If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
SOURCE PAGE
Posted on 12/29/2023 7:52:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Nikki Haley slavery tempest in a teapot continues to roil some circles.
For those who have a life and have been spending it with family and friends this Christmas, some background: The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is in political hot water for her answer to a questioner at a New Hampshire campaign event in which she failed to list “slavery” among the causes of the American Civil War.
She’s subsequently admitted slavery was among those causes, while adding that she thought the question was posed by a Democrat plant in the audience.
The New York Times continues to stoke the story, claiming her answer could “dent her crossover appeal to independents and moderate Democrats.”
Three thoughts:
First, NEWS FLASH: For many of us challenged by the cost of living, the rise in crime, the influx of illegal aliens, and the woke agenda being pushed on cultural-social issues, the enumeration and hierarchy of causes for why something happened 163 years ago is something we do not care about. I’ll even venture to say that unless those “independents” caucus with the Democrats in legislative bodies, they also probably are not burning with concern about the ranked causes of the Civil War.
Second, the Democrat reaction to “of course it was about slavery” is rather rich. Given the historical illiteracy that dominates our schools (we have no time to teach history after spending time on gender, sex, and critical race theory lessons), let’s recall a few facts.
It was South Carolina Democrats, not a South Carolina Republican, who initiated the treason of secession.
It was mostly Democrats who, in the last days of the Democrat Buchanan administration, tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to preserve the Missouri Compromise and, thus, preserve slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Thanks for the very useful information.
Well... If that’s the case, then he did a very bad job of it.
Thanks for the additional information.
Generally, support for the Corwin Amendment split largely along sectional lines: Northern Democrats and Republicans (though many Republicans opposed it) were more likely to support it, hoping to appease Southern states and prevent secession.
In contrast, Southern Democrats overwhelmingly opposed it, as it wouldn’t fully secure their existing slavery rights.
So how do you explain blacks going from voting 100% Republican in 1868, to 95% Democrat in 2020?
You know what he means. Imports are paid for by exports, so economically, it is the exact same thing.
Whether you tax what goes into the horses mouth, or comes out of the horses butt, it's the same thing being taxed.
Meaning all but Massachusetts, I think. I think in 1787, all the rest were slave states, which is a very different thing than you imply in your statement.
To call the US Constitution pro-slavery is simply disingenuous! It simply tolerated it.
I would say Article IV, Section 2 goes way beyond "tolerating" it. It requires action of the state to enforce it. It compels *ALL* states to engage in slavery enforcement.
Yes, the US constitution tiptoes around the word "slavery", but those "held to labor by the laws of any state", means "slave." They were squeamish about using the word, but you can read between the lines and understand the US Constitution is referring to slaves and slavery.
Sounds like hostage taking, selective enforcement of the law, lawfare, antifa, and all the same sort of crap liberals are doing today.
The Feds should have came in and stomped everyone trying to interfere with the legal agents tasked with the enforcement of the law.
If refusing to follow the law is a valid choice, you have no argument to make when the Confederates chose to decide what the law was themselves.
As Grant said, the quickest way to repeal a bad law is by it's strict enforcement. It is not up to individuals to decide what laws they don't have to obey.
Don't tell me what their asserted reasons are for supporting a permanent slavery amendment. Politicians lie, and they do so effortlessly.
The point here is that *REPUBLICANS* were the chief proponents of this permanent slavery amendment. I don't want to hear their words of explanation. Nothing they say can explain why they voted to keep slavery forever.
The only thing that makes any sense is that something was more important to them than a concern about slavery, and that something made them vote for it.
I think that something was money because i'm cynical that way, and when you look at any issue in Washington DC, you find at some point it always boils down to someone getting money.
The amendment never officially became part of the Constitution.
Is irrelevant to the fact they voted for it. Someone shoots at you and misses, it doesn't mean that they didn't shoot at you. It means they *MISSED*! Their evil intent was still there, they were just not successful at carrying it through.
It was like all other politicians promises. If they don't yield the results they want, they change them. Lincoln didn't get what he wanted (continuing revenue from the Southern states) and so after nearly 2 years of war, he took a different tack.
Anything shipped from the south overseas, particularly to Britain, was heavily taxed then. Call it an export tax.
RE: The only thing that makes any sense is that something was more important to them than a concern about slavery, and that something made them vote for it. I think that something was money.
——————————
It’s not as easy as one would want to make it sound. We do not know what goes on in the minds of individuals when it came to voting for or against the amendment.
You may have your own beliefs, but for me, the priorities of preserving the union AND trying to prevent a disastrous war played a larger role over wanting to preserve slavery in their vote.
And it still does not refute the fact that MORE Republicans opposed slavery and wanted it abolished than Democrats.
Please give me the Law, passed by the Congress of the United States that taxed Southern exports.
RE: the only thing that makes any sense is that something was more important to them than a concern about slavery, and that something made them vote for it.
Yes, that something was the preservation of the USA *AND* the prevention of war.
Also, most Republicans in Congress *did not vote* for the Corwin Amendment. While the amendment originated from within the Whig Party, which later fragmented into the Republican and Democratic parties, the vote on it did not follow clear party lines.
The amendment passed the House by a vote of 133 to 65. However, this included only 33 of the Republican representatives at the time. The majority of Republicans actually voted against the proposal, joining forces with many Northern Democrats opposed to protecting slavery.
The amendment failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate, falling short by one vote. Among the 26 senators who voted, only 6 were Republicans, and all six voted in favor of the amendment.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS VOTED AGAINST IT!
Therefore, we can say that SOME Republicans supported the Corwin Amendment. The issue of slavery transcended party lines, and many Republicans, particularly those from anti-slavery Northern states, opposed the attempt to institutionalize slavery permanently.
Those who voted for it had their own agenda. But I am unable to say for what reason. As a Diogenes-like cynic, you are entitled to your personal opinion. I remain convinced that preserving the USA and preventing a disastrous war was the more overriding reason.
It’s important to remember that the political landscape in the 1860s was quite complex, with evolving party alignments and diverse views on slavery within each party. Analyzing the Corwin Amendment solely through the lens of Republican Party affiliation wouldn’t provide a complete picture of the motivations and voting patterns surrounding this controversial proposal.
Of course not. I constitution speaks to that. It says no state may be form from a part of a state without the permission of the larger entity. Try explaining that to Virginia when it comes to West Virginia.
No one was killed. Happy now.?
Yes, and so what? That bound the US, not the states.
What does the Supreme Court know about the constitution? What’s wrong with its own words?
Just say, “The Civil War ended over 150 years ago...next question!”
Go firm a Confederate Island somewhere. You live in The United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.