The Republican attempt to Make Slavery a Constitutional Right

[IM2]

Many "Republicans" in this forum are truly dishonest people.

The Corwin Amendment

The Corwin Amendment, also called the “Slavery Amendment,” was a constitutional amendment passed by Congress in 1861 but never ratified by the states that would have banned the federal government from abolishing the institution of slavery in the states where it existed at the time. Considering it a last-ditch effort to prevent the looming Civil War, supporters of the Corwin Amendment hoped it would prevent the southern states that had not already done so from seceding from the Union. Ironically, Abraham Lincoln did not oppose the measure.

The operative section of the Corwin Amendment states:

“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.” Edited

In referring to enslavement as “domestic institutions” and “persons held to labor or service,” rather than by the specific word “slavery,” the amendment reflects wording in the draft of the Constitution considered by delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which referred to enslaved people as “Person held to Service."

How the Corwin Amendment of 1861 Would Have Protected Enslavement

In 1861, Congress proposed a constitutional amendment to protect enslavement. What was the Corwin Amendment and did Lincoln actually endorse it?

www.thoughtco.com

Senator William H. Seward and Representative Thomas Corwin introduced the Corwin Amendment, both were republicans. Edited, red is reserved for moderator's action on the open board.

Wow what is it you are smoking can you share it??

The truth.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The truth.

And the truth is that the claim that the Republicans were the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery is an ahistorical absurdity. Seward and Corwin only introduced the Corwin Amendment to keep the Upper South from seceding and in the hope that it would persuade the Deep South to rejoin the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have changed nothing in actuality, since everyone on both sides agreed that the Constitution already forbade the federal government from abolishing slavery. That's why the secessionists were not impressed with the Corwin Amendment. They were like "this gives us nothing that we don't already have."

The South wanted to extend slavery into the western territories and wanted all Northern anti-slave catching laws abolished (i.e., the Northern personal liberty laws, which prohibited the apprehension of runaway slaves). Those were the two major, divisive issues.

Furthermore, again, the Corwin Amendment would not have prevented any slave state from abolishing slavery if it wanted to do so.

 

[Dagosa]

The truth.

And the truth is that the claim that the Republicans were the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery is an ahistorical absurdity. Seward and Corwin only introduced the Corwin Amendment to keep the Upper South from seceding and in the hope that it would persuade the Deep South to rejoin the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have changed nothing in actuality, since everyone on both sides agreed that the Constitution already forbade the federal government from abolishing slavery. That's why the secessionists were not impressed with the Corwin Amendment. They were like "this gives us nothing that we don't already have."

The South wanted to extend slavery into the western territories and wanted all Northern anti-slave catching laws abolished (i.e., the Northern personal liberty laws, which prohibited the apprehension of runaway slaves). Those were the two major, divisive issues.

Furthermore, again, the Corwin Amendment would not have prevented any slave state from abolishing slavery if it wanted to do so.

It’s a ridiculous debate. Neither democrats nor republicans have the same platform now as they did them.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The truth.

And the truth is that the claim that the Republicans were the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery is an ahistorical absurdity. Seward and Corwin only introduced the Corwin Amendment to keep the Upper South from seceding and in the hope that it would persuade the Deep South to rejoin the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have changed nothing in actuality, since everyone on both sides agreed that the Constitution already forbade the federal government from abolishing slavery. That's why the secessionists were not impressed with the Corwin Amendment. They were like "this gives us nothing that we don't already have."

The South wanted to extend slavery into the western territories and wanted all Northern anti-slave catching laws abolished (i.e., the Northern personal liberty laws, which prohibited the apprehension of runaway slaves). Those were the two major, divisive issues.

Furthermore, again, the Corwin Amendment would not have prevented any slave state from abolishing slavery if it wanted to do so.

It’s a ridiculous debate. Neither democrats nor republicans have the same platform now as they did them.

But we're not talking about now. We're talking about the 1860s. The OP makes the ludicrous claim that it was the Republicans who wanted to perpetuate slavery just because some Republicans supported the Corwin Amendment.

 

[Dagosa]

The truth.

And the truth is that the claim that the Republicans were the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery is an ahistorical absurdity. Seward and Corwin only introduced the Corwin Amendment to keep the Upper South from seceding and in the hope that it would persuade the Deep South to rejoin the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have changed nothing in actuality, since everyone on both sides agreed that the Constitution already forbade the federal government from abolishing slavery. That's why the secessionists were not impressed with the Corwin Amendment. They were like "this gives us nothing that we don't already have."

The South wanted to extend slavery into the western territories and wanted all Northern anti-slave catching laws abolished (i.e., the Northern personal liberty laws, which prohibited the apprehension of runaway slaves). Those were the two major, divisive issues.

Furthermore, again, the Corwin Amendment would not have prevented any slave state from abolishing slavery if it wanted to do so.

It’s a ridiculous debate. Neither democrats nor republicans have the same platform now as they did them.

But we're not talking about now. We're talking about the 1860s. The OP makes the ludicrous claim that it was the Republicans who wanted to perpetuate slavery just because some Republicans supported the Corwin Amendment.

It still doesn’t matter ! Just because a party a 100 To 200 year ago called themselves Republican or Democrat has zero bearing on what republicans are now or what they were between the middle 1700 to 1800,s. Heck, just 50 years ago many republicans were into universal healthcare to save money.....and co sponsored the formation of EPA. Was a different party then it is today as were the Dixiecrats in the south. Some factions were very much into segregation. Just a few decades later, they would be thrown out of the Democrat party. .

 

[IM2]

The truth.

And the truth is that the claim that the Republicans were the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery is an ahistorical absurdity. Seward and Corwin only introduced the Corwin Amendment to keep the Upper South from seceding and in the hope that it would persuade the Deep South to rejoin the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have changed nothing in actuality, since everyone on both sides agreed that the Constitution already forbade the federal government from abolishing slavery. That's why the secessionists were not impressed with the Corwin Amendment. They were like "this gives us nothing that we don't already have."

The South wanted to extend slavery into the western territories and wanted all Northern anti-slave catching laws abolished (i.e., the Northern personal liberty laws, which prohibited the apprehension of runaway slaves). Those were the two major, divisive issues.

Furthermore, again, the Corwin Amendment would not have prevented any slave state from abolishing slavery if it wanted to do so.

It’s a ridiculous debate. Neither democrats nor republicans have the same platform now as they did them.

True. I created this thread for the republicans who keep pretending how the republicans back then loved blacks.

 

[Dagosa]

The truth.

And the truth is that the claim that the Republicans were the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery is an ahistorical absurdity. Seward and Corwin only introduced the Corwin Amendment to keep the Upper South from seceding and in the hope that it would persuade the Deep South to rejoin the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have changed nothing in actuality, since everyone on both sides agreed that the Constitution already forbade the federal government from abolishing slavery. That's why the secessionists were not impressed with the Corwin Amendment. They were like "this gives us nothing that we don't already have."

The South wanted to extend slavery into the western territories and wanted all Northern anti-slave catching laws abolished (i.e., the Northern personal liberty laws, which prohibited the apprehension of runaway slaves). Those were the two major, divisive issues.

Furthermore, again, the Corwin Amendment would not have prevented any slave state from abolishing slavery if it wanted to do so.

It’s a ridiculous debate. Neither democrats nor republicans have the same platform now as they did them.

True. I created this thread for the republicans who keep pretending how the republicans back then loved blacks.

For sure.
That and realizing these people would not be in a party named “ Republican” if Trump was their president. The Lincoln Project is pretty much a return to the GOP of old. Conservatives of old, wantEd to be frugal with their and other’s money. Hence, pollution control and universal healthcare.