Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I was just telling a friend this morning about this guy I argue with online who says the Corwin Amendment doesn't mean what it says, and that Lincoln didn't support it anyways."

That's because you just can't be honest about a major tenet of the Lost Causer Lie.
Doesn't matter to you what Corwin actually said, doesn't matter what Lincoln actually did, just like any Democrat you've got enough to weaponize for your Big Lie, and that's all you need, or care about.

[DiogenesLamp]

That is a far cry from when you came into one of these threads proclaiming that Lincoln proclaimed in his First Inaugural “that he had no issue with making Slavery express and irrevocable!”

That still sounds accurate. That is pretty much what I have been saying. I'm sure there is another nit in there that you want to pick, but I actually can't see it until you do.

Whatever it is, it's invisible to me at the moment. Yes, Lincoln proclaimed that he had no issue with making Slavery express and irrevocable.

[DiogenesLamp]

Doesn't matter to you what Corwin actually said, doesn't matter what Lincoln actually did

It is clear what the Corwin amendment actually said. It is clear that Lincoln actually urged it's passage.

Your attempts to spin what is the clear truth are now just a source of amusement to me.

[HandyDandy]

”Lincoln proclaimed that he had no issue with making Slavery express and irrevocable.”

That is a lie, and I certainly hope that any reader might not happen upon that total distortion of the truth and take it at face value. I had hoped to get an honest answer from you about, “Why did the South secede?” Now I must ask you to fill in the blank: “Lincoln proclaimed that he had no issue with making ___ ______ _________ express and irrevocable”

[DiogenesLamp]

That is a lie, and I certainly hope that any reader might not happen upon that total distortion of the truth and take it at face value.

How is it a lie? Lincoln urged passage of the Corwin amendment and said he had no objection to it being made express and irrevocable.

The Corwin amendment would keep slavery legal for so long as any state wanted to keep it.

The Corwin amendment clearly is the equivalent of protection for slavery, so you are simply trying to dice meanings so fine to create a fig leaf, and not to clarify.

Lincoln's actions were promoting effectively permanent slavery in the "Union."

What is the lie is to pretend this is a misrepresentation. It is *NOT* a misrepresentation, it's quite accurate. You just don't like the significance of it.

[HandyDandy]

”Lincoln's actions were “promoting” “effectively” “permanent” slavery in the "Union."

Would you listen to yourself? That is called “mincing your words”. Also, why do you now twist the words to speak of slavery in the “Union”? Lincoln was speaking to the United States of America. Do you have an agenda? Anyway, I have lost interest in that for the moment. I have told you before that anytime I find you in a thread repeating your lies I will call you on it. Fair enough? So, why did the Slave States secede?

[DiogenesLamp]

Also, why do you now twist the words to speak of slavery in the “Union”?

How is it twisting words to speak of "slavery in the Union"? What the H3ll do you think the Corwin amendment was going to protect, and where do you think it was going to protect it?

SLAVERY, AND IN THE UNION!

Why do you come up with these bizarre attempts at nitpicking? That isn't even a nit. It is factually correct that the Corwin amendment was going to protect slavery in the Union.

I have told you before that anytime I find you in a thread repeating your lies I will call you on it.

You're nuts. You repeat some absolutely correct thing that I said, and then you call it a lie? Yes, Lincoln supported the Corwin amendment, and the Corwin amendment would protect slavery in the Union.

And I don't give a sh*t why the slave states seceded. Rights do not have to come with explanations. If they did they wouldn't be rights, they would be permissions.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It is clear what the Corwin amendment actually said."

Corwin merely said what was already Federal policy -- slavery was a states' issue and would not be abolished from Washington, DC.

DiogenesLamp: "It is clear that Lincoln actually urged it's passage."

But there was no "urge" to it, Lincoln merely said he did not object to something that was already long-standing policy.
We know what happened when Lincoln did fully urge the 13th Amendment (abolition) -- it was soon ratified.
By stark contrast, Corwin died from lack of Lincoln's support.

So why do you keep lying about it?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln urged passage of the Corwin amendment and said he had no objection to it being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln said:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen..."

So, Lincoln "urged" passage of a proposed amendment he hadn't seen?
No.

DiogenesLamp: "The Corwin amendment would keep slavery legal for so long as any state wanted to keep it.
The Corwin amendment clearly is the equivalent of protection for slavery..."

Lincoln said:

"...has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service."

But, Dred Scott notwithstanding, the Federal government never had authority to interfere with slavery or abolition in the states.

DiogenesLamp: "...so you are simply trying to dice meanings so fine to create a fig leaf, and not to clarify.
Lincoln's actions were promoting effectively permanent slavery in the 'Union.' "

Lincoln said:

"To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

IOW, Lincoln said: Corwin would change nothing, so Lincoln didn't object to it.
But Lincoln didn't "urge" it then, or ever.

And DiogenesLamp has no evidence to suggest Lincoln did.
But DL seemingly believes: if he repeats his Big Lie often and LOUD enough, it will somehow magically become true.

It won't, it's not.
So DiogenesLamp is just another Democrat hoping to blame Republicans for his own team's misdeeds.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp post #564: "Lincoln proclaimed that he had no issue with making Slavery express and irrevocable.”

HandyDandy: "That is a lie, and I certainly hope that any reader might not happen upon that total distortion of the truth and take it at face value."

HandyDandy to DiogenesLamp #566: "I have told you before that anytime I find you in a thread repeating your lies I will call you on it.
Fair enough?"

BJK: Right, thanks!
That's what these threads are all about.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why don't you just go back to George Orwell's world. Nobody is interested in hearing how "Slavery"="Freedom."

I've seen this game you play too many times already.

[rockrr]

I had hoped to get an honest answer from you about...

At one time or another we all were hoping. Experience has taught us better.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Why don't you just go back to George Orwell's world.
Nobody is interested in hearing how "Slavery"="Freedom."
I've seen this game you play too many times already."

Why don't you just stop lying?
Nobody is interesting in hearing how your slavers wanted "freedom".
Your telling the same lies over & over cannot magically make them true, FRiend.
So you're just a Democrat doing what Democrats by nature do.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nobody is interesting in hearing how your slavers wanted "freedom".

Incorrect. What they are not interested in hearing is how the Union leadership was going to offer the Southern states protection for everything the Union leadership claimed to be fighting against.

People don't want to hear that Lincoln was treating the issue of slavery like a bargaining chip, and was willing to tolerate it indefinitely if it kept him in control of the Southern states ability to trade directly with Europe.

You don't care about the rights of the Southern states in any fashion whatsoever, you simply want to justify what was done to them in supporting the policies and positions that we have all been taught to prefer.

[x]

I don't remember Charles Adams' specific problem

CFA Jr. led an African-American regiment in the war and had a lot of complaints about his troops. He was typical of some other Northerners who went to war for idealistic reasons and became disillusioned when the world didn't correspond to their ideals. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was another: he never got over his war experiences.

Plus, the Adamses identified with the older America before the Civil War. They saw a lot of corruption in the country after the war and this made them nostalgic and drew them closer to the Southerners who had been so dominant politically in antebellum America. They could see political and financial corruption up close in the North and assumed the South was free from it.

You can see the same dynamic in CF's brother Henry, but Henry never went so far as CF did in glorifying the old South:

I disagree with my brother Charles and Theodore Roosevelt. I think that Lee should have been hanged. It was all the worse that he was a good man and a fine character and acted conscientiously. These facts have nothing to do with the case and should not have been allowed to interfere with just penalties. It's always the good men who do the most harm in the world.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What they are not interested in hearing is how the Union 100% of Democrat leadership was going to offer the Southern states protection for everything the Union leadership Fire Eaters claimed to be fighting seceding against."

Fixed it, as well as possible.

There was no Union "fighting against" in March 1861.
Corwin was Democrats hoping to keep their fellow Democrats from declaring secession.

DiogenesLamp: "People don't want to hear that Lincoln was Democrats were treating the issue of slavery like a bargaining chip, and was were willing to tolerate it indefinitely if it kept him them in control of the Southern states ability to trade directly with Europe rule over Washington DC."

DiogenesLamp: "You don't care about the rights of the Southern states in any fashion whatsoever, you simply want to justify what was done to them in supporting the policies and positions that we have all been taught to prefer."

I care that, in 1860 Southern states had a constitutionally protected right to slavery in their own states, which Lincoln did not then intend to overturn.
I care even more that Confederates never had a constitutionally protected right to start, declare & wage war against the United States, nor was Lincoln ever willing to grant such a "right" to them.

[BroJoeK]

x: "CFA Jr. led an African-American regiment in the war and had a lot of complaints about his troops.
He was typical of some other Northerners who went to war for idealistic reasons and became disillusioned..."

Right, thanks.
I can't always keep the different Adams straight in my mind, but do remember that both John & John Quincy were... what's the word, "Southophiles"? "Australophiles"?
They admired Southerners, especially Virginians like Washington & Jefferson.

But the Johns also opposed slavery, where possible, and it seems like in CF Adams Jr. the two opposing feelings (pro-South, anti-slavery) worked themselves out rather oddly.