History - True or False ?

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
221
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

221 Views
Message 21 of 35

@alferdpacker wrote:

 

Real patriotic American Citizens don't appreaciate racist trolling...

 

 


Again, this isn't about discussing political opinion or positioning, but in studying history and historic facts.  Of course this is contrary to your beliefs, but again it is history.  It actually happened.  Has nothing to do with events today.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
221
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
219
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

219 Views
Message 22 of 35

@GailL1 wrote:

TxGrandpa2

WOW - maybe I just wasn't paying attention in U.S. History the day that was covered - IF it was covered. 

 



I've always thought of myself as a student of history, especially the early history of the United States, but I only ran across mention of this several years ago when looking something else up.  I would believe that is something that wasn't taught in school as I had never heard of it before either.  At first I thought maybe this was something connected with alternative history.

 

What is strange about this amendment in view of our study of history is that it was proposed by a Senator from New York and a Congressman from Ohio...both northern states.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
219
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
218
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

218 Views
Message 23 of 35

@alferdpacker wrote:

 

Corwin Amendment?    Never could have been ratified...

There were only 11 states in the confederacy - less than half of the 24 votes necessary to ratify it. 

 


It could have been ratified.  But in researching it today I found a number of states had already left the union.  Therefore they were not counted.  The Southern States weren't exactly satisfied with it either for other reasons, probably states rights.

 

But I believe I read somewheres that there was an amicable solution to their leaving and division of governmental assest within the states.

 

Additionally, too many consider events, etc of that time in view of today's standards.  Ideas, customs and other factors have changed since the 1850s and 1860s.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
218
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
214
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

214 Views
Message 24 of 35

The Corwin Amendment never went anywhere and the Slave States seceded because they knew Lincoln was totally opposed to slavery and would move to end it. To pretend otherwise is to pretend many Northerners supported slavery and the Confederacy was fighting for something other than retention of slavery, and that is a total distortion of history.

 

To bring up failed attempts to justify the Confederacy's single objective - make slavery permanent - is a confession of one's commitment to the superiority of the White race. What other purpose is there in justifying a society where Whites could keep other human beings as their personal property, to do with as they pleased?

 

Concerning another of Der Trumper's personal heroes, when John Calhoun began talk of South Carolina seceding, President Jackson informed Calhoun if he continued his traitorous talk, Jackson would ride at the head of a Troop of Calvary to Charleston and hang Calhoun from the nearest lamp post. Calhoun shut up about secession until Jackson left office. Strange that Der Trumper's hero was adamant about the preservation of the Union while Lemontop seeks to defend those who fought to destroy the Union...or not so strange if one considers the imbecility of Der Trumper.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
214
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
203
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

203 Views
Message 25 of 35

@GailL1 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

Fact - the pathetically inept attempt to retain slavery that is the Corwin Amendment never recieved more than 6 votes for ratification - far short of the number necessary to have ratified it in 1790 - when there were only 13 states. 

 

In 1861, when it was adopted to be voted upon for ratification - there were 34 states - which made 24 votes the necessary number to ratify the Corwin Amendment. 

 

Corwin Amendment?    Never could have been ratified.

There were only 11 states in the confederacy - less than half of the 24 votes necessary to ratify it. 

 

Mentioning it today?  

Some would consider that a dead giveaway of position of support/advocacy.

 


This is not about sides of a position - support or advocacy, alfredpacker - it is about history - what is true and what is false in the time period and subjects which we are discussing

 

Here is the author to the NPR Boston article which I just posted .

Maybe you should take it up with him -

Richard Albert is a constitutional law professor at Boston College Law School. 

His words, not mine . . . .

 

"The Corwin Amendment won two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate in early 1861. Ohio was the first state to ratify the amendment, and Maryland and Illinois followed suit, but the onset of the Civil War interrupted the states’ ratification of the amendment. . . .

 

That the Corwin Amendment was approved in both the House and Senate, and subsequently ratified by some states, reveals a deep flaw in the design of the United States Constitution. 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. Its adoption by the House and Senate is now a constitutional fact that cannot be reversed.

 

Even though it was last approved by a state in 1861, if another 35 states voted today to approve the Corwin Amendment (or perhaps 36, since some dispute Illinois’ ratification vote), there would be a genuine question of constitutional law whether it overruled the current 13th Amendment.

 

Perhaps this is too far from reality to be taken seriously. But even its theoretical possibility should prompt us to ask difficult questions about the values the United States Constitution expresses by making the Corwin Amendment even the most remote of possibilities.


It's racist crackpotism. 

 

It would first be necessary to repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments - and we all know that won't occur until after all persons opposing trump are murdered to remove "the opposition".

 

Real patriotic American Citizens don't appreaciate racist trolling...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
203
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
214
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

214 Views
Message 26 of 35

@alferdpacker wrote:

Fact - the pathetically inept attempt to retain slavery that is the Corwin Amendment never recieved more than 6 votes for ratification - far short of the number necessary to have ratified it in 1790 - when there were only 13 states. 

 

In 1861, when it was adopted to be voted upon for ratification - there were 34 states - which made 24 votes the necessary number to ratify the Corwin Amendment. 

 

Corwin Amendment?    Never could have been ratified.

There were only 11 states in the confederacy - less than half of the 24 votes necessary to ratify it. 

 

Mentioning it today?  

Some would consider that a dead giveaway of position of support/advocacy.

 


This is not about sides of a position - support or advocacy, alfredpacker - it is about history - what is true and what is false in the time period and subjects which we are discussing

 

Here is the author to the NPR Boston article which I just posted .

Maybe you should take it up with him -

Richard Albert is a constitutional law professor at Boston College Law School. 

His words, not mine . . . .

 

"The Corwin Amendment won two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate in early 1861. Ohio was the first state to ratify the amendment, and Maryland and Illinois followed suit, but the onset of the Civil War interrupted the states’ ratification of the amendment. . . .

 

That the Corwin Amendment was approved in both the House and Senate, and subsequently ratified by some states, reveals a deep flaw in the design of the United States Constitution. 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. Its adoption by the House and Senate is now a constitutional fact that cannot be reversed.

 

Even though it was last approved by a state in 1861, if another 35 states voted today to approve the Corwin Amendment (or perhaps 36, since some dispute Illinois’ ratification vote), there would be a genuine question of constitutional law whether it overruled the current 13th Amendment.

 

Perhaps this is too far from reality to be taken seriously. But even its theoretical possibility should prompt us to ask difficult questions about the values the United States Constitution expresses by making the Corwin Amendment even the most remote of possibilities.


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
214
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
211
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

211 Views
Message 27 of 35

Fact - the pathetically inept attempt to retain slavery that is the Corwin Amendment never recieved more than 6 votes for ratification - far short of the number necessary to have ratified it in 1790 - when there were only 13 states. 

 

In 1861, when it was adopted to be voted upon for ratification - there were 34 states - which made 24 votes the necessary number to ratify the Corwin Amendment. 

 

Corwin Amendment?    Never could have been ratified...

There were only 11 states in the confederacy - less than half of the 24 votes necessary to ratify it. 

 

Mentioning it today?  

Some would consider that a dead giveaway of position of support/advocacy.

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
211
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
211
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

211 Views
Message 28 of 35

TxGrandpa2

WOW - maybe I just wasn't paying attention in U.S. History the day that was covered - IF it was covered. 

 

The 13th Amendment we know now differs substantially from the one first proposed. The initial amendment would have made slavery constitutional and permanent — and Lincoln supported it.

 

NPR called it the "Ghost Amendment" -

NPR Boston (Politics) 02/18/2013 - The ‘Ghost Amendment’ That Haunts Lincoln’s Legacy

 

This early version of the 13th Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, was proposed in December 1860 by William Seward, a senator from New York who would later join Lincoln’s cabinet as his first secretary of state.

 

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.

 

The Corwin Amendment won two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate in early 1861. Ohio was the first state to ratify the amendment, and Maryland and Illinois followed suit, but the onset of the Civil War interrupted the states’ ratification of the amendment. Had it been ratified, however, the Corwin Amendment would have become the 13th Amendment, forever protecting slavery instead of abolishing it. And the Amendment would have passed with the support of the man who later freed the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, orchestrated the constitutional death of slavery, and is by any measure one of history’s greatest leaders.

 

more real interesting stuff at the above link -


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
211
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
218
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

218 Views
Message 29 of 35

@MIseker wrote:
The Northwest Ordinance, written by the founders, paved they way for this. Lincoln was the first President that studied law under that Ordinance.

Well, then I guess he did have some views leaning towards keeping slavery out of the New territories when he became President.

NW Ordinance - Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, part of Minnesota.

 

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
218
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
219
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

219 Views
Message 30 of 35

OlderScout66 wrote

Here's some ACTUAL history regarding Lincoln's views:

In 1854, Sen. Stephen Douglas forced the Kansas-Nebraska Act through Congress. The bill, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, also opened up a good portion of the Midwest to the possible expansion of slavery.

Douglas' political rival, former Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, was enraged by the bill. He scheduled three public speeches in the fall of 1854, in response. The longest of those speeches — known as the Peoria Speech — took three hours to deliver. In it, Lincoln aired his grievances over Douglas' bill and outlined his moral, economic, political and legal arguments against slavery.

___________________________________

 

While you are correct that Abraham Lincoln, the person and the Congressman, had some very moralistic views on slavery - As President, he had some other evolving thoughts because there were other economic, political and legal ramifications to this decision - I am pretty sure that my further reading from your [unidentified] "source" says it all.

 

NPR 10/11/2010: Lincoln's Evolving Thoughts on Slavery and Freedom

 

"But like many Americans, Lincoln was unsure what to do once slavery ended.

 

"Lincoln said during the Civil War that he had always seen slavery as unjust. He said he couldn't remember when he didn't think that way — and there's no reason to doubt the accuracy or sincerity of that statement," explains historian Eric Foner. "The problem arises with the next question: What do you do with slavery, given that it's unjust? Lincoln took a very long time to try to figure out exactly what steps ought to be taken."

 

Foner traces the evolution of Lincoln's thoughts on slavery in The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. He explains how Lincoln's changing thoughts about slavery — and the role of freed slaves — mirrored America's own transformation.

 

In the Peoria speech, Lincoln said that slavery was wrong, Foner says, and then admitted that he didn't know what should be done about it, even contemplating "free[ing] all the slaves, and send[ing] them to Liberia — to their own native land."

 

"Lincoln is thinking through his own position on slavery," says Foner. "[This speech] really epitomizes his views into the Civil War. Slavery ought to be abolished — but he doesn't really know how to do it. He's not an abolitionist who criticizes Southerners. At this point, Lincoln does not really see black people as an intrinsic part of American society. They are kind of an alien group who have been uprooted from their own society and unjustly brought across the ocean. 'Send them back to Africa,' he says. And this was not an unusual position at this time."

 

Foner traces how Lincoln first supported this kind of colonization — the idea that slaves should be freed and then encouraged or required to leave the United States — for well over a decade. Like Henry Clay, Lincoln also supported repealing slavery gradually — and possibly compensating slave owners for their losses after slaves were freed.

 

It was not until the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared the freedom of all slaves and then named 10 specific states where the law would take affect, that Lincoln publicly rejected his earlier views.

 

"The Emancipation Proclamation completely repudiates all of those previous ideas for Lincoln," says Foner. "[The abolishment of slavery is] immediate, not gradual. There is no mention of compensation and there is nothing in it about colonization. After the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln says nothing publicly about colonization."

 

"As soon as the Union Army went into the South, slaves began running away from plantations to Union lines," Foner says. "And this forced the question of slavery onto the national agenda."

 

When the Union started signing up these slaves into the army - to the point they were 200,000 strong -

 

". . . . envisioning blacks as soldiers is a very, very different idea of their future role in American society. It's the black soldiers and their role which really begins as the stimulus in Lincoln's change [with regard to] racial attitudes and attitudes toward America as an interracial society in the last two years of his life."

 

Lincoln, like all President's, was weighing his views in regards as to what is best for the country - and as things changed in the country, so did his views.


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
219
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Now until February 11, play this classic game online at AARP. Get in the game and play now.


jeopardy for aarp logo

Top Authors