[TwelveOfTwenty #641] We've already been over that. Lincoln had to keep the Union united, and had to talk out of both sides of his mouth. In 1864 with the war still going on, the Republicans in Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere but were blocked by the party of Jefferson Davis. In 1865 with the war still going on, Congress voted to abolish slavery everywhere.[FLT-bird #642] Yes we've been over that. Lincoln was not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said openly and repeatedly he was not an abolitionist. He never said anything to the contrary before very late in the war. The same is true of the Republican Party in general. They went to great pains to make it clear they were not abolitionists. They were quite willing to protect slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and even to strengthen fugitive slave laws.
In 1860, the Democratic Party split into the Southern Democrats and the Northern Democrats, with different nominees and incompatible platforms. The party of Jefferson Davis was the Southern Democrats. The Northern politicians spoken of in 1864 were not of the party of Jefferson Davis. Davis.
Jefferson Davis' Address to the National Democracy
Washington, D.C., May 7, 1860
[excerpt]
What is the history of the recent Convention at Charleston?Seventeen States, forming a majority of the whole, adopted with remarkable unanimity a platform of principles so worded as to avoid the possibility of misconstruction—principles deemed political axioms by all who uphold the equal rights of the States as the very basis of the Confederacy. Many delegates from the remaining sixteen States concurred in opinion with this majority, conspicuous amongst whom were delegates from Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The States which adopted this platform give electoral votes which can be relied on with absolute certainty in favor of democratic nominees, and well-grounded confidence is entertained of a like result in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. These seventeen States united with Pennsylvania alone comprise a majority of the entire electoral vote of the United States, able to elect the democratic nominees against the combined opposition of all the remaining States.
This platform was deliberately rejected by a combination composed of a small fraction of the delegates from the seventeen democratic States and a very large majority of the delegates of the remaining sixteen States; and a resolution was adopted in its stead simply reaffirming the principles of the Cincinnati platform, without explanation or interpretation of its disputed meaning. This was done with the openly-avowed purpose of enabling the democratic party to wage battle with some chance of success in certain Northern and Western States by presenting to the people as its doctrines principles openly and expressly repudiated by a majority of the democratic State delegations, and by a majority approaching unanimity of the democratic electoral votes of the Union.
In a speech at Washington D.C., July 9, 1860, Jeffferson Davis referred to the Northern Democrats as that spurious and decayed off-shoot of democracy, which, claiming that this Federal government has no power, leaves the people our next greatest evil, despotism; and denies protection to our Constitutional rights.
Lincoln did not support abolition in 1858, nor for years thereafter. Even had the EP been incorporated into the Constitution, it would not have affected slavery in the Union states. Lawful slavery continued in the Union states until the 13th Amendment became effective.
Nobody voted to abolish slavery in 1864. It was beyond the power of the Federal legislature to abolish slavery. Votes were taken in Congress to propose an Amendment to the Constitution for consideration by the States. Amendments are acts of the sovereign States, not acts of the Federal government, or the legislature thereof.
With two-thirds supermajorities of both houses, the Federal Congress may propose Amendments. Alternatively, with a simple majority of two-thirds of the State legislatures, the Federal Congress role is reduced to a ministerial one wherein Congress "shall call a convention for proposing Amendments."
Either the Congress or the People as States may propose, but only the People, as States, may ratify a proposed Amendment.
Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) #16, which was to become the 13th Amendment, was introduced by Senator John B. Henderson of Missouri, a Democrat. Congressional Globe (CG) 11 Jan 1864, pg. 145.
S.J.R. #16 was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, CG, 8 Apr 1864, pg. 1490. The recorded vote was Yeas 38, Nays 6. "The VICE PRESIDENT annouunced that the joint resolution, having received the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present, was passed. Its title was amended to read: A joint resolution submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States."
S.J.R. #16 was considered by the House on June 15, 1864, CG, 15 Jun 1864, pg. 2995. The vote was yeas 93, nays 65, not voting 23. The Result was announced, "So the joint resolution was not passed, two thirds not having voted in favor thereof."
S.J.R. #16 was reconsidered by the House on January 31, 1865. CG, 31 Jan 1865, pg. 531. The recorded vote was yeas 119, nays 56, not voting 8. "So, the two-thirds required by the Constitution of the United States having voted in favor thereof, the joint resolution was passed."
Ratification required approval by three-fourths of ALL the states in the Union. Unless the Confederate States were considered to have left the Union, in 1864 ratification would have required the approval of 27 States, necessarily including several Confederate states, a more considerable problem than party politics in the North. Eventually, with the refusal of several Union States to ratify, 4 former Confederate States were required for ratification. Ratifying votes came from Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia by December 11, 1865 after their claims to being Confederate States had been extinguished. On December 18, 1865, the secretary of State proclaimed the Amendment to be in full effect with 27 States ratifying.
Just adding new states to the Union would not have been much of a solution. Additional states would increase the number required for ratification. It would have required the creation of 16 new states, all ratifying, to achieve ratification of the Amendment without support of any former rebel state.
In 1865, Congress still could not vote to abolish slavery. It could only propose an Amendment to the Constitution asking the people to decide whether they wanted to effect a change to their organic law, the same organic law by which the People created the Congress.
Aside from a lack of delegated authority to abolish slavery, it would have been impossible for Congress to abolish slavery without nullifying the Fugitive Slave Clause, Art. 4, Sec. 3. Any Federal statute repugnant to any part of the Constitution is considered null and void ab initio, as though it never existed.
As it is frequently asserted that Lincoln "approved" the Resolution with his signature, I note that the President plays no role whatever in Amendments to the Constitution. Lincoln's signature was legally meaningless, and drew congressional action to make that clear. CG 7 Feb 1865, pg. 629, Senator Trumbull speaking:
In 1798 a case arose in the Supreme Court of the United States depending upon the amendment to the Constitution proposed in 1794, and the counsel in argument before the Supreme Court insisted that the amendment was not valid, not having been approved by the President of the United States. This was his argument:“The amendment has not been proposed in the form prescribed by the Constitution, and therefore it is void. Upon an inspection of the original roll, it appears that the amendment was never submitted to the President for his approbation. The Constitution declares that ‘every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be be passed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives,’ &c. (Article one, section seven.) Now, the Constitution likewise declares that the concurrence of both Houses shall be necessary to a proposition for amendments. (Article five.) And it is no answer to the objection to observe that as two thirds or both Houses are required to originate the proposition; it would be nugatorv to return it with the President’s negative to be repassed by the same number, since the reasons assigned for his disapprobation might be so satisfactory as to reduce the majority below the constitutional proportion. The concurrence of the President is required in matters of infinitely less importance, and whether on subjects of ordinary legislation or of constitutional amendments the expression is the same, and equally applies to the act of both Houses of Congress.”Mr. Lee, the Attorney General, in reply to this argument, said:
“Has not the same course been pursued relative to all the other amendments that have been adopted? And the case of amendments is evidently a substantive act, unconnected with the ordinary business of legislation, and not within the policy or terms of investing the President with a qualified negative on the acts and resolutions of Congress.”The court, speaking through Chase, Justice, observes:
“There can surely be no necessity to answer that argument. The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation. He has nothing to do with the proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution.”The court would not hear an argument from the Attorney General on the point, it was so clear. If the approval of the President were necessary, none of the amendments which have been made to the Constitution since its adoption would be valid, for not one of them ever received his approval.
Then why did they vote against ratifying the 13th Amendment in 1864? Their reason was the same "states' rights" reason we're been hearing from the Confederacy amen corner for years.
Lincoln did not support abolition in 1858, nor for years thereafter. Even had the EP been incorporated into the Constitution, it would not have affected slavery in the Union states.
Their reasoning was they didn't want to drive the border states over to the Confederacy during the war, which we now know wouldn't have happened.
Lawful slavery continued in the Union states until the 13th Amendment became effective.
Yes, we all know this. Lincoln had to walk the line between the abolitionists and the states who still had slavery. His success in doing that is beyond dispute by anyone except the Confederacy amen corner.
And yet, Abraham Lincoln openly espoused the inferiority of the Black race, and believed in the elimination of all Black labor in competition with White labor. The words of Lincoln bear a remarkable agreement with the comments of Jefferson Davis of the same year. And yet, you have tried to represent Lincoln to have been an abolitionist.
I've been over that with FLT-Bird. Lincoln had to keep a Union of free states and border states together, and he had to speak out of both sides of his mouth. I'll repeat what Frederick Douglas said.
"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
I know he made some appalling statements, but those statements were made to groups who wanted to hear what he said. He had to work with them too, regardless of how it looks to us now.
Regarding the myth of the Lincoln origin of the quote, "You can fool some of all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time," Lerone Bennett, Jr. cogently observed, "By turning a racist who wanted to deport all Blacks into a national symbol of integration and brotherhood, the Lincoln mythmakers have managed to prove Lincoln or whoever said it wrong."
He wanted to repatriate them into their own country, by choice.
And it was the slave holders in the North he fooled. When the time came and they had the power, he and the Republicans pushed abolition, something he didn't live to see through. By then of course, even the slave holding states he was trying to pander to had come around.
Lincoln did not have to deal with Democrats splitting the nation. It was the GOP who split the nation with their anti-slavery, or anti-territorial slavery, issue, and their defiance of the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess if you supported the right to have slavery as the slave holding states did (BTW, I'm not saying you do) then you would see it that way.
I would love to see you debate that point with FLT-Bird.
Process followed to pass the 13th Amendment.
I understand it was a long process that took much more than a vote in Congress to make it law, but it has to get through Congress first. In 1864, based on an argument about states rights, the Democrats blocked passage of the 13th amendment in the House. The voters responded by firing many of them. In the following attempt in 1865, it was passed with 8 Democrats abstaining. After that it went to the states.
As it is frequently asserted that Lincoln "approved" the Resolution with his signature, I note that the President plays no role whatever in Amendments to the Constitution. Lincoln's signature was legally meaningless, and drew congressional action to make that clear. CG 7 Feb 1865, pg. 629, Senator Trumbull speaking:
That's the point I tried to make with FLT-Bird about President Buchanan signing the Corbomite Maneuver or whatever it was called. I would like to see you debate that too.