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?
Was this before or after it was ratified by the previous congress and signed by the previous president? Remember, your answer to my question about how Lincoln pressured Corwin was "By getting him to write it."
It did not pass because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
They had already seceded.
It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority. As we'll see later, many paid for it with their jobs.
That was the previous congress and the previous president, the one who was voted out in 1860.
And enough states never ratified it.
It was nothing.
Is that relevant to the Corwin Amendment? No.
It's relevant to the question of what the Civil War was about. The Corwin Amendment is irrelevant because it was never ratified.
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?
Yes, because it was nothing more than dangling carrots until that happened.
By the way, Lincoln had not started the war yet when he gave his inaugural address.
Fixed.
Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution by the Northern states is not proof of them violating the constitution? Seriously?
Was calling "the negro" "inferior" whose "best use" was as slaves "Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution"?
In response to my question about "black codes" in the North, you posted examples of discrimination against blacks before the CW. A link would have by itself would have been fine.
It was unnecessary any way. No one denies that there was discrimination in the North or says that everyone in the North was the good guys, but what about legal "black codes" as had been passed in the South.
If that was just a figure of speech then just say so.
And before you point out that discrimination existed in the North after the CW, I know that too. Racism went on long after the CW and the 13th Amendment.
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.
That's because it was about slavery. The fact that there were other grievances, and no one denies that, is moot. Most of the economic reasons were in some way related to slavery any way, since some of what they produced cheaply was by slave labor.
BTW, "states rights" was the argument later used by Democrats in the House to defeat the EP in 1864. We all know which states' rights they were talking about.
Patently false. Just because some Northerners thought it was "about slavery" does not make it so.
Just because the war was about abolishing slavery doesn't mean it was about abolishing slavery. Got it.
Most in the South did not think so and as we've already gone over
It was for many. It was also a war to end slavery for the slaves who escaped and joined Union forces.
the vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists.
I'll demolish this nonsense later, but for now I'll leave you with the fact that the North voted for abolition.
Actually he didn't. The 13th amendment passed after his death.
True, but it was passed in Congress and sent to the states where, unlike your Corbomite Maneuver or whatever it was called, it was ratified. He was assassinated before he could sign it.
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.
There's a major problem with that. In 1864, the 13th Amendment was passed in the Senate but died in the House thanks to the Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis. Later that year, Lincoln was re-elected and the Republicans gained huge majorities in both the House and Senate. The Republican controlled House then voted to pass the 13th Amendment.
BTW, the Democrats who voted against it did so in the name of states rights.
So you see, Lincoln didn't have to sell abolition to the North, because the North voted for it.
Here's more.
House passes the 13th Amendment
They did not go to war to put down slavery as they themselves said over and over again.
This was from Lincoln in 1854.
"If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another,"
At the time he didn't believe the Constitution gave the federal government the power to abolish slavery, and said so over and over again. That is among the quotes you keep trying to prove your point with, but they prove just the opposite.
When they got the power they did it, and that was with the full support of the Northern voters.
Repeat snipped.
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.
Yes. As my two references said, he didn't believe the North was serious about abolishing slavery which is why he didn't support them. I'm not sure how you think your references refute mine when in fact they corroborate them.
Do you mean the North did not offer slavery forever by express constitutional amendment
If you're referring to the Corbomite Manuever, no. Unlike the EP it was never ratified.
did not emancipate their own slaves
They did after the CW. They also freed the South's slaves. We've been over this.
and did not expressly say they were not fighting to abolish slavery?
There were comments made by some to that effect. I never said everyone in the North was the good guys. At the end they did it, with the support of the voters.
It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority.
As we'll see later, many paid for it with their jobs.