There was nothing to offer. It was voted on by the previous congress and signed by the previous president, mostly democrats. By 1865, most of them were competing with the freed slaves they tried to keep in chains for whatever jobs were available.
It never got close to 3/4 ratification by the states, even if you added the slave states which by then were not part of the Union anyway.
It was like the Jefferies tubes on the Starship Enterprise marked GNDN (Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing). It went nowhere and did nothing.
So keep posting the Corwin Amendment if you have nothing better to do. You're only wasting FR bandwidth.
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.
Most of them were kicked out in 1864 after voting against the 13th Amendment, and the Buchanan administration is considered one of the biggest failures of all time.
Repeats snipped.
Did the Northern states not violate the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution?
IOW, make slavery legal, and rescuing slaves will be illegal by classifying the slaves as fugitives. Is that your point?
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.
I didn't dispute there was discrimination. I only said that it wasn't necessary to post all of that, given that I have already admitted this on several occasions. Try reading my posts before replying to them next time.
Ah but it was not about slavery.
It was for the escaped slaves who joined the Union forces.
It was for the voters who voted out the Democrats for refusing to ratify the 13th Amendment, and voted for Republicans who would ratify it.
It was for the Republicans who, acting on their mandate, voted to ratify the 13th Amendment.
And it was for 100,000 Southern white men of military age who chose to join the Union forces.
Repeat snipped.
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.
That in no way refutes the fact that the democrats used "states rights" as an argument against ratifying the 13th Amendment.
It wasn't for many more. It wasn't about that for the many slaves who served in the Confederate Army.
No reply needed.
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.
No one disputes that. Why you keep dredging that up is beyond me. Part of the problem is it was blocked by the Democrats before the voters in the North elected enough Republicans to get it ratified.
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.
Not really. The Republicans favored abolishing slavery but understood they couldn't do it within the framework then in place. They said that. Lincoln said it. You've quoted him on it, even below.
[My Previous] "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
That was from his letter to Alexander Stevens. You can find it here. It's called diplomacy, or talking out of both sides of your mouth.
“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
This was during his debate with Stephen Douglas. Not that I would excuse this, but it clearly conflicts with his comments I posted above, so I see it as another example of politicking, or talking out of both sides of his mouth. Frederick Douglas acknowledged in his oration that I posted to you earlier.
"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
According to this, "No transcripts or reports exist indicating that he ever actually used this expression in any of his speeches." I know, wiki, so I'll leave it to you to find the transcripts.
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal.
“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)
This was in 1858, when he clearly had no power or ability to abolish slavery, as he said in this quote.
"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
He was commenting on the racist attitudes at the time.
Yes there were people in the North who were racist too. There are people who are racists now, and there always will be. The question is, how do we overcome it?
"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
We've been over this.
So much for any claims that the North even wanted to interfere with slavery let alone wanted equality.
Then why did the North convincingly vote out the Democrats who voted against ratifying the 13th Amendment, in favor of Republicans who would vote to ratify it?
No, that's (he didn't believe the North was serious about abolishing slavery) 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.
Given the cost of the war and the fact that slavery was abolished afterwards AS A RESULT of the people of the North giving the Republicans a solid majority in the House with which they used to ratify the 13th Amendment, he was wrong.
Yes. AFTER the war. We have indeed been over this.
We've also been over the fact that they couldn't have done it until the confederacy was defeated. You posted excerpts to that effect yourself.
Oh but there was something to offer. It passed both houses of Congress, was signed by the president and was set to go to the states for ratification with the understanding by everybody that the Republicans would work fervently to ensure its passage in enough Northern states to have it ratified. You claiming "mostly Democrats" is laughable. A Republican wrote it. Republicans backed it. A Republican president endorsed it in his all important inaugural address. No. The Republicans owned it.
It did not get close to ratification because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. At that point there was no sense in pushing it. The Northern position by the way was that the Southern states never legitimately left. That was their whole basis for starting the war. Therefore their ratification of it very much would count.
So keep posting the Corwin Amendment if you have nothing better to do. You're only wasting FR bandwidth.
Keep trying to deny it. You're only wasting your breath. It destroys your entire argument. I'm going to keep bringing it up as long as you keep pushing your false "all about slavery" narrative.
Most of them were kicked out in 1864 after voting against the 13th Amendment, and the Buchanan administration is considered one of the biggest failures of all time.
Most Democrats at that time were Southerners. They left when their states seceded.
IOW, make slavery legal, and rescuing slaves will be illegal by classifying the slaves as fugitives. Is that your point?
US Constitution Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 “No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
It was for the escaped slaves who joined the Union forces.
That was not why the Southern states seceded nor was it why the North chose to start a war to prevent them from leaving nor was it why the vast majority of people on each side fought.
Your claims about what happened AFTER the war are irrelevant to what the two sides originally went to war over. Your claim that those from the South who chose to fight for the union did so because of slavery are for the most part patently false.
That in no way refutes the fact that the democrats used "states rights" as an argument against ratifying the 13th Amendment.
And?
No one disputes that. Why you keep dredging that up is beyond me. Part of the problem is it was blocked by the Democrats before the voters in the North elected enough Republicans to get it ratified.
I keep bringing up the timeline because you keep trying to claim what happened after the war was what was motivating people before the war. It was not.
Not really. The Republicans favored abolishing slavery but understood they couldn't do it within the framework then in place. They said that. Lincoln said it. You've quoted him on it, even below.
No they did not. The Republicans and Lincoln were quite explicit that they had no desire to abolish slavery where it existed. I've provided numerous quotes showing this.
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 you fail. It was not just that they knew the constitution did not give them the power to abolish slavery. It was that they had "no inclination to do so" in Lincoln's own words. That was the overwhelming sentiment of the Republican party and of Northerners.
That was from his letter to Alexander Stevens. You can find it here. It's called diplomacy, or talking out of both sides of your mouth.
LOL! No. No sale. He said the same thing over and over and over again. He said it in public. He said it in private. He never said anything to the contrary. He had no desire to abolish slavery in the states where it existed. You cannot find any quote from him to the contrary prior to the war.....or indeed well into the war.
This was during his debate with Stephen Douglas. Not that I would excuse this, but it clearly conflicts with his comments I posted above, so I see it as another example of politicking, or talking out of both sides of his mouth. Frederick Douglas acknowledged in his oration that I posted to you earlier.
He said such things many times. No sale on your desperate attempt to claim he didn't really mean it although he said it over and over again.
According to this, "No transcripts or reports exist indicating that he ever actually used this expression in any of his speeches." I know, wiki, so I'll leave it to you to find the transcripts.
“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 in notes for speeches in September of 1859. https://afrospear.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/quotations-from-abraham-lincoln/
also: Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, [New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953], v. 3, p. 399. Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 6, 1859
Second link that popped up on a duckduckgo search. LOL! at using Wikipedia as a source.
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Did Lincoln Really Say That?
Yes. He did.
(address delivered at Washington, D.C.; in Roy P. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume V, pages 371-375).
This was in 1858, when he clearly had no power or ability to abolish slavery.
He not only had no power to abolish slavery, he had no INCLINATION to do so as he himself said.
He was commenting on the racist attitudes at the time.
LOL! No he was not. He was expressing his own flamingly racist views.
Yes there were people in the North who were racist too. There are people who are racists now, and there always will be. The question is, how do we overcome it?
It was the norm in the world at the time....among all people. Everywhere.
We've been over this.
Yes we have. Did you see where he said he had no inclination to interfere with slavery? Read it again. Read it as many times as it takes for you to finally understand it.
Then why did the North convincingly vote out the Democrats who voted against ratifying the 13th Amendment, in favor of Republicans who would vote to ratify it?
That was the only issue of the entire campaign in 1864? You can prove that that's what was motivating the voters in the Northern states and not other issues?
Given the cost of the war and the fact that slavery was abolished afterwards AS A RESULT of the people of the North giving the Republicans a solid majority in the House with which they used to ratify the 13th Amendment, he was wrong.
No he was not wrong. You are once again trying to conflate a result with a cause. They are not the same. The North did not go to war to put down slavery. They themselves said so numerous times.
We've also been over the fact that they couldn't have done it until the confederacy was defeated. You posted excerpts to that effect yourself.
They didn't even try. They didn't even do so in the slaveholding states that remained in. They were not motivated by abolitionism.