The Corwin Amendment
 
From: vaproto@optonline.net
To: bgkbhl@comcast.net
 
Sir,
 
In your communication reprinted in Mr. Demastus’ e-newsletter, you make the following statement:
 
And you (must) know and (hopefully) are aware that an amendment protecting slavery would not “be on the books today.”  Had a “Slavery in Perpetuity” amendment be enshrined in the Constitution at any time after the Civil War, another amendment repealing it would have been passed a long, long time ago.
 
In this sir, you are wrong – or at least you are wrong if you actually believe that the Constitution had any validity in the “post-Republic era” after 1860. You see, to keep the South in the Union, the Corwin Amendment was written in such a way as to prevent it being revoked after passage, only the second such amendment to be so worded. Do you think that the “brilliant” Lincoln would have been so dull-witted as to think that the Southern states would remain in the Union on the basis of an amendment that could easily be revoked once they were “trapped” by the superior political and military forces of the North? No. Lincoln – who cared nothing for slaves and everything for power and money – cared only that the South remained to fill his coffers so he could obtain power, prestige and money. Indeed, he said so himself in his famous statement that if he could preserve the Union by freeing “all”, “some” or “no” slaves, he would do so. I don’t think you can get much clearer than that.
 
As for Lincoln’s erroneous belief that the People and not the States “created” the Constitution and the Union, that statement either calls Lincoln’s intellect or his honesty into question since those who followed his Hamiltonian vision of the nation (such as Seward and John Marshall) knew from every  document, record and testimony beginning with the Founders and on into the great statesmen and legal minds of the day that such an opinion was altogether contrary to the vision of the Founding Fathers, the Founding Principles and the Constitution. Indeed, it was nothing more than a deception used by Lincoln and those who thought like him to wage unconstitutional, immoral, illegal and wicked war on several Sovereign States and their People and it continues to be used today to excuse and defend their criminality. Sherman – who though a tyrant and war criminal was not stupid – wrote that had the South won the war, Lincoln and his minions – including that General – would find themselves on the scaffold for their crimes against humanity and the Constitution. Sadly, that did not happen.
 
Valerie Protopapas
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: bgkbhl@comcast.net
To: vaproto@optonline.net
 
Whoever Mr. Demastus is, he had absolutely no right to reprint anything I wrote to a private reader in any newsletter.   I respond only to readers of my column, not readers of people who illegally reprint my work in unauthorized publications.
 
Bruce Kauffmann
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: vaproto@optonline.net
To: bgkbhl@comcast.net
 
Sir:
 
Ah, yes. When you cannot respond to a point, just make an ad hominem attack – an old tactic from those who have no valid response to offer.
 
Frankly, I would think that you’d be glad to have your opinion widely published. I’ve never heard of a “blogger” or someone who sends out a newsletter wishing his opinions to remain unknown! If you believe in what you write, why not defend it sensibly instead of acting “offended” that someone took you seriously enough to respond?!  From what I read, it seems that Mr. Demastus was sent the exchange by someone who had received it from the original recipient but the matter is not too clear. However, if I am wrong, it really doesn’t matter – unless, of course, you told the original recipient that you did not wish your response to be made public. But apparently he responded to something that you wrote in a newsletter. The last time I looked, newsletters were by their very nature “public”.
 
I did not insult you – unless you find anyone who disagrees with you to be insulting which is a situation not unknown among those holding your particular point of view. In any event, it is obvious that you prefer to be “offended” rather than using the opportunity to address the subject(s) under discussion. But again, this is par for the course for those who defend the “glorious Union”. Your behavior follows that old legal maxim, “when you have the law, argue the law; when you have the facts, argue the facts; when you have neither, just argue.”
 
Valerie Protopapas
Huntington Station, NEW YORK