Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Corwin Amendment The ‘Ghost Amendment’ That Haunts Lincoln’s Legacy
cognoscenti ^ | Mon, Feb 18, 2013 | Richard Albert

Posted on 06/16/2014 6:04:34 PM PDT by riverss

The Corwin Amendment read as follows:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

The Corwin Amendment was an effort to placate the South and contain secessionist sentiment. It proposed to do three things. First, to protect slavery by giving each state the power to regulate the “domestic institutions” within its borders. This was an enticing carrot for the slave states: stay in the Union and you can keep slavery. Second, to dispossess Congress of the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. And third, to make itself unamendable by providing that “no amendment shall be made to the Constitution” that would undo the Corwin Amendment.

After Seward proposed the Corwin Amendment, then newly-elected President Lincoln defended the states’ right to adopt it. In his first inaugural address Lincoln declared that he had “no objection” to the Corwin Amendment, nor that it be made forever unamendable.

Although its ratification was disrupted by the Civil War, the Corwin Amendment is not actually dead. To this day, it lies dormant, ready to be ratified by the required number of states.

(Excerpt) Read more at cognoscenti.wbur.org ...


TOPICS: History; Society
KEYWORDS: agitprop; constitutional; corwinamendment; kkk; klan; lincoln; neonazi; ntsa; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 06/16/2014 6:04:34 PM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: riverss

So lincoln was a craven opportunist on top of being a tyrant? Say it ain’t so!


2 posted on 06/16/2014 6:11:39 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Be a part of the American freedom migration: freestateproject.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

The revisionists will not appreciate this information. LOL!


3 posted on 06/16/2014 6:20:34 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

> So lincoln was a craven opportunist on top of being a tyrant? Say it ain’t so!
And he was a liberal to boot.


4 posted on 06/16/2014 6:22:06 PM PDT by BuffaloJack (Unarmed people cannot defend themselves. America is no longer a Free Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Lincoln: If you like your slaves, you can keep your slaves.


5 posted on 06/16/2014 6:25:59 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

:-) Snicker.


6 posted on 06/16/2014 6:30:49 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

It was passed during the Buchanan administration, when the proslavery and eventual secessionists were still in Congress, but never ratified. Lincoln never endorsed it, and it didn’t get ratified. It also wouldn’t have been enough, as experience proves.

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/lincoln-and-the-corwin-amendment/


7 posted on 06/16/2014 6:51:53 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: riverss
The initial amendment would have made slavery constitutional and permanent — and Lincoln supported it.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln declared that he had “no objection” to the Corwin Amendment, nor that it be made forever unamendable.

A few points.

The President has no role in the amendment process, so any "support" was more or less irrelevant.

The amendment merely made explicit what almost everybody at the time believed to already be in the Constitution. With the exception, of course, of the unamendable portion, which was arguably idiotic, since it's difficult to think of any way an amendment can be made in such a way that it cannot be amended by a future process.

IOW, the amendment merely put into the Constitution what Lincoln and the Republican platform had already campaigned and won an election on.

I find it intriguing that the amendment does not prohibit Congress from prohibiting interstate commerce in slaves, which would have put a truly major crimp in the institution.

Finally, to state one has no objection to an amendment does not constitute "support" of it.

8 posted on 06/16/2014 6:56:50 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
It was passed during the Buchanan administration, when the proslavery and eventual secessionists were still in Congress

Only partially correct.

The Deep South states had already all seceded, although all the Upper South and Border states were still sitting in Congress.

It was ratified by OH and MD, and perhaps by IL.

9 posted on 06/16/2014 7:02:27 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: riverss

I found this to.

Lincoln’s March 16, 1861 letters to the governors did not endorse or oppose the proposed thirteenth amendment.

The Corwin Amendment was ratified by:
Ohio — May 13, 1861 Rescinded ratification – March 31, 1864
Maryland — January 10, 1862 Rescinded ratification – April 7, 2014
Illinois — February 14, 1862 (questionable validity)

Once the Confederacy’s free-trade and low-tariff policy was announced around March 11, 1861 and the Corwin Amendment rejected by the SOUTH , all hell broke loose in the North.

On 18 March 1861, the Philadelphia Press demanded war: “Blockade Southern Ports”.
On 22-23 March 1861, New York Times “At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States”.

Leaders in the North decided they could not allow the South to go and taking about $70,000,000.00 tarif dollars with them wasn’t going to happen.

All ships would come South for free trade and LOW TARIFFS and of course bankrupt the North.

April 12, the war was on.


10 posted on 06/16/2014 7:07:15 PM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It was ratified by OH and MD, and perhaps by IL.

Ohio rescinded its ratification in 1864. Maryland, this April, rescinded its ratification. So depending on the validity of the rescissions and Illinois's ratification, the Corwin Amendment might currently have zero ratifications.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=03&id=sj0001&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS

11 posted on 06/16/2014 8:49:31 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: riverss
All ships would come South for free trade and LOW TARIFFS and of course bankrupt the North.

In actual fact the North lost all southern trade and taxes for the next four years, plus added in something around $3B in war direct costs, eventual total cost around $7B and came out of the war stronger than when it went in.

But by all means think that the North spent this immense sum based on a financial calculation that it couldn't afford to lose $70M in southern tariffs (itself a gross exaggeration, real number is probably somewhere around 1/3 of this amount).

IOW, the Union spent $7,000 million to "protect" <$30 million/year in tax revenue.

12 posted on 06/17/2014 3:02:58 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

You are correct. Didn’t mean to imply OH and MD were still on record in support of this amendment.

It’s interesting that it never was ratified by Missouri, Delaware or Kentucky. I guess once the war got going good most states realized it was a dead letter.


13 posted on 06/17/2014 3:05:36 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: riverss
Although its ratification was disrupted by the Civil War, the Corwin Amendment is not actually dead. To this day, it lies dormant, ready to be ratified by the required number of states.

Except that I would think that the 13th Amendment makes it moot. Passing an amendment to protect an institution that is unconstitutional doesn't make a lot of sense.

14 posted on 06/17/2014 3:47:51 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
And he was a liberal to boot.

Which would make the defenders of slavery the conservatives?

15 posted on 06/17/2014 3:48:45 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: riverss
Once the Confederacy’s free-trade and low-tariff policy was announced around March 11, 1861...

If the Confederacy was an independent country then how would their tariffs have affected the U.S.?

Leaders in the North decided they could not allow the South to go and taking about $70,000,000.00 tarif dollars with them wasn’t going to happen.

Where did you get that figure from?

16 posted on 06/17/2014 3:51:56 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: riverss
Leaders in the North decided they could not allow the South to go and taking about $70,000,000.00 tarif dollars with them wasn’t going to happen.

All southern ports combined didn't collect $7 million in revenue let alone $70 million.

17 posted on 06/17/2014 6:44:12 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

from a Michael T. Griffith

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/attacks.htm


18 posted on 06/17/2014 8:18:33 AM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: riverss
from a Michael T. Griffith

From the website: "For stark truth, the so-called "Civil War" ought to be called "The War for the Destruction of the South.""

Well that's a new one. The Confederate Sympathizer imagination knows no bounds.

19 posted on 06/17/2014 8:25:43 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Thank you I will. That was not my point.
I have never read anything like the Corwin Amendment.
It is as follows:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

All this stuff happen it seems in 1 month in 1861.
Around the first of March 1861 through April 12 1861 Start of war.

I think the dates of March 1861 through April 12 1861,
are the most important part in understanding the norths thinking toward starting a war with the South.

You can have your slaves forevery..first of March 1861 with the Corwin Amendment. The 1st 13 amendment attemp .

then toward end of March 1861 after the South refused the offer.

The North say’s!!!
NO !!! you can’t have the slaves now.
The 2nd 13 amendment now applies and it wasn’t writing till after April 12 1861.and by the way.....

we’re going to invade and go to war over this...

Why? for not taking the slave offer???
Is this not crazy stuff or what. What were these people smoking?


20 posted on 06/17/2014 8:51:04 AM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: riverss

The Corwin Amendment passed the House by the necessary 2/3 on Feb. 28 and the Senate on March 2.

Shortly thereafter, of course, it became moot when the CSA attacked the USA.

The only real effect of the Corwin Amendment would have been to change the ratification for an amendment to ban slavery from states from 75% of the states to 100%. And of course if every state was opposed to slavery the institution would already be dead.

It is an imponderable whether a succeeding amendment could have just repealed the Corwin Amendment as the 23rd repealed the 18th. At present there is only one theoretically unamendable section of the Constitution, “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Again, it’s an interesting question whether this section could be constitutionally repealed. IMO it could be.

However, since there is effectively zero sentiment to do so, the point is moot.


21 posted on 06/17/2014 10:38:57 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

So, does this Corwin Amendment make the case that the war was not over slavery, and there a hidden motive to send all the slaves South and it didn’t work out?

How they could even offer such an amendment is beyond me.


22 posted on 06/17/2014 12:14:36 PM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: riverss
Secession was primarily, though not exclusively, over the issue of protecting slavery.

The war was not primarily about slavery at any time, though it became a strong secondary motivation after about the first year, once unionists realized the secession had killed "the old Union," and it wasn't coming back.

War as a consequence of secession was of course nearly inevitable from the beginning, eventually if not right away. Too many points for conflict. As Lincoln, you could declare secession, but you couldn't move away physically. The USA was always going to be right there, across a tremendously long border. If the two peoples could not adjust their difficulties over such issues as fugitive slaves or the territories within the Union, what reason is there to believe they could do so peacefully as two independent nations?

there a hidden motive to send all the slaves South and it didn’t work out?

I have no idea at all what you are asking here.

23 posted on 06/17/2014 12:21:26 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I think the North wanted to clean house of their slaves.

I also think that because of such a ridiculous amendment for permanent slavery, anything is possible.
Even a plan to grow the South to furnish more goods for Northern finished goods and exports.

You saw in an earlier post how much money the North was taking in above all others in the country.
This would in turn cause the South to increase their volume of slaves to increase goods and the North had plenty to move out.

No more slaves could come into America so the only place the South could have gotten more slaves would have been from...you guess it, the North.

It could be just that simple. I know there was talk in the North about shipping the slaves somewhere but that fell through.

Who knows what they were thinking back then.
Just a shot in the dark outside the box.


24 posted on 06/17/2014 1:06:39 PM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: riverss

I guess it depends on what you define as “the North.”

In 1860 the term generally meant the free states, in which there were no slaves, so I fail to see how the South could get slaves from them.


25 posted on 06/17/2014 1:13:35 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Well I guess that answered itself then.

The South would have to have kept all the slaves in the South if they had taken the bait.
Just a back door way of making sure all the slaves didn’t end up in the North to live.
I don’t know how they were treated up North at that time.


26 posted on 06/17/2014 1:30:38 PM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: riverss; rockrr
To this day, it lies dormant, ready to be ratified by the required number of states. Its adoption by the House and Senate is now a constitutional fact that cannot be reversed.

The horror! The horror!

Of course that's not going to happen.

Article One of the original Bill of Rights is still out there, though, waiting for 27 or so more ratifications. If the proposed amendment with its requirements for numbers of Representatives in relation to the total population went into effect, the number of US Representatives could swell into the thousands.

Also still waiting are the Titles of Nobility Amendment (if it hasn't already been ratified already as some claim) which by one reading could strip US citizenship from Colin Powell, George HW Bush and other eminences and the Child Labor Amendment.

Nowadays they put time limits for ratification into the amendments so proponents of the feminist ERA or DC voting representation in Congress have to start all over from the beginning.

27 posted on 06/17/2014 2:25:09 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverss
No more slaves could come into America so the only place the South could have gotten more slaves would have been from...you guess it, the North.

Slavers didn't need to look beyond their own backyards for more chattel. Slave populations had long been at self-sustaining levels.

28 posted on 06/17/2014 2:31:34 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: x
Also still waiting are the Titles of Nobility Amendment (if it hasn't already been ratified already as some claim) which by one reading could strip US citizenship from Colin Powell, George HW Bush and other eminences

Assuming the necessary 25 states or whatever ratified next week, which isn't going to happen, those with existing titles would be unaffected. Ex post facto and all that.

29 posted on 06/17/2014 2:53:25 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Ex post facto and all that.

Article One of the Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

If you amend the Constitution, though, it's up to the courts to decide how to interpret the old and the new provisions.

30 posted on 06/17/2014 3:03:05 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

More than self-sustaining. In 1810 there were 1.2M slaves, in 1860 4M.

Despite some minor slave smuggling, this was almost entirely natural increase, and indeed almost exactly parallels the white natural population increase.


31 posted on 06/17/2014 3:06:09 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: x

No doubt. But I assume ex post facto would be deemed to apply unless the amendment specifically made it retroactive.

It’s interesting that this was apparently an important issue back then and nobody cares about it at all today.

At least important enough to get 2/3 of each house of Congress to vote for it, and to get it within two states of the number needed for ratification.


32 posted on 06/17/2014 3:08:47 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Thanks S.L., more:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/crittenden-compromise-is-killed-in-senate

> Essentially, the Crittenden Compromise sought to alleviate all concerns of the Southern states. Four states had already left the Union when it was proposed, but Crittenden hoped the compromise would lure them back. Crittenden thought he could muster support from both South and North and avert either a split of the nation or a civil war. The major problem with the plan was that it called for a complete compromise [sic] by the Republicans with virtually no concessions on the part of the South.

IOW it wasn’t a compromise, it was a repudiation of the Republican platform of 1860 before he was even sworn in, and Lincoln rightly rejected it. If the Demagogic Party tried it today, they’d include hate speech provisions to prohibit criticism of slavery.


33 posted on 06/17/2014 3:36:28 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Righto. Should be noted that the Corwin Amendment was a quite separate attempt to appease the South from the Crittenden Compromise.

Lincoln neither supported nor rejected the CA, while rejecting the CC.

I’ve run across several references by Lincoln to a proposed treason law, or something like that, proposed by Douglass that would have criminalized abolition speech somewhat in the way you describe. But I’ve been unable to find any specifics, so I sure could be wrong on this.

The issue is that southerners, quite humanly, had grown to utterly resent being constantly told the economic and social basis of their way of life was evil. As Lincoln put it, in 1860 the only thing that would have appeased them was to “cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right.”

Even Douglas, who proclaimed slavery a matter of moral indifference, was ostracized by southerners for refusing to call it a positive good and work for a federal slave code imposing slavery throughout the territories by federal military force.


34 posted on 06/17/2014 3:54:59 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Slavers didn't need to look beyond their own backyards for more chattel.

And fairly often their own bedrooms, FTM.

35 posted on 06/17/2014 3:56:21 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Found it. Douglas proposed that any speech that would irritate southerners be classified as sedition, and that Republican leaders, including Seward and Lincoln, who he specified by name, be jailed under it.

Quite amazing, when you realize that Douglas considered himself, and was considered by many others, to be a moderate. In point of fact, he was in the middle between those who wanted to expand slavery and those who wanted to limit or end it. As such, he got attacked by both ends of the spectrum.

http://books.google.com/books?id=aJ3Z1zzPCzwC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=stephen+douglas+sedition+law&source=bl&ots=W6rUYypTm9&sig=lWJ67IseDYybkvMTRc9ae-80yxI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VcqgU7-sIcOzyAS_9oGIDA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=stephen%20douglas%20sedition%20law&f=false


36 posted on 06/17/2014 4:14:41 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

And yet, he attended Lincoln’s inaugural, while others in his party plotted to assassinate Lincoln before he took the oath.


37 posted on 06/17/2014 6:21:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

> The issue is that southerners, quite humanly, had grown to utterly resent being constantly told the economic and social basis of their way of life was evil.

Nonsense. The issue was that the pro-slavery elite invaded Kansas, led the drive to secession based on expansion of slavery, attacked federal installations, and blamed everyone but themselves — which figures, since they were Democrats.


38 posted on 06/17/2014 6:40:59 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

In fact, he held Lincoln’s hat while he spoke at the Inaugural.

I’ve read all the Lincoln-Douglas debates. He was a very eloquent and honorable man, IMO, just very mistaken.

After the first returns came in and it was obvious Lincoln would be elected, Douglas toured the South, including the Deep South, trying by his words to calm the fervor in that section. It was done at great personal risk, and damage to his health from which he never recovered.

In fact, it’s not entirely inaccurate to say that he worked himself to death trying to save the Union and prevent war. When secession came anyway, he opposed it strongly, and when war started, he did everything he could to rally Democrats to support the war effort. When Lincoln was working on his proclamation calling for 75,000 troops, Douglas suggested he call instead for 200,000.

He died shortly thereafter.


39 posted on 06/17/2014 6:51:13 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

You’ll need to take your argument up with Lincoln. When he talked at Cooper Union about what would be needed appease southern anger.

“The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.”

“These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.”


40 posted on 06/17/2014 6:56:51 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: riverss
No more slaves could come into America so the only place the South could have gotten more slaves would have been from...you guess it, the North.

First of all, the 'North' did not have any slaves. Four border states that stayed loyal during the war were 'Slave' states, but they had very few slaves compared to the South. The issue was quite the opposite of what you seem to think. It was about assuring new markets for excess slaves for the future.

The issue was the expansion of slavery to the territories, not about getting more slaves. The Deep South states realized that with the rate their own slave populations were increasing, they would have far too many slaves within a generation than they could handle. They needed new markets which is why they demanded that the Western territories be open to slavery.

It's that simple. Lincoln and the Republicans in 1860 had no dreams of ending slavery via an election. The only campaign promise Lincoln made was to stop the spread of slavery to the west.

The hard core fire-eaters on the south realized that stopping the spread of slavery would before long drive down the value of their fast growing slave population, but also put them in a position where they would be totally outnumbered by their own slaves. That was a nightmare scenario for them --- bankrupt and surrounded by people who hated you.

Arguments over ending slavery didn't cause the Civil War --- it was the Republican opposition to the Expansion of Slavery that caused it. Without expansion and new markets, the South would have choked to death on (or by) their own slaves.

It was economics, and the South had one totally screwed up economic system that was completely reliant on slavery.

41 posted on 06/17/2014 8:47:29 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Where’s the Dixie ping?


42 posted on 06/17/2014 11:48:14 PM PDT by StoneWall Brigade (Howard Phillips Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: riverss

What Republicans called a “cordon of freedom,” secessionists denounced as an inflammatory circle of fire.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/29/did_northern_aggression_cause_the_civil_war/


43 posted on 06/18/2014 4:14:39 AM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverss

Ole Abe was smoking the revenue pipe. What else is new? He was no different than any other politician.

If the South successfully seceded they would then start to export their cotton on ships from southern ports directly to Europe instead of having to ship the cotton up North and pay fees for it to be shipped out of Northern ports on Ameican owned ships. At the time cotton was not allowed to be shipped out of the couotry on any ship not American owned. All the shipbuilding industry was up in New England and that’s where the ships were. Very little was exported out of Savannah or Charleston because it would have had to go on foreign ships.

So bottom line it was all about the money as usual and slavery made a nice fall guy.


44 posted on 06/18/2014 8:33:39 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

I guess I’m a little shell shocked by never hearing about CA until now.

After reading the deal offered by the gov., Corwin Amendment, I just can’t for reasons yet understood ever again think the war was ever about slavery.

This should put an end to that slavery issue just on the face value of the Corwin Amendment.
Yet here we have the United States of America offering the South slaves forever, and.....we will fix it so it will last forever...for y’all.

The reason I get all up about this is my family could still be in bondage if it had passed. We made it up to sharecroppers, then freemen, O, and I’m white.

And my GGGF and 4 of his brothers fought in the war together.
3 were shot up, 1 killed, 1 sent home to take care of their momma who was left alone on the farm when the war started.

I know exactly why they fought, we were invaded., and we still tell the stories.
It wasn’t about slavery to them at all.

Now I’m starting to get a little p o’d over this whole issue.


45 posted on 06/18/2014 9:36:16 AM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: riverss
After reading the deal offered by the gov., Corwin Amendment, I just can’t for reasons yet understood ever again think the war was ever about slavery.

By the time the Corwin amendment was passed seven Southern states had announced their secession and adopted a constitution that guaranteed slavery in every state and every territory the country might acquire, with no authority at any level to interfere with it, and no real chance that it could ever be done away with. Compare that with the Corwin amendment, which only guaranteed slavery in those states were it currently existed and ended any chance of it expanding, then why is it surprising that the Southern states were not tempted to rejoin? Why go back and accept limits to slavery when you can remain in your Confederacy and ensure unlimited slavery throughout your country forever?

46 posted on 06/18/2014 10:15:37 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: riverss

The north went to war to defend the union and won the slaves freedom in the bargain. The south went to war to defend slavery and lost everything in the bargain.


47 posted on 06/18/2014 10:23:36 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; DoodleDawg

Thanks for the help.
The slaves issue would had been over sooner or later anyway. Slavery was on it’s last legs in the 1840’s-50’s thank God.

I believe the war was not about slavery and never was. That thinking is over for me.
People still use it to pound on the South, but some of us, a lot of us didn’t get on the shame and blame train.

Here’s what I think it boils down to and not much more.
I could be wrong but really don’t care if I am anymore.

The Corwin Amendment was offered to the South somewhere about March 2-12 1861
Keep your slaves forever if y’all come back into the Union.
Our answer, we have had enough, let’s fight.

All those years and years of bickering and backstabbing were OVER.
Our answer was in our cannon balls tearing up Fort Sumter April 12, 1861 all deals were now null and void and we burned all the bridges.

We went for broke and we got it, but by God we tried.
We had had enough.
This is what I get out of a lifetime of stories told me from a defeated people, a culture totally burned to the ground, that the North will never know OR understand.

This was just like William Travis (Son of S.C.) had done. Firing his cannon at Santa Anna from the Alamo was his answer to.

The north then went to war to defend the union and won the slaves freedom in return.

The South went to war to stop ONE OF THE LARGEST armies out there, aka the Northern Invaders (Yankee) and we lost.

We lost just about everything.
We did however keep our pride and ability to fight. Government couldn’t take that, but sure like to use it.
(in the Armed Forces)

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.


48 posted on 06/18/2014 12:00:55 PM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: riverss
Slavery was on it’s last legs in the 1840’s-50’s thank God.

You would be very hard pressed to find a quote from a single Southern leader of the time that would agree with that.

I believe the war was not about slavery and never was.

Then what was it about? What was the cause of the bickering and backstabbing you speak of?

49 posted on 06/18/2014 12:11:33 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

It’s goes back to J C Calhoun and A Jackson.
Again S.C. boys that hated each other and stayed in a p*#%ing contest.

Care for slaves? asked the Indians how much the gov. cares for anybody.

Slaves, about half the states were free states, part were not, and the rest were not going to be slave states.
It was winding down whether you won’t to admit to it or not but I don’t really care.


50 posted on 06/18/2014 12:51:51 PM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson