economic issues**	0	0	15%	0%	25%	20%	10%
Military protection	0	0	0	6%	0%	0%	1%

** Economic issues include tariffs, "fishing smacks" and other alleged favoritism to Northerners in Federal spending.

What about self determination for the slaves?

Nobody was concerned about that at the time....nor the self determination of Indians, nor of women, etc

How?

By getting him to write it. Corwin was a political ally. There have been numerous books written about it.

They offered it. Lincoln did so in his first inaugural address. I've posted it here before. Lincoln orchestrated its passage and was a big advocate of it. It became a dead letter when the original 7 seceding states turned it down. The North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Facts. Deal with it.

Then why did the declarations of secession cite them as a reason for seceding?

Because they were examples of the Northern states violating the constitution. How many times do you need to read that?

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.

Sure I read that. Those sentiments were common....the abolitionists were a tiny minority. The Northern states had incredibly discriminatory Black Codes on the books at the time.

“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861

“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess

“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/

Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).

Was he expecting vindication about what he said about the "negro"?

Even Stephens had other motivations - Southerners wanted self determination for economic reasons and they were against the centralization of power and were for states rights. They were for these things philosophically - not as a cover for protecting slavery. They were for this before slavery was even an issue nationally and they're still in favor of decentralization and states' rights now long after slavery is no longer an issue.

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?

Odd. You care about what Lincoln has to say and yet he said the same things about Negroes (ie Blacks) being subordinate and inferior and Whites being superior. This was the overwhelming view at the time. What we would consider to be massive egregious racism was the norm the world over in the mid 19th century.

OK, what were the numbers who weren't forced as slaves to serve or were slave owners themselves?

We know from union accounts, confederate accounts and pensions paid to veterans by Southern states in later years that there were thousands at least.

Here you post the same spam that has already been refuted.

He was wrong, as the North did abolish slavery.

He was right. The North did not go to war to put down slavery. In fact it was willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. No. The Federal Government under Lincoln went to war for money and empire - no other reason.