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.
Did it occur to you that slavery was not the reason, and that had it been so the original 7 seceding states could have simply accepted Lincoln's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment?
How horrible, having your slaves taken away from you by force.
No, that was not John Brown's aim. He wanted a murderous race war and hoped to start one. The first person he murdered was a free Black man but hey, why let inconvenient facts get in the way......
"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." This is getting too easy, are you pulling our leg?
You can cite no abolitionists winning elections so instead you try to pass off Kansas discarding the total exclusion of Blacks in the state constitution as some kind of proof of this great abolitionist movement? LOL! This is getting too easy indeed.
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.
See above. Abolitionists could not get elected and the Northern states were still adopting exclusionary and highly discriminatory laws even during the war.
Serving as slaves is not logistics.
They did not serve as slaves. They served as Confederate soldiers. Also, you realize there were plenty of freedmen in the Confederate Army too right?
I see you have no answer to the FACT that many thousands of Blacks served quite willingly in the Confederate Army. All you can do is try to keep citing the same BS source that makes ridiculous claims like there being only 7 eyewitness accounts of Black Confederates (I've already provided far more)....or which makes the false claim that Blacks could not legally serve in the Confederate Army (they could and did via several Confederate states.....and Confederate Officers in the field simply ignored the Confederate Congress in any event and inducted any Black man who would agree to serve, etc. In short, this source is laughable.
and I should add, the only reason the Northern states did not ratify the Corwin Amendment was because the original 7 seceding states had already rejected it. It was by the time they could have ratified it, a moot point.