Posted on 06/05/2023 8:59:33 PM PDT by grundle
That is not correct. The amendment passed both houses of Congress (by a 3/4ths majority) in early March. Five (5) Northern states did ratify it, and William Seward, who was the Senator from New York and former governor of New York, said he could guarantee the amendment would pass in New York. He was also the lead proponent to pass the amendment in the US Senate. He was also at that time, Lincoln's nominee for Secretary of State. He was working for Lincoln when he pushed the Amendment.
Lincoln personally wrote letters to the governors of all the states, including the ones that had already seceded informing them of the passage of the Corwin amendment in the Congress. This role by the president is *NOT REQUIRED* in the Amendment process. Lincoln did it because he thought it would help get the amendment passed. He was hoping it would induce the Southern states to ratify it and return to the Union.
It was an effort to prevent that.
I was an effort to prevent the massive loss of money that would be the result of the Southern states becoming independent of Washington DC's control. They had jiggered the laws so that the Southern states were paying for 72% of all the nation's taxes, and the people in DC and the Industrialists in the North liked it that way.
The money was being used to build up canals and railroads in the north and to pay subsidies to Northern fishing industries, shipping industries and so forth. It was all a big corruption gig. It was just a smaller version of the same sort of big government corruption schemes we have going on now.
It didn’t work
The South didn't go for it because remaining under DC control kept in place the system that had most of their money going into New York and DC pockets. They wanted to keep the money they made from Trade with Europe.
If I may, adding to what you wrote in reply 21, I think that the information found in newspapers, will support a fact, that the news media stirred up much inflammation.
Doesn’t it follow then, that the actions of the South, succession, risk of war, were also about money? The wealthy planter class wanted to hold on to their money making property, the slaves, and foresaw the eventual end of slavery if they stayed in the union.
My own take:
States had the right to leave the union as an implicit principal of the nation’s founding.
It was not treason to leave the union. It was treason, against the founding principals, to force states to remain against the wishes of their citizens.
It was about money and power on both sides, the Southern planters’ wealth depending on slavery and the Northern industrialists’ wealth depending on Southern agricultural product.
It was also about morality. The implicit principals of the constitution gave the slaves the right to rise in rebellion, and arguably, the abolitionists the right to fight on behalf of the slaves.
The only thing that could have morally justified the war was freeing the slaves. Not keeping the Union. Although Texas reserving the right to leave suggests that leaving the Union was not going to be easy for the other states, that many held it indissoluble without previous exemption.
So if the civil war wasn’t about slavery, what was the Emancipation Proclamation about? If slavery was to last forever why did Lincoln free all the inventory?
"Our new government['s] . . . foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
This odious reasoning eventually led to the ideology of the Klan and post-war segregation, with enduring harm to America and the South.
I was taught in a Chicago middle school that it was the war of “Northern Aggression”.
Slavery only came into it late in the game.
Good post. Seems like a super cool young man. Watching now.
The same young gentleman also reviews a video of Thomas Sowell on black culture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKzgjtZPmak&ab_channel=LFRJojo
Money, greed and evil was definitely the root of slavery in this country.
Thomas Sowell Destroys Woke Culture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ow1Ot3qyBA
That is a 1995 interview by Roger Ailes (CEO of Fox News; passed away in 2017).
The north didnt go to war to end slavery..
Abe Lincoln was a white supremacist. He did not start the war to stop white supremacy.
I WOULD NOT PLAN MOTHERHOOD WITH A 'VACCINATED' MAN PATHOLOGIST - ARNE BURKHARDT
He's dead now.
Rest In Peace Dr Arne Burkhardt who pioneered work in the pathology of the COVID "vaccines"
James Madison says otherwise. Madison said that people were both citizens of their state and citizens of the United States, and that a state government does not have the authority to strip its citizens of their citizenship in the United States.
Still, this comes down to one man's opinion, but he was the authority on the intent and meaning of the Constitution.
On March 15, 1833, James Madison wrote a letter to Daniel Webster:
Madison's argument here is that when the states ratified the Constitution, that conferred United States citizenship on the citizens of the several states with all the rights and powers laid out in the Constitution.Madison previously wrote that allowing a state to secede implicitly gives the others states the power to kick out an offending state, which cannot be allowed.Madison:
It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.Madison asserts that once given, a governor or legislature does not have the right to strip its state citizens of their citizenship in the United States.Madison:
The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact.In other words, the citizens of the several states are also citizens of the United States via the compact of the Constitution that was "ordained and established..." by "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union." Madison says that as long as the Constitution itself remains operative, it applies to all the citizens of the United States regardless of their state of residence and the status of that state.
Madison wrote about secession in a letter ca. 1832 to Mr. Alexander Rives, who later published it in the Virginia (Charlottesville) Advocate in 1833: LETTER FROM MR. MADISON ON THE RIGHT OF SECESSION:
Madison argues that the ratification of the Constitution was a compact between the states, and as such, each state has equal say in all matters. When one state declares itself to secede unilaterally, it says that its own decision is elevated above all the rest.Although Texas reserving the right to leave suggests that leaving the Union...Madison:
The case of a claim in a State to secede from its union with the others, is a question among the States themselves as parties to a compact...Madison then suggests that if a state declares its own desire supreme over the others, then that right extends to all the other states too. That means that if a state has a right to secede from the others, then the others have the right to secede from it. In other words, a body of states has the right to oust a state against its wishes, which is a dangerous precedent.It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its compact with the rest.
Madison:
The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain. An inference from the doctrine that a single State has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them.
I think this is an urban legend not borne out by facts. A review of the Texas Annexation Founding Documents contains no mention of retaining a right to secede and return to independent nation status. It did, however, have the right to split into four smaller states.
-PJ
Thanks for that link.
Very enlightening.
And of course no money or lives were lost during the civil war
That doesn’t make any sense
That happened well into the war with Lincoln desperate to regain flagging support.
Some might call it cynical...
“What lousy school did this idiot go to? Heck it was even taught in high school
He must’ve missed that semester”
His video advertises his idiocy.
Exactly.
I can understand his feeling of shock at hearing a lot of this information. I, who graduated as a history major and who reads books and watches documentaries about history all the time, was similarly shocked when I learned about:
- the fact that the federal government got most of its money through tariffs which were paid overwhelmingly by the Southern states.
- the scale of federal expenditures for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects which were spent overwhelmingly in the Northern states.
- the longstanding and bitter complaints by Southerners about this exploitation at the hands of the federal government for the benefit of the Northern states
- the fact that the North was perfectly willing to protect slavery - effectively forever - by express constitutional amendment if only the original 7 seceding states would return....which they refused.
- that slavery was ended just about nowhere else in the Western world (ie Europe and all their colonial possessions around the world) via a big bloody war. It was ended at about the same time, for the same reason (industrialization) and the usual method of ending slavery was via compensated emancipation.
The fact that I had gotten all the way through college as a history major and had never been taught this really opened my eyes to just how propagandized we are in America.
It was like watching the corporate media start attaching their tongues to Obama’s shorts in 2007 without even any pretense of balance, fairness, objectivity, etc and watching them just push the narrative of the day for the Democrat party on every single issue since then.
Once you see it, you can never unsee it.
Does it really shock anybody to hear that the history faculty....ie part of Academia....is just as massively biased and just as prone to pushing narratives, outright lying, and hiding the truth as the corporate media?
Once you know you’re being lied to and start looking for the truth yourself, you start finding it. The key is waking up to the fact that you’re being lied to in the first place. Many still haven’t woken up to that.
“His video advertises his idiocy.”
I’m not sure about that. Was I ever taught in school that in America’ south a great percentage of slave traders and owners were black southerners? Of course, I learned that later but don’t recall hearing that in school. Ditto that it was Africans rounding up, and selling, other Africans.
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.