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.
It didn't go to the Northern states until shortly before Lincoln offered it in his inaugural address. The original 7 seceding states then turned it down. After they did so, efforts to pass it in the Northern states dropped off considerably - it was by then a dead letter. It was still passed by a few Northern states. Had the original 7 agreed, Republican pressure on the Northern states to pass it would have been enormous.
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.
Had Buchanan not signed it, Lincoln would have. The vast majority of Republicans supported it. The guy who wrote it was a Republican.
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.
As already discussed, the Corwin Amendment became a moot point when the original 7 seceding states did not agree to it. As it is a few Northern states still passed it. Those states' congressional delegations certainly supported it. There's no reason to believe that with the full backing of the Republicans - which it had - it would not have been ratified in enough Northern states to be ratified to the constitution had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it - but they refused.
I'll refer you to my links on Kansas below.
I'll refer you to the fact that abolitionists simply could not win elections. I've already posted the editorial opinions from several major newspapers (including the NYT ha ha!).
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 "The 1859 Kansas Constitution opened the state to all settlers regardless of their ethnic or racial background." "A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."
Unfortunately the history of this is pretty widespread in the Northern states. Illinois required Blacks to post a very large bond in order to move into the state and laws on the books made it impossible for them to serve on juries, vote or even sign contracts. White laborers would frequently refuse to work alongside Blacks. The combined effect of the public and private discrimination was to make it nearly impossible for Blacks to earn a living....thus to drive them out.
NY had similar laws. Ohio had a notorious Pogrom in Cincinnati. Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, the list goes on and on. The Slavenorth website does a good job of documenting the Black Codes and efforts to exclude and to ethnically cleanse Blacks from the Northern states and Western territories.
The North didn't open up recruitment to blacks until 1863.
As the numerous sources I cited attest, the Confederate Army enlisted Blacks from early on.
The North didn't open up recruitment to blacks until 1863.
Actually, the North opened up recruitment and enlistment to blacks during the Revolutionary War. So did the South. It should be noted that they did not count as three-fifths of a replacement either. In both wars, conscription seemed to affect the moral imperative.
Records of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (10 vols., Providence, published by the State of Rhode Island, 1856-1865, Vol. VIII, 358-360.
Certificate of the Governor of Rhode Island to Colonel William Barton.State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
February 14th, 1778.This certifies, that the General Assembly, at the December session, 1777, appointed William Barton, Esq., colonel of a regiment ordered to be raised for twelve months, for the defence of the United States in general, and of the state aforesaid, in particular.
That, at the session held in February instant, Col. Barton informed the Assembly that he had an appointment from the Most Honorable the Continental Congress, with the rank and pay of colonel, but at present without command; and that being most ardently desirous of exerting his utmost abilities against the common enemy, he was willing, provided he could obtain permission of His Excellency General Washington, to command the said regiment, upon his pay from the Continent only; by which means he should also be freed from the disagreeable situation of receiving the public money without being in actual service.
And that the Assembly taking the same into consideration, voted that Col. Barton having received a Continental appointment, and being liable to be called from the command of said regiment, and the service of this state, upon the shortest notice, did thereby vacate his office in said brigade; and then appointed Col. Topham to the command of said regiment.
- - - - - - - - - -
Whereas, for the preservation of the rights and liberties of the United States, it is necessary that the whole powers of government should be exerted in recruiting the Conti- [*359] nental battalions; and whereas, His Excellency Gen. Washington hath enclosed to this state a proposal made to him by Brigadier General Varnum, to enlist into the two battalions, raising by this state, such slaves as should be willing to enter into the service; and whereas, history affords us frequent precedents of the wisest, the freest, and bravest nations having liberated their slaves, and enlisted them as soldiers to fight in defence of their country; and also whereas, the enemy, with a great force, have taken possession of the capital, and of a greater part of this state; and this state is obliged to raise a very considerable number of troops for its own immediate defence, whereby it is in a manner rendered impossible for this state to furnish recruits for the said two battalions, without adopting the said measure so recommended.
It is voted and resolved, that every able-bodied negro, mulatto, or Indian man slave, in this state, may enlist into either of the said two battalions, to serve during the continuance of the present war with Great Britain.
That every slave, so enlisting, shall be entitled to, and receive, all the bounties, wages, and encouragements, allowed by the Continental Congress, to any soldier enlisting into their service.
It is further voted and resolved, that every slave, so enlisting, shall, upon his passing muster before Col. Christopher Greene, be immediately discharged from the service of his master or mistress, and be absolutely FREE as though he had never been encumbered with any kind of servitude or slavery.
And in case such slave shall, by sickness or otherwise, be rendered unable to maintain himself, he shall not be chargeable to his master or mistress; but shall be supported at the expense of the state.
And whereas, slaves have been, by the laws, deemed the property of their owners, and therefore compensation ought to be made to the owners for the loss of their service,—
It is further voted and resolved, that there be allowed, [*360] and paid by this state, to the owner, for every such slave so enlisting, a sum according to his worth; at a price not exceeding £120 for the most valuable slave; and in proportion for a slave of less value.
Benjamin Quarles and Leslie H. Fishel Jr., The Negro American, A Documentary History (1967) Ch. 25-26; pp. 51-52
25NEGROES IN THE CONTINENTAL ARMY
By the summer of 1778 the Continental army, like those of most of the states, was accepting Negroes. Indeed, a Negro was far more likely to serve in the Continental line than in the state forces. Service in the former was less preferable, since the period of enlistment was longer and the soldier had to be prepared to go to any theater of war, rather than remain within the borders of his own state.
Since the Negro volunteer was not, as a rule, in a position to choose between the state and federal armies, he generally found himself in the latter. The official return below, signed by Adjutant General Alexander Scammell on August 24, 1778, gives the numbers as of that date.
RETURN OF THE NEGROES IN THE ARMY, 24TH AUGT. 1778 BRIGADES
[Table omitted]
(signed) Alex Scammell, adj. Gen*
[woodpusher: the return table provided for 15 units with Black enlistees shows the number Present; Sick Absent; On Command; and Total. At bottom, it shows the overall total for the 15 units:
586 Present;
098 Sick Absent;
071 On Command
755 TOTAL26
A DRAFT SUBSTITUTE
The Rhode Island slave enlistment bill led to the formation of a predominantly colored unit (except for its officers) for the Rhode Island First Regiment. Other states, including some south of the Mason-Dixon Line, had second thoughts about excluding Negroes from arms-bearing.
Maryland's need for manpower led her to include the free Negro in the lists of draft eligibles and to authorize slave enlistments with the consent of their masters.
Virginia, though not permitting slaves to bear arms, lifted the ban on free Negro soldiers. In Georgia there were instances, even if not numerous, of a slave serving as a draft substitute for his master. Austin Dabney of Burke County was an example. Freed to enlist to replace his master, Dabney served in Colonel Elijah Clark's artillery corps. In the Battle of Kettle Creek in 1779, Dabney's thigh was broken. Forty years later the Georgia legislature voted him 112 acres of land as a reward for his "bravery and fortitude . . . in several engagements and actions" against the British. Below is an attestation of Dabney's service.
*George Washington Papers (Library of Congress), LXXXII—volume entitled, "1778, Aug. 17-30."
State of Georgia
These are to certify, That Austin Dabney was an Inhabitant of this State prior to the Reduction thereof by the British Arms, and was a Refugee from the same, during which Time he cheerfully did his Duty as a Soldier and Friend to this and the United States.
Given under my Hand, this Second Day of Febry 1784, Elijah Clark, Col.
By his Order W. Freeman*
…
*Original manuscript, Georgia Department of Archives and History (Atlanta).