Any history (civil war / Lincoln) buffs here?

[thebamker]

I have a question that I don't want to search too hard for. lol

I never thought about this before... which, I'm sure, says something about me... ha

During the civil war, the southern states were still considered part of the US... right?

Did those states have congressmen in Washington representing their states during the civil war?  How would that work?

Did they get to vote on the 13th ammendment?  It seems like none of them would vote yes. so if you have the south voting no, and the most of the democratic party voting no... how could you ever get a 2/3rds majority???

[falada45]

No, they weren't considered part of the US. That's the whole point of seceding from the Union and joining the Confederacy. Their representatives resigned from Congress.

[shostakovich]

No - the southern states seceded, so they were not considered (by their own governing body, or the Union) to be a part of the Union. They were separate entity. So no congressmen from southern states were in Washington during the war - the confederate capital was in Richmond, VA.

[Deleted]

the 13th amendment was ratified after the civil war ended and the seceded states rejoined the union.


ETA:  sorry, that wasn't a full answer.  no, they didn't vote when it was in congress because they didn't consider themselves to be part of the union.  no, they didn't consider themselves to be part of the union when the president signed it.  but it was ratified AFTER the civil war ended and they rejoined the union.  hence, 2/3 achieved.  sorry, 3/4.  der. 

[discogranny]

It is much much more complicated than just yes or no. This link does a pretty decent job of explaining it in non-snoozeworthy terms: 13thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05Results

[hopecounts]

No southern states seceded so didn't have reps in congress.

As for the ratification the southern states were under Marshall law and other restrictions during Reconstruction so it was passed by the laced in power by the North.

[thebamker]

Ok - I always thought it was that way, but the Lincoln movie made me think I was wrong. There was mention of the south still being a part of the union - but perhaps it was meant figuratively and I'm too dumb to catch on. lol

[hopecounts]

May 2, 2013 12:01:48 GMT -5 thebamker said:

Ok - I always thought it was that way, but the Lincoln movie made me think I was wrong. There was mention of the south still being a part of the union - but perhaps it was meant figuratively and I'm too dumb to catch on. lol

The southern secession wasn't necessarily recognized by the north which is probably what that is referring to seeing them as a part of the union that was in rebellion not a separate country.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2013 12:01:48 GMT -5 thebamker said:

Ok - I always thought it was that way, but the Lincoln movie made me think I was wrong. There was mention of the south still being a part of the union - but perhaps it was meant figuratively and I'm too dumb to catch on. lol

welllll...that's because the states that did NOT secede saw the states that DID secede as having themselves performed an unconstitutional act.  so, the whole war was fought with the northern states being like "you can't leave us, get your asses back here" and the southern states being like "we already did, back off".  so they were "part of the union" sorta legalistically and then of course were again post-civil war.  had the south won the war, they probably would've been considered NOT to have been part of the union for the duration of the war in retrospective history.

[thebamker]

May 2, 2013 12:05:13 GMT -5 cville said:

May 2, 2013 12:01:48 GMT -5 thebamker said:

Ok - I always thought it was that way, but the Lincoln movie made me think I was wrong. There was mention of the south still being a part of the union - but perhaps it was meant figuratively and I'm too dumb to catch on. lol

welllll...that's because the states that did NOT secede saw the states that DID secede as having themselves performed an unconstitutional act.  so, the whole war was fought with the northern states being like "you can't leave us, get your asses back here" and the southern states being like "we already did, back off".  so they were "part of the union" sorta legalistically and then of course were again post-civil war.  had the south won the war, they probably would've been considered NOT to have been part of the union for the duration of the war in retrospective history.

Ok - this makes perfect sense.  I was so confused last night and this morning.

Thanks everyone for the history lesson!  You really are good for something. haha

[thebamker]

May 2, 2013 12:06:16 GMT -5 @cse1960 said:

You should go see the movie "Lincoln". It explains, in pretty vivid and interesting terms, how they got the vote for the amendment to be considered in early 1865. All the northern states ratified of course. Then after the war, I think when Georgia ratified it in December 1865, it was passed with the sufficient majority to become part of the Constitution. This happened because most of the Southern state legislatures were packed with African Americans for a time after the war ended, during Reconstruction.

I understand Mississippi didn't ratify till the 1990's.

The movie is what confused me! lol

[Deleted]

my husband has read approximately 11 biographies of lincoln, and several more books about the civil war. these facts eventually seeped into me via osmosis. and, of course, i took constitutional history in law school.

and yet, this sort of thing is the ONLY thing any of that information is good for. alas.

[thebamker]

May 2, 2013 12:10:10 GMT -5 cville said:

my husband has read approximately 11 biographies of lincoln, and several more books about the civil war. these facts eventually seeped into me via osmosis. and, of course, i took constitutional history in law school.

and yet, this sort of thing is the ONLY thing any of that information is good for. alas.

I know that he is adored still to this day... but is that what your husband has found across the board by reading 11 bio books?

I felt like I loved the shit out of him in the movie, but I almost felt like it was possibly overdone when compared to his real life.  Can someone actually be that awesome - and in politics?

[Deleted]

May 2, 2013 12:14:19 GMT -5 thebamker said:

May 2, 2013 12:10:10 GMT -5 cville said:

my husband has read approximately 11 biographies of lincoln, and several more books about the civil war. these facts eventually seeped into me via osmosis. and, of course, i took constitutional history in law school.

and yet, this sort of thing is the ONLY thing any of that information is good for. alas.

I know that he is adored still to this day... but is that what your husband has found across the board by reading 11 bio books?

I felt like I loved the shit out of him in the movie, but I almost felt like it was possibly overdone when compared to his real life.  Can someone actually be that awesome - and in politics?

he was a total badass.  and president during the most tumultuous time in the country's history.  and a prolific and engaging writer, so there's a lot to interpret.

listen, this isn't just my husband's obsession.  there are so many biographies of lincoln that there's a special prize for the best one written THAT YEAR (sorta, it's for the best civil war history book, often awarded to a lincoln biography):
www.gettysburg.edu/lincolnprize/previous-winners.dot