The Corwin Amendment

Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Or the South could have just - y'know - let their slaves go free. That would have also been an option.

I mean - I feel like getting mad at some number of Abolitionists for encouraging slaves to revolt against their owners is kinda pointing blame in the wrong direction. The Abolitionists would have no reason to advocate bloody slave revolt if slavery didn't exist. And I hope no one would dispute my saying that slavery was and is evil.

Because, no matter all the finger pointing, you cannot escape one unequivocal fact.

In 1860 there were 4 million slaves living in the United States. About 3.5 million of them lived in future Confederate States and about 500,000 lived in states that remained with the Union.

In 1866 there were (technicalities aside - go watch the documentary 13TH) zero.

Had the South won the Civil War, slavery would have continued. We cannot with any certainty say that it would have ended anywhere in the near future after the war. All the evidence suggests it would have lasted a long time. Northern victory brought with it an end to slavery. Whether the North did it genuinely or not, willingly or not, hypocritically or not - it was an unmistakable result of the war.

We can debate until we're blue in the face about anti-slavery and equal rights sentiments in the North and we should have that debate. It's an important topic to discuss. The North treated black refugees and freedpeople atrociously during and after the war. As has been said over and again - it is a terrible tragedy that being anti-slavery was not automatically synonymous with being pro-Civil Rights. Some were. Most were not.

But a Southern victory would have allowed slavery to continue. A Northern victory ended it. And we cannot pretend otherwise.
Slavery was phased out peacefully in the state of New York and that was a fairly recent memory to the folks that were living around the time that Fort Sumter was fired on by the Confederate gun batteries that were guarding the entrance to Charleston Harbor. And seeing as how It wasn’t necessary to kill the slaves in the state of New York in the name of freeing them, we can also postulate that it wasn’t necessary to inflict massive death by starvation on the southern slaves in the name of freeing THEM. The northern abolitionists showed by their actions that they didn’t actually give a **** about the slaves. It was first and foremost a war to inflict desolation on the southern states as a punishment for asserting their right to form an independent nation of their own.

The war was actually the worst thing that could have happened to the southern slaves, because what good does it do to have “freedom” when you’re dead on account of rampant disease and starvation ?

The War Aims Resolution of 1861 didn’t say anything about slavery btw, so we basically have no other recourse but to conclude that the issue was used primarily as a post-facto justification.

There were many slave owners who wanted to see the end of slavery, and yet at the same time they simply could_not_tolerate the aggressive threats and the violent terrorist attacks that were being waged against the south.
 

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
It must have been a deliberate effort to incite the north against the south and to usher in the disaster of sectional warfare between the north and the south.
As I wrote earlier, Abolitionists no more acted in lock-step than did other groups. A large number of them were Quakers and, as such, were quite opposed to war and violence. Many relied on "weapons" of poetry, moral teaching and song (how often has a inquest reached the determination of "death by poetry"? ☺️). The Vigilance Committees did nothing more violent than alert the population to the presence of slave catchers (yet they were considered abolitionists). Many Abolitionists were clergymen, men of god; their opposition was to a great evil upon the land--they had no intention or interest in driving armies). And, it is very important to remember, that there were Abolitionists in the south itself because the "enemy" was not any particular place but an institution.
Abolitionism was a noble cause in principle but nothing good came out of it
Oh, I'd say that a lot of good came out of it: the end of slavery and the firm establishment of a great moral principle.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
It must have been a deliberate effort to incite the north against the south and to usher in the disaster of sectional warfare between the north and the south.

The northern leadership wasn’t stupid and they must have known in advance the likely effect that would have ensued as a result of their policy of exporting terrorism into the southern states.

Abolitionism was a noble cause in principle but nothing good came out of it, and the reason why nothing good came out of it was because it was used primarily as an instrument for waging war against the southern states. The slaves could have been freed gradually and peacefully but the northern abolitionists wanted WAR and the slaves ended up starving in great numbers.
1. Who made "a deliberate effort to incite the north against the south?"

2. Who of the "northern leadership" had a policy of "exporting terrorism into the southern states?"

3. When, in your view, was the south going to free "gradually and peacefully" their slaves? And finally, which of the then acknowledged abolitionists stated they wanted "WAR" with the south?
 

Zack

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
Slavery was phased out peacefully in the state of New York and that was a fairly recent memory to the folks that were living around the time that Fort Sumter was fired on by the Confederate gun batteries that were guarding the entrance to Charleston Harbor. And seeing as how It wasn’t necessary to kill the slaves in the state of New York in the name of freeing them, we can also postulate that it wasn’t necessary to inflict massive death by starvation on the southern slaves in the name of freeing THEM. The northern abolitionists showed by their actions that they didn’t actually give a **** about the slaves. It was first and foremost a war to inflict desolation on the southern states as a punishment for asserting their right to form an independent nation of their own.

The war was actually the worst thing that could have happened to the southern slaves, because what good does it do to have “freedom” when you’re dead on account of rampant disease and starvation ?

The War Aims Resolution of 1861 didn’t say anything about slavery btw, so we basically have no other recourse but to conclude that the issue was used primarily as a post-facto justification.

There were many slave owners who wanted to see the end of slavery, and yet at the same time they simply could_not_tolerate the aggressive threats and the violent terrorist attacks that were being waged against the south.

- Slavery not being phased out peacefully in the South is the fault of the Southerners, not the Abolitionists.

- Slaveowners wanting to end slavery is a classic “actions speak louder than words” scenario.

- Union war aims evolved over the course of the war. You still can’t escape the fact that slavery ended as a result of Union victory.

- I agree that black refugees and freed people were treated very poorly during and after the war. That could have of course been avoided if Southerners didn’t cling so desperately to slavery.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
As I wrote earlier, Abolitionists no more acted in lock-step than did other groups. A large number of them were Quakers and, as such, were quite opposed to war and violence. Many relied on "weapons" of poetry, moral teaching and song (how often has a inquest reached the determination of "death by poetry"? ☺️). The Vigilance Committees did nothing more violent than alert the population to the presence of slave catchers (yet they were considered abolitionists). Many Abolitionists were clergymen, men of god; their opposition was to a great evil upon the land--they had no intention or interest in driving armies). And, it is very important to remember, that there were Abolitionists in the south itself because the "enemy" was not any particular place but an institution.
The south was guilty of being somewhat slower in terms of abolishing the peculiar institution, relative to several northern states which had also been practitioners and facilitators of the slave business. It may sound awful to our “modern” ears but it was THE WAR ITSELF that was the greatest evil and not necessarily the institution of slavery as it existed in the southern states. It was THE WAR ITSELF that caused massive death and destruction in the ranks of the innocent slaves who resided in the seceded states. It wasn’t even necessary to have a war to “free the slaves” in the first place, and once again the historical record shows that the war was fought primarily because Lincoln was trying to exert absolute federal authority over the states which had pulled out of his “union.” You can speculate that the south was fighting to make slavery a perpetual institution, but your view is contradicted by the south’s rejection of, or at least by its refusal to embrace the Corwin Amendment.

I believe that slavery was destined to fade away in the south as it had faded away elsewhere, but the shrieking hypocrites of New England needed the issue of slavery in order to put some “lipstick” on the pig of their desire to conquer the southern states through the force of arms.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
1. Who made "a deliberate effort to incite the north against the south?"

2. Who of the "northern leadership" had a policy of "exporting terrorism into the southern states?"

3. When, in your view, was the south going to free "gradually and peacefully" their slaves? And finally, which of the then acknowledged abolitionists stated they wanted "WAR" with the south?
1) Harriet Beecher Stowe and Hinton Rowan Helper et al., plus all of the folks who turned John Brown into a martyr for the cause of demonizing the south over the issue of slavery.

2) John Brown and his financial backers. In addition to an effort that was undertaken for the purpose of demonizing the south in the newspapers of the day, and through the mass distribution of propagandistic literature.

3a) I guess we’ll never know.

3b) John Brown, who actually led violent and bloody excursions into the south.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
It may sound awful to our “modern” ears but it was THE WAR ITSELF that was the greatest evil and not necessarily the institution of slavery as it existed in the southern states. It was THE WAR ITSELF that caused massive death and destruction in the ranks of the innocent slaves who resided in the seceded states.
Then I guess the south shouldn't have started shooting.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
It must have been a deliberate effort to incite the north against the south and to usher in the disaster of sectional warfare between the north and the south.
Actually, even as far back as 1833, some prominent southerners recognized that it was fellow hot-headed southerners that were making a deliberate effort to incite a sectional conflict over slavery.

Here is Henry Clay writing to James Madison in May 1833:

"The political malcontents in the South seem to have adopted a new theme to excite alarm and to disseminate sentiments unfriendly to the Union. And the measures which G. Britain appears to be resorting to, for the purpose of emancipating the slaves in the W. Indies, may give some aid to the efforts of the Telegraph, their organ, and other papers. I hope that the intelligence of the Country will perceive the object, and perceive also that there is not the slightest foundation for the alarm. I have never yet met with any Northern man who thought that Congress ought to interfere on the subject of the emancipation of the Slaves of the South further than to afford aid in accomplishing that object, if the South desired it."​

Here is Madison's reply:

"It is painful to observe the unceasing efforts to alarm the South by imputations against the North, of unconstitutional designs on the subject of the slaves. You are right, I have no doubt, in believing, that no such intermeddling disposition exists in that Body of our northern brethren. Their good faith is sufficiently guaranteed by the interest they have, as merchants, as shipowners, and as manufacturers, in preserving a union with the slave holding States. On the other hand what madness in the South, to look for greater safety in disunion. It would be worse than jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It would be jumping into the fire from a fear of the frying pan."​
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Instead of exporting terrorism into the south and instead of advocating for all kinds of bloody slave uprisings, they should have taken a more reasonable and a more non-violent approach to the problem.
Lets talk about "exporting terrorism" and violent approaches to the issue…

Just a sampling:.

1837 Missouri mob crosses state line to Alton Illinois attacked and killed Elija Lovejoy and burned his printing press = exporting terrorism in the name of slavery
1838 proslavery mob burns down Pennsylvania Hall in Philadelphia after abolitionists held meetings there and the offices of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society was there
1847 Kentucky Slave Catcher Raid into Michigan = exporting terrorism.
1853-1854 William Walker and his gang invade Baja Mexico = exporting terrorism in the name of slavery
1856 Border Ruffians sacking Lawrence Kansas = exporting terrorism from Missouri into Kanasas in the name of slavery
 

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
but the shrieking hypocrites of New England needed the issue of slavery in order to put some “lipstick” on the pig of their desire to conquer the southern states through the force of arms.
Which shrieking New Englanders do you mean? What about the shrieking westerners? And the shrieking southerners? And anyone else who believed that slavery was a negative--to everybody?

This was a truly civil war. It had adherents and opponents everywhere. To cast it as a sectional conflict is a serious misunderstanding of history. To call people "pigs" because they will not agree, isn't much of a way to "win friends and influence people".
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
- Slavery not being phased out peacefully in the South is the fault of the Southerners, not the Abolitionists.

- Slaveowners wanting to end slavery is a classic “actions speak louder than words” scenario.

- Slavery not being phased out peacefully in the South is the fault of the Southerners, not the Abolitionists

it could have been phased out peacefully except that John Brown was making bloody forays into the Kansas-Missouri territory. Later on he carried out a raid at a federal arsenal with the intention of leading the slaves into open violent revolt against the small minority of southerners who were slave owners. Brown even went so far as to advocate murdering southerners who didn’t even own any slaves because in his eyes they were all equally guilty and were deserving of death just because the institution existed in that region of the country. So as any reasonable person can see it was literally impossible to reason with fanatics like John Brown. It wouldn’t have been so bad if Brown was just a loose cannon, but the fact remains that there were many more like him in the ranks of the New England abolitionist societies. It was therefore eminently reasonable for the southerners to want to break their political ties with their northern “brethren“ since they were feeling deeply threatened by such unreasonable and fanatical behavior.
- Slaveowners wanting to end slavery is a classic “actions speak louder than words” scenario.

- Union war aims evolved over the course of the war. You still can’t escape the fact that slavery ended as a result of Union victory.
Slavery didn’t end with the defeat of General Lee at Appomattox, rather it morphed or shape-shifted into what later became known as “share-cropping.”

The rampant abuse of labor in the northern states continued well into the 20th century.
 

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
There is nothing in history to indicate that peaceful phasing out was going to happened prior to John Brown. Given the level of violence before he did anything, he was but a symptom and not a cause

Au Contraire! You're forgetting all those Phasing-Out proposals submitted by the Slave States during...um...

w-well, how about those southern businessmen so eagerly negotiating compensation for the impending...er...

ok ok, there were all those articles in Southern newspapers advocating peacefully ending the entire...eh...

wait! wait! Southern leaders distinctly advocated educating their slaves to be ready for the inevitable transition...to...to...

I've got it! In the Confederate Constitution, southern politicians officially noted that laws could be passed to end..to end...

oh c'mon, at least you have to admit the Slave States had no plans for expanding...expanding...oh...um...

...a-anyway, it's still all those **** Abolitionists' fault! **** them!
 
Lincoln wanted to draw the fire of confederate guns that were guarding Charleston Harbor, so he sent a small armada of warships to menace the coastline of South Carolina. Lincoln was the aggressor in that engagement and the shots fired at Fort Sumter were shots fired in self-defense.

Woo doggy! Your ultra pro-Confederate versions of events leading up to the war and during the war sure put Jubal Early's and Mildred Lewis Rutherford's accounts to shame.
 

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
There is nothing in history to indicate that peaceful phasing out was going to happened prior to John Brown. Given the level of violence before he did anything, he was but a symptom and not a cause
You're right. With the supply from abroad cut off, slaves were being replenished by breeding--rather like livestock. According to US census figures, there were 2,487,455 slaves in 1840 and, in 1850, there were 3,204,313 slaves. By the 1860 census that figure had risen again to 3,953,760. Doesn't look like "phasing out". :rolleyes:
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
1) Harriet Beecher Stowe and Hinton Rowan Helper et al., plus all of the folks who turned John Brown into a martyr for the cause of demonizing the south over the issue of slavery.

2) John Brown and his financial backers. In addition to an effort that was undertaken for the purpose of demonizing the south in the newspapers of the day, and through the mass distribution of propagandistic literature.

3a) I guess we’ll never know.

3b) John Brown, who actually led violent and bloody excursions into the south.
1. "Harriet Beecher Stowe and Hinton Rowan Helper?" They incited the North against the South? How did they do that?

2. "John Brown and his financial backers" were leaders of the North and exported terrorism to the South? And which newspapers wrote articles in support of terrorism in the South over the issue of slavery?

3a. You are right, we'll "never know" when the South was going to free their slaves as they never gave any stated intentions of doing such.

3b. So, you give John Brown as one example as one who actually led a violent and bloody excursion into the South. But in your post# 59 of this thread, you stated "abolitionists" as in more than one, wanted to go to war to free the slaves. Can you name any other abolitionists who led violent actions against and in the South before the Civil War?
 

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
3a. You are right, we'll "never know" when the South was going to free their slaves as they never gave any stated intentions of doing such.
I'll never understand how someone can make that 'argument' with a straight face.

If Southern Leaders really thought 'slavery was going to end anyway' then there would be NO reason to object about banning slavery in the territories - so what if they eventually became free states (if slavery was going to end anyway)?

Their objection to the Corwin amendment therefore made no sense either - nor their formal declarations of secession (citing the banning of slavery in the territories).

You have to do backward jumps through hoops of Unreality to ignore everything they actually said and formally documented, to believe that 'argument'.

I just don't know how anyone can make it with a straight face.
 
Top