Talk:Crittenden Compromise

message: *Where is there a source of Lincoln rejecting the Crittenden Compromise?  I'd like to see that, since his in inaugural address he said nothing about eliminating slavery in the slave holding states.  In what year did Lincoln reject the failed 13th amendment?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.111.15 (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Corwin Amendment?

message: *Agreed. Especially since "Crittenden Plan" is the more widely used term for it.
*Merge them, same thing besides the names
*Yes, Merge them, same topic
*I agree, they say the same thing.
*Merge them.
*You need to merge these two.
*I think that these two pages are similar enough that any useful information in the Crittenden Amendment ought to move here.--Eva db 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006? discussion about some merging

message: The article should mention that many Republicans could have swallowed most of the provisions (within the context of an overall comprehensive deal) -- given their understanding that there was very little further territory owned by the United States in 1861 which was suitable for large-scale slavery -- but the great majority of influential Republicans (very much including president-elect Lincoln) were firmly and unalterably opposed to anything which would allow future territories acquired by the United States (such as Cuba, Central America, or Mexico) to be open to slavery.  In those days of Manifest Destiny, and after the recent war of 1848, many Americans thought that the U.S. would expand and acquire significant new territories in Canada or Latin America.  Even those who were opposed to the idea often thought that this would probably happen -- and Republicans were absolutely unwilling to bend on this issue of not allowing slavery in future territories, which played a significant role in sinking the Crittenden Compromise. AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The real deal-breaker

message: I'm not aware of any legal theory that allows for that, so Crittenden's notion that his amendments would be impossible to repeal by future amendment was patent nonsense. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably in the same way as the clauses in the original constitution about "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." (Article Five of the United States Constitution) -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that clause isn't self-entrenching, or even entrenched at all. It just entrenches other parts of the Constitution. There's nothing that prohibits Article V itself from being amendment, which would in turn de-entrench the equal representation of all states in the Senate. Implausible that it would ever happen, but entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds more like a game of Nomic than ordinary constitutional interpretation. In any case, there's no real reason I can see why an amendment couldn't be passed which would include a statement along the lines "This amendment shall not be amended"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nor is there any reason why such a statement couldn't be overriden by a later amendment that says "Amendment (insert number) is hereby repealed." It's a generally accepted legal principle worldwide that no law can entrench itself. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can an amendment entrench itself? 

message: It would have constituted more a blanket surrender to the pro-slavery forces, giving them literally everything they wanted and having them give up nothing in return. — Red XIV (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have allayed southern fears that the Republicans would actively use the power of the federal government to undermine slavery inside the slave states, and put an end to the issue of slavery in the territories, which had been extremely politically disruptive over the preceding 5 years, by restoring the 36'30" demarcation in the Louisiana Purchase and extending the line westward into the Mexican Cession (since California had been admitted as a free state, there was relatively little terrtory left south of 36'30", so this was opposed by many southerners).  Some Republicans would have supported some form of the compromise as a practical measure to make it possible for the U.S. political system to continue without major disruptions -- except for the issue of slavery in territories to be acquired by the U.S. in the future (see my previous comment above on this page).  Many Republican leaders from Lincoln on down were absolutely rigid and inflexible on insisting that there be no slavery in future U.S. territories. AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In what way were these proposals a "compromise"?