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.
This was after Lincoln's election but before his inauguration.
They had already seceded.
Yes, and they indicated they were not willing to come back in even if the amendment did pass. They turned the offer down.
That was the previous congress and the previous president, the one who was voted out in 1860.
It was after the election. Remember that there used to be a longer period between an election and the president/Congress being sworn in. AFTER the election....meaning they were not turned out by the voters for voting in favor of the Corwin Amendment. The election had already happened.
And enough states never ratified it.
Because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was a dead letter after that. This is about the 10th time I've had to remind you of that.
It was nothing.
It was the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
It's relevant to the question of what the Civil War was about. The Corwin Amendment is irrelevant because it was never ratified.
What the war was about was MONEY. Plain and simple. In this case trade and tax policy. Had it been "about" slavery the North never would have offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and the original 7 seceding states would not have turned down the offer.
Yes, because it was nothing more than dangling carrots until that happened.
No it did not. It passed the Congress and was signed by the president and Lincoln did offer it in his inaugural address. The original 7 seceding states were not interested. They didn't care if it passed or not. They wanted independence rather than perpetual protection of slavery within the US.
Was calling "the negro" "inferior" whose "best use" was as slaves "Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution"?
Did the Northern states not violate the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution?
In response to my question about the "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.
I cited numerous examples. The Black Codes were a series of discriminatory laws designed to make life unbearable to Blacks so as to drive them out and prevent others from settling in those states. I also provided a link to much more evidence about the Black Codes on the books in Northern states.
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.
I provided you plenty of evidence about the Black Codes on the books in the North. They were a model for later Jim Crow laws adopted in the South. Segregation was a Northern thing. It was part of Northern culture. It had not been part of Southern culture until after the war and after the occupation.
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.
Ah but it was not about slavery. Slavery was an ancillary issue for the vast majority North and South. What touched everybody were the Tax and Trade policies. Its true that some of the export crops were produced in part by slave labor. That said, it could have just as easily been produced had there been no slaves and had they been sharecroppers instead - as they were after the war. Slavery was not the essential issue.
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.
BTW, states' rights has been used to argue against all sorts of usurpation of power by the federal government since the time the Constitution was ratified and still is.
Just because the war was about abolishing slavery doesn't mean it was about abolishing slavery. Got it.
But the war was not about abolishing slavery. Just about everybody on both sides said so. Do not mistake an outcome for the intent from the start. The abolition of slavery was a development of the war. It was not the aim of the war.
It was for many. It was also a war to end slavery for the slaves who escaped and joined Union forces.,/p>
It wasn't for many more. It wasn't about that for the many slaves who served in the Confederate Army.
I'll demolish this nonsense later, but for now I'll leave you with the fact that the North voted for abolition.
You will never be able to refute that basic fact. Its clearly true. No serious historian even argues otherwise.
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.
I realize the Corwin Amendment is damned inconvenient for you and you'd like for it to go away since the fact of its existence demolishes your argument, but alas, you can't wish it out of existence. It happened.
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.
LOL! The Democrats stood little chance once the Southern states had withdrawn. The 13th amendment was not passed until after the war - not during the war, AFTER it. Irrefutable fact.
So you see, Lincoln didn't have to sell abolition to the North, because the North voted for it.
Odd then that it did not pass until after the war given that the North was in favor of abolition as you say. Just like its odd that it took the North and the Lincoln administration 2 full years to discover what they had started the war over in the first place.
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.
Here is what Lincoln really thought about the equality of Blacks:
Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois December 22, 1860
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Abraham Lincoln
"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” -Abraham Lincoln
“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abraham Lincoln
"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas" ... Abraham Lincoln
"There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them" - Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address
So much for any claims that the North even wanted to interfere with slavery let alone wanted equality.
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.
No, that's not the only reason he didn't support the North. He also did not support the North because he saw that their real aim was MONEY. They wanted to treat the Southern states like a colony denying them their right to self determination in the process.
If you're referring to the Corbomite Manuever, no. Unlike the EP it was never ratified.
Ah, well there you're wrong. The North passed the Corwin Amendment with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority in both houses of Congress, the president signed it and Lincoln endorsed it in his inaugural address. The North very much offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
They did after the CW. They also freed the South's slaves. We've been over this.
Yes. AFTER the war. We have indeed been over this.
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.
No, I'm afraid it was more than just comments. It was the numerous public statements of Lincoln himself. On Monday Feb 11, 1861 Congress passed the following resultion:
"Resolved that neither Congress, the People, nor the Government, of the Non-Slaveholding states have the constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the Slaveholding states of the Union."
This statement is just whistling past the graveyard.
The passage of the Corwin amendment by the Northern states, and Lincoln's efforts to support it's passage, demonstrate that all claims of slavery as a motivation regarding the war are lies.
You know it proves the northern power block didn't care about slavery.
As i've said from the beginning, they cared about money, not people. Same as the bastards today. I just read John Kerry has 1 million invested in Uyghur slave labor forced to work by China.
These kinds of gutless Liberal bastards from the Northeast would denounce slavery in the strongest terms to anyone who's looking, but gloat about their profits from slavery in private.
Same then as now.