All southern ports combined didn't collect $7 million in revenue let alone $70 million.
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 ...
So lincoln was a craven opportunist on top of being a tyrant? Say it ain’t so!
The revisionists will not appreciate this information. LOL!
> So lincoln was a craven opportunist on top of being a tyrant? Say it ain’t so!
And he was a liberal to boot.
Lincoln: If you like your slaves, you can keep your slaves.
:-) Snicker.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Which would make the defenders of slavery the conservatives?
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?
All southern ports combined didn't collect $7 million in revenue let alone $70 million.
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.
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?
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.