Posted on 10/25/2006 6:33:20 AM PDT by 300magnum
In the delicate days before the Civil War, Congress proposed a 13th amendment that would have prohibited Washington from interfering with slavery in states where it existed.
It was one of many last-ditch efforts to avert war and stem the tide of southern states seceding.
The amendment, known as the "ghost amendment," was signed by President James Buchanan and left for the new president, Abraham Lincoln, to send to governors for their legislatures to ratify.
Lincoln dutifully did so, sending North Carolina's copy to Gov. John Ellis with a cover letter that didn't endorse or oppose the constitutional amendment.
Last week, 145 years later, editors of Lincoln's papers discovered it among Ellis' documents in the state archives in Raleigh.
It will be on display today at the archives, then will be placed into a vault with other important documents.
"We had two documents with Lincoln's signature, but were surprised and obviously delighted to discover we have a third," said Jeffrey Crow, deputy secretary of archives and history. "Lincoln doesn't say yea, or nay, but it is clearly a part of a larger effort to try to prevent civil war. He didn't make emancipation of the slaves a goal of the war until late 1862."
Crow calls the rare and valuable document the "evil twin" of the 13th amendment that abolished slavery in 1865.
But its intention was consistent with the Republican Party's platform of 1860 and what Lincoln said on the campaign trail, said Daniel Stowell, editor and director of the Papers of Abraham Lincoln in Springfield, Ill.
"Lincoln and the Republicans had no intention of interfering with slavery in states where it existed," Stowell said. "They wanted to prevent the spread of slavery into the new territories."
Needing three-quarters of the states to ratify, the proposed amendment was approved by only two states before the war began -- and it was forgotten.
It was likely pitched out by governors whose states had seceded.
Yet with North Carolina still considering secession, Ellis hung onto his.
Stowell and colleague Kelley Boston have spent two years scouring archives across the country for Lincoln's papers. They routinely go through the papers of governors.
Ellis' copy is the fifth they've found, with the signatures of Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward.
Ellis was in his second term when the letter arrived. In February, N.C. voters had defeated a referendum for a secession convention.
But after Confederates fired on Fort Sumter in April, Ellis became known for one of the most famous quotes of the early Civil War.
After Lincoln called for two N.C. regiments to help throw down the rebellion, Ellis responded: "You can get no troops from North Carolina."
On May 20, the state seceded.
"This is certainly one of our most important documents, if just for Lincoln's signature," Crow said.
"And to think we didn't even know we had it. That was a big discovery."
This was curious to me. I didn't think Article 5 of the Constitution required the President to sign amendments proposed by two-thirds of Congress.
Republican Endorses Slavery!
Things just keep getting curiouser and curioser.
Nice thread hijacking tc ...
Question for liberal lurkers: You call Islam a "religion of peace" yet the Quran openly endorses violence against those beliefs that disagree. How do you resolve the two?
The slave debate in 2006 isn't likely to get anyone killed after all...
yes, but the passage that you are talking about that Paul wrote also instructs slave masters to be kind, and humane-christ-like with their slaves..
(In the old south this was not always the case..).
The slavery referred to in the Bible bears little resemblance to the chattel slavery that Islam brought to Africa and Europe. Slavery in ancient Israel was more like a form of indenture; people could sell themselves into a seven year contract at the end of which they could renew or go free. Their masters were not their owners. The "slaves" in Biblical times were primarily people who sold themselves, criminals and prisoners of war.
IIRC the rules about slavery are spelled out in Leviticus.
My intent was not to discuss slavery as an issue but rather to discuss changing moral perceptions and how that impacts our views of issues.
However, agreed, Biblical slavery was different that abject or Roman slavery. However, the "kinder gentle slavery" of which you are referring to existed in law towards the Hebrews in general. It did not include foreign slaves who could be bought and kept as life long slaves and even inherited by the owner's children. But again, my intent was not to discuss slavery but moral perceptions and how that impacts our laws and voting habits.
I,beg to disagree slavery was (and still is) a matter of economics -- money, mullah, cash, dough, bread, and wampum, to use a little Indian lingo. What ultimately ended slavery was the Age of the Machine. Look around the world: the places where you find human slavery are among the least industrialized.
I've always thought of the Old Testament provisions for slavery as falling in the same category as those for divorce. In the New Testament, Jesus puts forward a more restrictive view of divorce than is found in the Old Testament:
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command [Editorial: he didn't. He allowed it] that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."" Matthew 19:7-9
Moreover, we know that God hated divorce before: ""I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel" Malachi 2:6a.
So, from these passages, we knew that God permitted Israel to do things that he loathed because their hearts were hard. I would like to put forward that slavery is the same way.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27.
That man was created in God's image, seemed to have been regarded as important by God in other places like: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Genesis 9:6
This passage seems to be saying that part of what makes murder as despicable as it is, is the fact that the act was done on an image of God. Or, something like burning an effigy of God. So, if we take this principle and apply it further, how could you put in chains an effigy of God?
Besides all of that, I would like to offer one final remark: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12. I believe obedience to that law alone would prevent the vast majority from becoming slave owners.
Yet in the Bible, slavery is not only practice, but slaves were instructed to obey their masters
Yes, he did. The rule Christians are given in the New Testament is, more or less, "obey the authorities, unless commanded to do something contrary to God's law".
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Romans 13:1
slavery was COMMANDED by God.
Only has a punishment and that was only temporary (they were commanded to let fellow Israelites go free after seven years).
If we are now free to "reinterpret" the moral teachings of the Bible, isn't is now also possible for us to alter our positions on other moral issues?
Under the new covenant, the only laws that were altered were those that pertained to the ceremonial and to the temple worship. The moral law has never changed.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" Hebrews 13:8
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." Isaiah 40:8
You are right, and Lincoln went after the economics of the South, which was less industrialized then the North.
Morality does not change just because time does.
Lincoln went after nothing except to preserve the Union against a rebellion alarmed that slavery was going to be limited and the slave interest would no longer have the preponderance of power. Chaos would erupt if sections seceded every time an election came up whose results they didn't like.
"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."
Doesn't sound at all like the practice in the land of the bloodhound. Like many, the Southern slave apologists were adept at examining only those portions of the Bible that they thought supported their selfish agenda.
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.