The abolitionists were and there were enough of them to win. The slave holding states noted them as being one of the reasons they were seceding.
By getting him to write it.
What?!? According to you it was passed by the congress and signed by the president, but it was never writ...oh never mind.
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 never passed. It was passed by the previous congress and signed by the previous president, then died. It was never ratified by any states until after the slave holding states had seceeded and the war had already started.
It became a dead letter when the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
Did the original 7 seceding states abolish slavery? No.
The North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
Then it was ratified by enough Northern states to make it law, is that what you're saying? If not, then it was nothing.
Because they were examples of the Northern states violating the constitution. How many times do you need to read that?
Calling blacks inferior and saying their best use was as slaves is your idea of citing "examples of the Northern states violating the constitution"? Seriously?
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.
When I search for this, all of the examples that come up were from the South. How about posting something in support of this?
"“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/"
Did he free the slaves after saying any of this? No. His mouth said one thing, but his actions said another.
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).
The issue wouldn't have even come up if it the war wasn't about slavery, never mind whether we have to believe JD.
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.
I'll grant that, but there is a difference. The confederacy held on to their slaves until forced by defeat to release them. Lincoln and the North freed them. Whatever racist demons Lincoln had prior, he overcame them to get abolition done.
We know from union accounts, confederate accounts and pensions paid to veterans by Southern states in later years that there were thousands at least.
I can accept there were thousands, but how many?
Here you post the same spam that has already been refuted.
I posted two referces from two different sources that showed that Dickens supported the South over the North because he didn't believe the North was serious about freeing the slaves. Here they are 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."
Where was that refuted?
He was right.
Do you mean slavery wasn't abolished after the war?
They were a tiny minority and there were nowhere near enough of them to win. What abolitionists candidates were elected prior to 1860?
What?!? According to you it was passed by the congress and signed by the president, but it was never writ...oh never mind.
The amendment was written by Thomas Corwin. Thus the name.
It never passed. It was passed by the previous congress and signed by the previous president, then died. It was never ratified by any states until after the slave holding states had seceeded and the war had already started.
It did not pass because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority.
Did the original 7 seceding states abolish slavery? No.
Is that relevant to the Corwin Amendment? No.
Then it was ratified by enough Northern states to make it law, is that what you're saying? If not, then it was nothing.
Did it have to be ratified by enough states before it passed the Congress with the necessary supermajority and before Lincoln offered it in his inaugural address? No. By the way, Lincoln had not started the war yet when he gave his inaugural address.
Calling blacks inferior and saying their best use was as slaves is your idea of citing "examples of the Northern states violating the constitution"? Seriously?
Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution by the Northern states is not proof of them violating the constitution? Seriously?
When I search for this, all of the examples that come up were from the South. How about posting something in support of this?
"the Prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the states where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern state." Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America
So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death. In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle. -Alexis De Tocqueville, "Democracy in America", Harper & Row, 1966, p.343.
“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale." - Charles Dickens
"There can be no doubt that many blacks were sorely mistreated in the North and West. Observers like Fanny Kemble and Frederick L. Olmsted mentioned incidents in their writings. Kemble said of Northern blacks, 'They are not slaves indeed, but they are pariahs, debarred from every fellowship save with their own despised race. . . . All hands are extended to thrust them out, all fingers point at their dusky skin, all tongues . . . have learned to turn the very name of their race into an insult and a reproach.' Olmsted seems to have believed the Louisiana black who told him that they could associate with whites more freely in the South than in the North and that he preferred to live in the South because he was less likely to be insulted there." (John Franklin and Alfred Moss, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, p. 185.
"For all the good intentions of many early white abolitionists, blacks were not especially welcome in the free states of America. Several territories and states, such as Ohio, not only refused to allow slavery but also had passed laws specifically limiting or excluding any blacks from entering its territory or owning property." (Davis, Don't Know Much About the Civil War, p. 54)
". . . in 1862 white laborers erupted into mob violence against blacks in a half-dozen cities across the North. . . . The mobs sometimes surged into black neighborhoods and assaulted people on the streets and in their homes. . . .
"'Our people hate the Negro with a perfect if not a supreme hatred,' said Congressman George Julian of Indiana. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois conceded that 'there is a very great aversion in the West--I know it to be so in my State--against having free negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the negro.' The same could be said of many soldiers. . . ." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 275)
". . . discouragement was deepened by the outcome of three Northern state referendums in the fall of 1865. The legislatures of Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Minnesota placed on the ballot constitutional amendments to enfranchise the few black men in those states. Everyone recognized that, in some measure, the popular vote on these amendments would serve as a barometer of Northern opinion on black suffrage. The defeat of the amendments could be seen as a mandate against black suffrage by a majority of Northern voters." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 501)
"Numerous [Union] army officials who advocated the use of black troops viewed Negroes as little more than cannon fodder. 'For my part,' announced an officer stationed in South Carolina, 'I make bold to say that I am not so fastidious as to object to a negro being food for powder and I would arm every man of them.' Governor Israel Washburn of Maine agreed. 'Why have our rulers so little regard for the true and brave white men of the north?' asked Washburn. 'Will they continue to sacrifice them? Why will they refuse to save them by employing black men? . . . Why are our leaders unwilling that Sambo should save white boys?'" (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 93)
"In the first half of the nineteenth century, state legislatures in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut took away Negroes' right to vote; and voters in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, and Wisconsin approved new constitutions that limited suffrage to whites. In Ohio, Negro males were permitted to vote only if they had "a greater visible admixture of white than colored blood." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 54)
Here is a whole website that goes over slavery and discrimination in the North in great detail. http://slavenorth.com/denial.htm
Did he free the slaves after saying any of this? No. His mouth said one thing, but his actions said another.
You seem to not grasp that secession and the war might have been about something other than slavery AND at the same time, one did not need to be an abolitionist to say so.
The issue wouldn't have even come up if it the war wasn't about slavery, never mind whether we have to believe JD.
Patently false. Just because some Northerners thought it was "about slavery" does not make it so. Most in the South did not think so and as we've already gone over, the vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists.
I'll grant that, but there is a difference. The confederacy held on to their slaves until forced by defeat to release them. Lincoln and the North freed them. Whatever racist demons Lincoln had prior, he overcame them to get abolition done.
Actually he didn't. The 13th amendment passed after his death. The North held onto its slaves until after the war and only finally abolished slavery to try to claim a moral high ground it did not possess. They did not go to war to put down slavery as they themselves said over and over again.
I can accept there were thousands, but how many?
That is difficult to say exactly. 19th century record keeping was not up to modern standards. We can safely say many thousands. That one report said 3,000 in Jackson's Corps alone.
I posted two referces from two different sources that showed that Dickens supported the South over the North because he didn't believe the North was serious about freeing the slaves. Here they are again.
No, he knew the North did not go to war to put down slavery as they themselves said over and over again. Lincoln said it. Congress passed a resolution saying it. Furthermore, he also knew what the North was really interested in was holding on to its cash cow. It was about money.
Where was that refuted?
Did you see the one about how he said the war was waged on the part of the North for economic gain/control over the Southern states? That's what I've said all along. That's what Dickens said numerous times. I posted the quotes.
Do you mean slavery wasn't abolished after the war?
Do you mean the North did not offer slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, did not emancipate their own slaves and did not expressly say they were not fighting to abolish slavery?