Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
There was nothing in the amendment that wasn't already understood. It was only a re-affirmation of one of the rights that the states already posessed. Slavery, in the states, was already untouchable. This amendment added nothing new which is probably why it was given little attention by the Southern states and little resistance by the Northern states.
Thanks for your opinion, Rose, but I must disagree. I think you are misreading the Corwin amendment. It did not seek to prohibit Congress from passing legislation interfering with slavery, but from passing amendments that would allow such legislation.
Article Thirteen
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the 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 states always had the option of amending the Constitution to abolish slavery. All that was needed was a 2/3 majority in Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states in convention. That day was coming. The Corwin amendment sought to prohibit any such amendment from ever being made in an attempt to assuage the immediate fears of slaveholders and deflate the secessionist zeal that rested on that issue.
Although the Corwin amendment would have barred amendments to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states had it been ratified, I assert that nothing prevented another amendment from repealing the Corwin amendment.
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper; 01-14-2006 at 12:06 PM.
I've already noted that Akhil Amar has suggested that the proposed "no-amendment amendment" might itself have been unconstitutional.
I don't have the book in front of me, but elsewhere in "America's Constitution" Professor Amar suggests that the proposed amendment might have left a loophole. The proposed amendment barred Congress from making any further amendment that would authorize Congress to interfere with slavery in the States. But what if Congress passed a further amendment that simply barred slavery, rather than an amendment that authorized Congress to bar slavery?
I emphasize that there is no known evidence (to me) that the form of the proposed Thirteenth Amendment was intentionally designed to leave this loophole, or that anyone in the seceding states found the proposed amendment unsatisfactory for this reason. To the contrary, the loophole (if it was one) seems to have been totally inadvertent, and no one spotted the ambiguity at the time.
The Corwin amendment was clearly a congressional attempt to cool some of the southern fear of abolition and its subsequent heat. It also focused on the fact that the abolitionists did not control the government -- which might also have served to assuage southern fears. Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The proposed amendment barred Congress from making any further amendment that would authorize Congress to interfere with slavery in the States. But what if Congress passed a further amendment that simply barred slavery, rather than an amendment that authorized Congress to bar slavery?
My opinion is that it would have been a tight loophole indeed, one which I can't imagine would pass muster with the Supreme Court. A ratified Corwin would prohibit Congress from interfering with slavery in the states, but it would not limit that interference to legislation. If the Court considered the intent of an amendment which barred Congress from abolishing slavery, I would think they would have to concede that a subsequent act of Congress passing an amendment to directly abolish slavery was indeed, in both spirit and action, a violation of the Corwin amendment. The act to amend would have to start out with a joint resolution, after all.
It just smacks of an end-run play around the intent. If the proposed 13th Amendment had become part of our Constitution, I prefer to think that the 14th Amendment would read "The 13th Amendment is hereby repealed" - a direct display of intent of a nation intent on abolishing this evil.
Cedarstripper
I realize that once again I am guilty of being off topic, and will cease and desist immediately.
Last edited by cedarstripper; 01-14-2006 at 03:36 PM.
Thanks for your opinion, Rose, but I must disagree. I think you are misreading the Corwin amendment. It did not seek to prohibit Congress from passing legislation interfering with slavery, but from passing amendments that would allow such legislation.
With all due respect, the amendment reaffirmed that slavery was an institution that belonged under the state government and Congress was only stating that they did not care to ever change that fact. Now, whether they were attempting to dupe the Southern states with this amendment or if it was in good faith, I can't guess. But, at any rate the Southern states didn't buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
The states always had the option of amending the Constitution to abolish slavery. All that was needed was a 2/3 majority in Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states in convention. That day was coming. The Corwin amendment sought to prohibit any such amendment from ever being made in an attempt to assuage the immediate fears of slaveholders and deflate the secessionist zeal that rested on that issue.
I agree. The day was coming for many changes for the Southern states. With a Republican majority the South couldn't hope to protect her interests, slavery or otherwise, in Congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Although the Corwin amendment would have barred amendments to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states had it been ratified, I assert that nothing prevented another amendment from repealing the Corwin amendment.
Cedarstripper
So you agree that it was an attempt to dupe the Southern states and it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
It so happens that over the weekend I reread Kenneth Stampp's book, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877.
It's simply a wonderful book. In about 200 short pages, easily readable in a single day, Professor Stampp provides an overview of events and, more importantly, his typically piercing analysis of and insights into the personalities, motivations and events he describes. Although originally published in 1965, Stampp's debunking of the Reconstruction myths remains a classic and a must-read if you're interested in the period.
A piece of trivia: I note that my paperback copy, probably purchased in the mid- to late-70's, cost $2.95. The current price on Amazon is $10.36. Oh well.
What sort of myths does Stampp debunk regarding Reconstruction? I will probably order this book, but I'm curious what Stampp's position is.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
With all due respect, the amendment reaffirmed that slavery was an institution that belonged under the state government and Congress was only stating that they did not care to ever change that fact. Now, whether they were attempting to dupe the Southern states with this amendment or if it was in good faith, I can't guess. But, at any rate the Southern states didn't buy it.
What you had written was that the Corwin amendment offered nothing that the slave states didn't already have. That is incorrect. Do you now agree with that?
Quote:
I agree. The day was coming for many changes for the Southern states. With a Republican majority the South couldn't hope to protect her interests, slavery or otherwise, in Congress.
As you know, I disagree. You repeat the assertion that the free states of the US would have been allied against the South on issues other than slavery, though you admit that many of their economies and conditions were more similar to the southern agricultural states than the industrialist areas. I wish you would expand on that with some specifics. Under your theory, one could easily argue that the Midwest or the West should secede because they were outnumbered in Congress by the Northeast and the South. The only commonality differentiating the slave states from the free states was.....slavery.
Quote:
So you agree that it was an attempt to dupe the Southern states and it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
Not at all. I disagree that its effect was necessarily permanent. The founders gave us a constitution with the included instructions for how to amend it to fit future circumstances. It is contrary to that intent to suppose that an amendment can forever remove the ability of future Congresses and "the People" to constitutionally alter the Constitution. Because I concede that present constitutional articles and amendments can be amended in the future does not mean that I believe they "are not worth the paper they are written on." Really, Rose, your powers of logic are above that.
What sort of myths does Stampp debunk regarding Reconstruction? I will probably order this book, but I'm curious what Stampp's position is.
Rose,
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'd recommend that you take a look at the Amazon reader reviews. Before you order, be warned: Stampp forcefully rejects the earlier historiography (as of the mid-1960s) that portrayed Reconstruction as a tragic, sordid and "soul-sickening spectacle" in which vindictive and hypocritical Radical Republicans unleashed crafty, scheming carpetbaggers and degraded and depraved scalawags to inflict a sadistic and brutal campaign of corruption, abuse and oppression on the defenseless, prostrate South.
That said, he's well worth reading even if his viewpoint gives you agita. First, the book has what amount to fascinating essays on a variety of topics such as what Reconstruction might have looked like had Lincoln not been killed, and brilliant portraits of leading actors such as Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner and in particular the otherwise-incomprehensible (to me, at least) Andrew Johnson. Second, even if Stampp's thesis is distasteful, you can't begin to formulate a response until you confront his arguments.
What you had written was that the Corwin amendment offered nothing that the slave states didn't already have. That is incorrect. Do you now agree with that?
I suppose it depends on whether you believe the Corwin amendment could be amended or not. If it could be amended in the future it gave the South nothing she didn't already have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
As you know, I disagree. You repeat the assertion that the free states of the US would have been allied against the South on issues other than slavery, though you admit that many of their economies and conditions were more similar to the southern agricultural states than the industrialist areas. I wish you would expand on that with some specifics. Under your theory, one could easily argue that the Midwest or the West should secede because they were outnumbered in Congress by the Northeast and the South. The only commonality differentiating the slave states from the free states was.....slavery.
Cedarstripper, I sincerely doubt that you believe the only difference in Northerners and Southerners was slavery. But, since you are making the claim, I'll take you at your word. You are aware of the differences on the subject of tariffs. You understand that it was a really huge issue for the Southerners, Northerners too, for that matter. The basic ideals of what government should be were very different, also. The South believed in less government, while the North wanted larger, more centralized government. The interpretation of the Constitution by both sides also reflected these differences. The South may have helped to shape the country during the first hundred years, but I think it's true that the next hundred years after the war were definitely a product of the North's doings. Culturally, there may as well have been an ocean between the North and South so different as they were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Not at all. I disagree that its effect was necessarily permanent. The founders gave us a constitution with the included instructions for how to amend it to fit future circumstances. It is contrary to that intent to suppose that an amendment can forever remove the ability of future Congresses and "the People" to constitutionally alter the Constitution. Because I concede that present constitutional articles and amendments can be amended in the future does not mean that I believe they "are not worth the paper they are written on." Really, Rose, your powers of logic are above that.
Cedarstripper
Well, lets examine "my logic". Congress made an amendment that cannot be supported, according to you, and if that is so, I claim it's worthless. If it cannot stand, what is it worth to anyone?
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'd recommend that you take a look at the Amazon reader reviews. Before you order, be warned: Stampp forcefully rejects the earlier historiography (as of the mid-1960s) that portrayed Reconstruction as a tragic, sordid and "soul-sickening spectacle" in which vindictive and hypocritical Radical Republicans unleashed crafty, scheming carpetbaggers and degraded and depraved scalawags to inflict a sadistic and brutal campaign of corruption, abuse and oppression on the defenseless, prostrate South.
Thanks, elektratig. Your description of Stampp's views remind me of my "nephew-in-law". He is of German descent, in his early thirties and highly "over educated" He believes the Holocaust never happened. He says it with a straight face, too, bless his heart. Anyway, I'm intrigued by Stampp's claims. I'll have to get the book.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
