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.
Then it was nothing.
...because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.
The remaining Union states could have ratified it without help from the slave holding states if they had intended to. They didn't. The only states that did ratify it did so after the slave holding states had seceded and the war had already started.
It never became law, or came close to becoming law. It was nothing.
Most Democrats at that time were Southerners. They left when their states seceded.
And?
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.”
Yes, I've admitted this. Lincoln admitted this. The Republicans admitted this, which they tried to change in 1864 and succeeded in 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Frederick Douglas acknowledged this.
Now that you've posted this, I'll ask again. Was calling "the negro" "inferior" whose "best use" was as slaves "Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution"?
Yes or no?
That was not why the Southern states seceded nor was it why the North chose to start a war to prevent them from leaving...
Here we go again.
Selected Quotations from 1830-1865
I'll repost the comments from the declarations of secession again.
From Georgia: "or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
Also from Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."
Also from Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
From Mississippi: "It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."
Also from Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery"
From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
There are three themes here. The first is the inferiority of "the negro". The second is the Republicans support for abolition.
The last are their claims based on the then current law. In 1864 the Republicans attampted to change that law with the 13th Amendment, but the Democrats blocked them. In 1865 the Republicans had enough votes to pass the 13th Amendment, which they did.
nor was it why the vast majority of people on each side fought.
After the Republicans were blocked by the Democrats from passing the 13th Amendment, the Northern states voted in enough Republicans to pass the law.
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.
Here's my reference.
CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL: Unionism
If slavery wasn't the issue for them, then why did they choose the Union over their own states?
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.
From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein." Clearly they are speaking out against slavery, regardless of whether you think "all our national territory" meant "all our national territory".
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..."
In 1864 the Republicans voted to ratify the 13th Amendment, but were stopped by the democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, over arguments of "states rights". Americans in the North responded by voting in more Republicans, who were able to pass it the following year.
Go ahead and post your comments showing some of them talking out of both sides of their mouths. In the end, they abolished slavery, and none of your twisting can change that.
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.
From your previous post, "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.”
You allow the slave holding states to use this as legal justification for seceding, but refuse to acknowledge the Republicans couldn't abolish slavery until this was changed.
To look at this another way, I have no inclination to fly around like Superman because I can't. If I could, then I would have the inclination to do so. See how that works?
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.
His quote above from 1854, the EP, the 13th Amendment which would have been passed in 1864 if the Democrats hadn't blocked it are just a few.
“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/
One of the comments posted there: "Those quotes from Lincoln, when he was debating Douglas, are out of context. He was trying to get elected in a country that was extremely conservative compared to today’s standards. Its not like he could get up on the podium and say “if im president, black people will be equal with whites and they can even run for office”. This site is a sham and you should be ashamed of yourself."
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
"Fragments" could mean anything. What is the evidence he even wrote it, and what was the context? Look at all of the racist comments President Trump was accused of making. Remember the Steele dossier? The phone call? You don't think the Democrats could have been up to the same tricks back then?
Or he could have jotted down his opponent's point of view to analyze it, much like when you copy and paste my comments when you're working on replies to my posts, but with less technology of course. Just because you're putting my comments in your posts doesn't mean you are agreeing with them.
That's why I asked for a transcript.
"https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:133?rgn=div1;view=fulltext"
That also lists the quote as a "fragment".
Second link that popped up on a duckduckgo search. LOL! at using Wikipedia as a source.
I said that myself and asked for a transcript. Can you produce one?
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?
All of the Republicans voted to pass the 13th Amendment in 1864. The Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, voted to prevent its passage citing states' rights.
The voters in the North responded by replacing the Democrats with Republicans. Regardless of what you think their motivations were, the possibility that they would pass the 13th Amendment didn't stop them from voting Republican.
On the other hand, the slave holding states said in their declarations of secession that preserving slavery was one of their reasons for seceding, used racist terms that had nothing to do with the law, and held on to their slaves, hunting those who escaped like animals, until forced to free them by the North. According to you it wasn't about preserving slavery, but that's what they tried to do regardless of what you think they really wanted.