Because the original 7 seceding states rejected it.
I'm not going to waste time exchanging theories of what motivated him with you, because the bottom line is it never became law, and President Lincoln later signed the 13th Amendment that banned slavery.
Nobody need theorize what was motivating him. He said it quite clearly and orchestrated the writing and passage through Congress of a slavery forever constitutional amendment.
House, 62 Republicans voted against, 48 for. Senate, 12 Republicans against, 8 for.
A Republican wrote it and enough voted for it to give it a 2/3rds supermajority in each house of Congress.
Lincoln sent it to the states according to law so they could decide whether or not to ratify it. None but a few did.
Because the original 7 seceding states rejected it.
I know you're going to come back and say "If they were abolitionists then why did they vote for this?", but at that time they didn't see themselves as being able to abolish slavery, so they weren't giving up anything they didn't think the South already had. For many it was a last ditch attempt to prevent war, which is also how Buchanan saw it. By the time all of this happened which never came close to including ratification, it was already too late.
It wasn't just that they didn't see themselves as having the power to abolish slavery. It is that they had no desire to abolish slavery. They said so themselves many times.
The South thought so, which is why they seceded and fired on Federal property. Or so they said.
So they said.....when trying to essentially copy the "train of abuses" in the Declaration of Independence. They listed how the Northern states violated the Constitution and 3 of the 4 states that listed declarations of causes went on at length about their economic exploitation. To that they added that the North was governed by extreme radical fire breathing abolitionists which was clearly not true.
Things like rich Yankees bankrolling John Brown's murderous attack which was designed to cause a bloodbath AND then even after they openly admitted it, their states refusing to prosecute them really did make Southerners feel that the Northern states were radical and extreme. Imagine how we would feel today if a foreign country sheltered and refused to prosecute people who had bankrolled a terrorist attack on the US. We felt that was an act of war. We invaded other countries for that. Imagine how Southerners felt.
In 1858, Kansas voters elected representatives that would abolish that original constitution that you tried to prove something with. In 1860, many who supported the Corwin Amendment including Buchanan lost their jobs. All facts, not would haves.
LOL! This is one of the weakest rebuttals you've written. You know as well as I that abolitionists could not get elected in 1860. They couldn't even come close to getting elected.
Oregon never enforced theirs, and the voters in Kansas voted to abolish theirs.
Yet both states adopted constitutions that barred Black people from living there. Other Northern states passed laws to effectively ban Blacks from moving there and drive out the few they had.
Who said anything about giving the slaves guns? They did the menial jobs the Confederacy saw them fit for. Of course there were some blacks, among them slave owners themselves, who were willing to fight for the Confederacy.
Some served in support roles....what we would today consider to be logistics. Some did so for money because once the war started these were the best jobs to be had. Some did it because they felt a sense of patriotism for what was after all, their home. Some took up arms and fought. Some were quite literally family members of some of the White Confederate soldiers. Some were childhood playmates (remember segregation was a Northern and not yet a Southern thing). Human beings are complex and when there's a massive war, its going to draw in people who have a variety of motives for doing what they do.
The Northern states could have ratified it without those states if they had intended to. They didn't.
Nobody need theorize what was motivating him. He said it quite clearly and orchestrated the writing and passage through Congress of a slavery forever constitutional amendment.
Then it passed.
A Republican wrote it and enough voted for it to give it a 2/3rds supermajority in each house of Congress.
Now you are correct. Too bad for them neither the states nor many of their constituency wanted it.
It wasn't just that they didn't see themselves as having the power to abolish slavery. It is that they had no desire to abolish slavery. They said so themselves many times.
They also said several times that they didn't have the power to get rid of slavery, which at the time was correct. When they got that power, good riddance to slavery.
So they said.....when trying to essentially copy the "train of abuses" in the Declaration of Independence. They listed how the Northern states violated the Constitution and 3 of the 4 states that listed declarations of causes went on at length about their economic exploitation.
Did it occur to you that slavery was the reason, and all of these allegations of abuse and states' right revolved around that? You're so quick to point out what the North said, but that's what the Confederacy said.
That's also what the Democrats in the North said in 1864 when they voted against passing the 13th Amendment. The voters responded by firing many of them.
To that they added that the North was governed by extreme radical fire breathing abolitionists which was clearly not true. Things like rich Yankees bankrolling John Brown's murderous attack which was designed to cause a bloodbath AND then even after they openly admitted it, their states refusing to prosecute them really did make Southerners feel that the Northern states were radical and extreme. Imagine how we would feel today if a foreign country sheltered and refused to prosecute people who had bankrolled a terrorist attack on the US. We felt that was an act of war. We invaded other countries for that. Imagine how Southerners felt.
How horrible, having your slaves taken away from you by force.
LOL! This is one of the weakest rebuttals you've written. You know as well as I that abolitionists could not get elected in 1860. They couldn't even come close to getting elected.
This is getting too easy, are you pulling our leg?
Yet both states adopted constitutions that barred Black people from living there. Other Northern states passed laws to effectively ban Blacks from moving there and drive out the few they had.
One was abolished by representatives elected by the voters even though abolitionists never can close to getting elected according to you, and the other was never enforced. Of course there were discriminatory laws, but the direction the slaves escaped to tells the story.
Some served in support roles....what we would today consider to be logistics.
Serving as slaves is not logistics.
Some did so for money because once the war started these were the best jobs to be had. Some did it because they felt a sense of patriotism for what was after all, their home. Some took up arms and fought. Some were quite literally family members of some of the White Confederate soldiers. Some were childhood playmates (remember segregation was a Northern and not yet a Southern thing). Human beings are complex and when there's a massive war, its going to draw in people who have a variety of motives for doing what they do.