No it did not. It passed Congress. The prospect of it passing enough states was VERY real had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it. With the Republicans putting maximum pressure on the Northern states to pass it, they'd have gotten enough of them. They got a few even after the original 7 seceding states rejected it.
It never came close to ratification even before it "lost steam".
Au Contraire. Getting the necessary supermajority in each house of Congress and the signature of the president shows it was a genuine and very viable offer.
Not true.
The Southern states voted for its passage in 1865.
You not only never made that point, you strongly denounced it in words that left me with no doubts about your sincerity about that.
Again, false, It was AN issue. It was not THE issue. It was not even the main issue. It was what we all now would call a wedge issue.....something one side brings up to divide the sides neatly into the camps it wants and which serves to prevent any who are otherwise less committed from drifting over into the other camp.
Only Virginia and West Virginia were represented. Their reps, none of whom were Democrats, voted yes.
Louisiana ratified in February 17th. Tennessee April 7th. Arkansas April 14th. South Carolina November 13th. Alabama Dec 2nd. North Carolina Dec 4th Georgia Dec 6th. Georgia's ratification meant it passed. Florida and Texas (along with Oregon, California, Iowa, Kentucky, Delaware and New Jersey ratified it after its passage). The only Southern state which did not ratify it was Mississippi. The people who ratified it in the Southern states were the duly elected DEMOCRAT office holders. This was before the Occupation started. You are wrong once again.
According to the declarations of secession, they did.
According to the results of actual elections in the Northern states they did not.
He was an abolitionist, and it was no secret many abolitionists were frustrated with how slow things were moving. Frederick Douglas also expressed frustration early on.
That's not a complaint about slowness. He is accurately observing why the Republicans did not want slavery in the territories. They wanted to reserve it for White people. You know what else they did not want in the Territories? Black people. Yes, free ones too. Read Oregon's original Constitution. Read Kansas'.
However, the former slaves who escaped into the North and were accepted into the Army and Navy proves that wasn't all of them.,/p>
Both sides made liberal use of anybody they could to fight the war.
I think you misunderstood me. I acknowledged you never made the point that slavery wasn't an issue, and I went so far as to say your strongly worded denunciation of it was genuine.
Can't I even agree with you without having you tell me I'm wrong?!? ;)
If the Northern states had intended to ratify it, they would have. They didn't even though it meant secession and war.
Au Contraire. Getting the necessary supermajority in each house of Congress and the signature of the president shows it was a genuine and very viable offer.
Many of those who passed it were out of work in 1861, more in 1865. The president who signed it is widely considered one of the biggest failures in US history.
The Southern states voted for its passage in 1865...Louisiana ratified in February 17th. Tennessee April 7th...
I see where you're coming from now, but I was referring to the link and getting it passed in Congress, which didn't happen until the Republicans got enough votes to pass it in 1865.
Of course the states had to ratify it and they did, but it had to pass Congress first, and in 1864 it was the democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, who blocked it.
And note the states ratified abolition but didn't come close to ratifying the Corwin Amendment, even though they could have.
According to the results of actual elections in the Northern states they did not.
I'll refer you to my links on Kansas below.
That's not a complaint about slowness. He is accurately observing why the Republicans did not want slavery in the territories. They wanted to reserve it for White people. You know what else they did not want in the Territories? Black people. Yes, free ones too. Read Oregon's original Constitution. Read Kansas'.
Oregon's was written in 1857, and was never enforced although that doesn't make it right. This was around the time the abolitionists were expressing their frustration about how slowly abolition was moving.
Black Exclusion Laws in Oregon
Both sides made liberal use of anybody they could to fight the war.
The North didn't open up recruitment to blacks until 1863.