Has anyone heard of this amendment?

Question

"In August of 1861, (the US) Congress passed (nearly unanimously) the Crittenden-Johnson resolution declaring that the war was not fought for the purpose of "overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States," but only to "defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union."

On 2 March 1861, the Lincoln controlled 36th U. S. Congress (minus, of course, the seven seceded states of the Deep South) passed by a two-thirds majority a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Had it been ratified by the requisite number of states before the war intervened and signed by President Lincoln (who looked favourably on it as a way to lure the Southern states back into the Union), the proposed 13th Amendment would have prohibited the U. S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state.

"The 'pretense" that the North was really fighting to end slavery had made a few converts in Europe, but when General Fremont emancipated the slaves in his military district in Missouri, Lincoln promptly dismissed Fremont, rescinded his emancipation order, and sent slaves back to their masters...."from the book "When In the Course of Human Events".

Of even more interest is the fact that all reports acknowledge that black slave labor was used as late as 1865. This means that, according to what is preached by modern, politically correct historians and the NAACP, while the Northern forces of Abraham Lincoln were invading and sacking the South under the guise of freeing slaves, the U.S. government was using slaves to build their government buildings. The hypocrisy in these contradictory actions is too glaring to ignore.

West Virginia was the last slave state admitted to the Union, annexed in 1863. If the western counties of Virginia stuck with the Confederacy, they'd be forced to free their slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation. If they joined the Union, they could keep them. There's just no argument here. You can't say the Union fought to free the slaves when they were busy admitting a new slave state at the same time, as well as having 1/2 million slaves in Union border states. What hypocrisy! There was a bill before the US congress in 1862 which would have abolished slavery.

It was "defeated", even though the Southern states were not in the union.

Law & History books from the early 1800's Where South Carolina talked of secession for many years before 1860. So called "Historians" constantly say that SC seceded over slavery and I have had these people who advertise their expertise on American History actually tell me that they have never heard that the South seceded over tariffs and taxes. I have a book that goes into great detail as to just how close SC came to seceding in 1852 and even closer in 1856. In 1856 if anyone other than a Democrat had won the election they were gone. When it didn't happen in 1856 they knew without a doubt that it was going to happen by 1861. As we all know it happened at the end of 1860.

There is absolutely not one single mention of the word slavery in any of the recorded histories of the threat of secession. Only talk of the unfair over taxation of the South. When the South did secede the first debates in the US were about putting ships off the coast of Charleston to stop ships and collect the tariffs prior to the ships entering Charleston Harbor. All, very well documented history.

Answer 1

Indeed, this is what we get from letting the government teach (indoctrinate) our children. They can re-write history to say whatever they want. Anybody that does the smallest amount of research will see that the secession was mostly about states rights and other issues. Heck, all you really have to do is look at the dates of events. The war started in 1861, but Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863. Why would he wait 2 years if the whole war was about slavery? Simple, it wasn't. in 1863 the Union was loosing the war and Lincoln was desperate. He issued the proclamation only because he wanted to hurt the economy of the South by tempting slaves to run away.

If you want to know the truth, forget everything you learned in a public (government) school. Do your own research.

Answer 2

One thing that you are dead wrong about-that West Virginia was the last slave state admitted to the Union. We (I  am a West Virginian) succeeded from Virginia because we, the western counties of Virginia, did not believe in slavery. We were admitted to the USA in 1835 as a non-slave state, and we fought battles to stay free and in the Union.

The above makes you entire fifth paragraph incorrect. In 1862, the southern states were still represented in the Congress.

So what is all of this about? The Civil War, the most deadly war that the United States has ever fought, was fought to preserve the Union of the United States. The Confederacy wanted to go it own way and have slaves, was forced to rejoin the United States, and slavery was renounced and the slaves were freed. Now are you trying to say that slavery had nothing to do with all of this? Your last paragraph seems to say this. When Fort Sumpter was attacked ships were sent but not to collect taxes, but to try and rescue the 128 men in the fort. Later, the harbor at Charleston was blockaded to prevent cotton from leaving and arms from arriving, as were most other ports in the south. In the end, the Union prevaled and the slaves were freed.

Slavery is still going on at other places in the world. Are you concerned about that? Are you going to do anything about it?