Slavery was a State right

John Doe said: Well, the north did win, and the south did surrender. It was about states rights, and slavery was considered a states right.

Dear John : No doubt, slavery was a state right. Grant and others owned slaves. We should also take into consideration the number of slaves that were working in Washington DC at the time.

Did anyone propose an amendment to end slavery in 1840, 1850, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864? Strange isn’t it? When you want to make changes to the United States Constitution you are supposed to propose an amendment.

Why was an amendment to end slavery ratified several months after the war was over? What I find even more bizarre is the Northern dominated United States congress proposed and passed an amendment to protect the institution of slavery in 1861, a month and a half before the war started.

They wrote and passed an amendment to protect the institution of slavery a month and a half before the war started and ratified an amendment to end slavery six months after the war ended.

And the war was about slavery?

That is very bizarre behavior for a people who wanted to put an end to slavery.

Is there anywhere in the United States Constitution or Declaration of Independence that instructs the members of the Union to go to war whenever they want to change something in the Constitution? From what I’ve read, there is an amendment process. I’m not aware of any other method. So how could you have a war over slavery when the only amendment proposed and passed was to protect the institution of slavery?

If the North wanted to end slavery why didn’t the North tell Washington DC to obey the United States Constitution and have the Northern dominated congress propose an amendment to end slavery?

John, the United States congress did the exact opposite, a month and a half before the war started, the Northern dominated congress proposed and passed an amendment to guarantee that the United States congress would never write an amendment to interfere with the institution of slavery. It was called the Corwin amendment and Abraham Lincoln loved it.

Here’s the Corwin amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” March 2, 1861 (side note: Maryland and Ohio signed the amendment, and in 2014 Maryland rescinded their signature.)

Here’s what Abraham Lincoln had to say about the Corwin amendment in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861.

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment, however, I have not seen 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. 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.”–Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address (March 4, 1861)

Here’s something else Lincoln said in that same March 4th address: “

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address

Lying Lincoln is admitting to the entire world that he does not have the lawful right to interfere with slavery and he has no inclination to do so. Please chew on that for a minute. On March 4th he is admitting that he has no authority to interfere with slavery, and he’s proclaiming to the world that he has no inclination to do so.

On April 15th his Proclamation for 75,000 militia from the several states has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

If the war had nothing to do with slavery, what was it’s purpose?

Secession was lawful, it couldn’t have been about secession, right?

Slavery was legal and we know from the above facts that the war certainly wasn’t about slavery.

Secession has always been lawful in the United States. I don’t know how that could be a bad thing.

” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “ –From the Declaration of Independence

“We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in
pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now
met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed
the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well
as the most deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, –Do in the
name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known
that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the
people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the
same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every
power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”
–From the Virginia Convention, 1788


“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”