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.
”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:
"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. ![]()