What if Amendment 13 does not pass?

It barely passed in the House, and it took quite a bit of effort to achieve a narrow 2/3 majority. Hollywood or not, Lincoln had that right. What if instead of narrowly achieving a 2/3 majority in the house, the vote ended just shy of such a majority, causing the amendment to fail?

Without the amendment having passed the house, does Lincoln still get shot? Does Lincoln's worry that, after the war, a court could proclaim the Emancipation Proclimation a temporary wartime measure hold water? If this ends up being the case, and those black soldiers who fought for the Union were returned to slavery after the Union victory, what does it mean for black culture and Lincoln's legacy? If Lincoln is alive, what is his next move? If Lincoln is still assassinated, what in Johnson's next move?

First, let me (preemptively) defend Godwin, Spielberg, and yourself on this, that the 13th Amendment may well not have passed had it failed in the House that fateful January. It can happen by Lincoln deciding to meet the Confederte Delegation prior; or it can happen with the vote simply failing, and the war being over by time time the new (over 2/3 Republican) Congress is ready to vote on the Amendment, which would likely make the Conservative faction of the party hesitant to move on such a major piece of legislation, at least so quickly.

I presume I can necro my own thread? I find myself wondering about this scenario again, and would like to see if anyone has some insight into the matter.

There was too much pressure behind it for the Amendment to fail. And they were pushing to get it over the two-thirds majority hurdle, not to get a simple majority. The only way that it can fail is to have a sudden return of the missing Confederate Senators and Representatives.

Abominable Princess said:

It barely passed in the House, and it took quite a bit of effort to achieve a narrow 2/3 majority. Hollywood or not, Lincoln had that right. What if instead of narrowly achieving a 2/3 majority in the house, the vote ended just shy of such a majority, causing the amendment to fail?

Without the amendment having passed the house, does Lincoln still get shot? Does Lincoln's worry that, after the war, a court could proclaim the Emancipation Proclimation a temporary wartime measure hold water? If this ends up being the case, and those black soldiers who fought for the Union were returned to slavery after the Union victory, what does it mean for black culture and Lincoln's legacy? If Lincoln is alive, what is his next move? If Lincoln is still assassinated, what in Johnson's next move?

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm, wrong, but I don't think any of the former slaves emancipated by the emancipation proclamation could be returned to slavery even if it was a wartime measure. Slavery would remain legal in those states, (legally I mean, I wouldn't expect any of this to actually happen) meaning new slaves could have been brought in, but those freed by the proclamation while their states were in rebellion were free. Lincoln was adamant in his negotiations with the Confederates that the Emancipation Proclamation could not be undone in any way, the only thing Lincoln suggested the Confederates could do if they rejoined the Union was to slow down the passage of the 13th amendment.

In such circs, wouldn't Lincoln have to call the new Congress into session as soon as his new term began? I gather he wasn't keen to, but rather than lose the amendment he might well have to reconsider.

In any case he will surely enforce the Emancipation Proclamation in the conquered rebel states. As MD, MO and WV have already adopted emancipation schemes, the only states actually affected are KY and DE, who retain slavery till sometime in 1866.

Sucrose said:

Correct me if I'm, wrong, but I don't think any of the former slaves emancipated by the emancipation proclamation could be returned to slavery even if it was a wartime measure. Slavery would remain legal in those states, (legally I mean, I wouldn't expect any of this to actually happen) meaning new slaves could have been brought in, but those freed by the proclamation while their states were in rebellion were free. Lincoln was adamant in his negotiations with the Confederates that the Emancipation Proclamation could not be undone in any way, the only thing Lincoln suggested the Confederates could do if they rejoined the Union was to slow down the passage of the 13th amendment.

Click to expand...

Actually it would have depended on the USSC which could have ruled that the EP was unconstitutional. This was very unlikely, I admit as the majority of them were Lincoln appointees but it was possible. As a practical measure I don't think any slaves that escaped north would be returned no matter what the court said, they would flee to Canada.

Mikestone8 said:

In such circs, wouldn't Lincoln have to call the new Congress into session as soon as his new term began? I gather he wasn't keen to, but rather than lose the amendment he might well have to reconsider.

In any case he will surely enforce the Emancipation Proclamation in the conquered rebel states. As MD, MO and WV have already adopted emancipation schemes, the only states actually affected are KY and DE, who retain slavery till sometime in 1866.

Click to expand...

This is correct and once the new congress was in it would have passed easily.

Cymraeg,
I believe they needed 2/3 majority to pass. a simple majority fails.

As for what happens if it fails, they simply did what they did the first time it failed - they try again, and again, until it passes. Slavery was not going to make a comeback.

Johnrankins said:

This is correct and once the new congress was in it would have passed easily.

Click to expand...

There might have been butterflies though.

If the 13A had to be re-passed in 1865, it might have included a clause repudiating the Rebel debt, and barring compensation for the freed slaves, such as was actually included in the 14A a year later. With one of its most important provisions already enacted, would the 14A itself have gotten through?

Mikestone8 said:

There might have been butterflies though.

If the 13A had to be re-passed in 1865, it might have included a clause repudiating the Rebel debt, and barring compensation for the freed slaves, such as was actually included in the 14A a year later. With one of its most important provisions already enacted, would the 14A itself have gotten through?

Click to expand...

Certainly the 13th and 14th amendments might have been combined. Since the Democrats have proven to be so stubborn and were powerless at this point they might have tacked more on to it.

So, basically, at this point a no vote on the issue isn't even that insurmountable a problem, and the slavery issue is pretty all over except for the shouting?

Consider that the army had grown quite powerful in this time and had significant abolitionist leanings that the initial volunteer army may not have had. The USCT obviously were in on this, but the rank and file Union Army member was generally anti slavery and abolitionist in growing numbers. Amendment or not, most slaves were going to be free from the occupation one way or another.

Mikestone8 said:

In such circs, wouldn't Lincoln have to call the new Congress into session as soon as his new term began? I gather he wasn't keen to, but rather than lose the amendment he might well have to reconsider.

Click to expand...

He'd have to act quickly, seeing as Lee's surrender was just over a month after the start of his second term; and he may not know just how quickly. By the time Congress convenes, I still think the conservatives will prove too shy on the matter for it to do the amendment any good, or at least that may very well be Lincoln's impression.

Sucrose said:

Correct me if I'm, wrong, but I don't think any of the former slaves emancipated by the emancipation proclamation could be returned to slavery even if it was a wartime measure. Slavery would remain legal in those states, (legally I mean, I wouldn't expect any of this to actually happen) meaning new slaves could have been brought in, but those freed by the proclamation while their states were in rebellion were free. Lincoln was adamant in his negotiations with the Confederates that the Emancipation Proclamation could not be undone in any way, the only thing Lincoln suggested the Confederates could do if they rejoined the Union was to slow down the passage of the 13th amendment.

Click to expand...

This would be an interesting situation -- slavery remaining "legal" in states, where (at the very least) the army will be enforcing emancipation of all slaves; de jure slavery surviving the fall of de facto slavery for who knows how long...

John Fredrick Parker said:

He'd have to act quickly, seeing as Lee's surrender was just over a month after the start of his second term; and he may not know just how quickly. By the time Congress convenes, I still think the conservatives will prove too shy on the matter for it to do the amendment any good, or at least that may very well be Lincoln's impression.

Click to expand...

Why must he wait for Lee to surrender? The new Congressmen's terms begin on March 4, same as his own. Indeed, iirc the Senate did meet in special session on March 7, to choose Lafayette Foster as its President Pro-Tem, among other business. Nothing to stop the HoR doing ditto.

And as I previously noted, there's nothing to stop a clause being added, repudiating the Rebel debt. Would even the most conservative Congressman object to that? I'd have thought it would bring in a few extra votes at least

Mikestone8 said:

Why must he wait for Lee to surrender? The new Congressmen's terms begin on March 4, same as his own. Indeed, iirc the Senate did meet in special session on March 7, to choose Lafayette Foster as its President Pro-Tem, among other business. Nothing to stop the HoR doing ditto.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant he'd have to have them meet before the surrender; though apparently, that's not the challenge I thought it might be.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Sorry, I meant he'd have to have them meet before the surrender; though apparently, that's not the challenge I thought it might be.

Click to expand...

Why? The CSA had to surrender unconditionally at this point and Lincoln can reject the surrender of any army which precludes the 13th amendment somehow.

Johnrankins said:

Why? The CSA had to surrender unconditionally at this point and Lincoln can reject the surrender of any army which precludes the 13th amendment somehow.

Click to expand...

Let me preface this that I don't want to overstate the case. That said: you shouldn't underestimate the influence of the Conservative Republicans; they're desire for a union as speedy and peaceful as possible was still such that if they came to believe that passage of the 13th Amendment would delay or hamper said peace, they would not support it. It was very much to Lincoln's credit as a political strategist and leader that he was able to get them to believe this. Now, that said, if Lincoln can keep this going during the special March session -- and, at this point, I no longer see a reason he couldn't, since calling such a session quickly doesn't seem to be a challenge -- then the 13th Amendment still passes. But if there's no special session (and that is a big "if"), then the Amendment's passage becomes very uncertain.

Abominable Princess said:

It barely passed in the House, and it took quite a bit of effort to achieve a narrow 2/3 majority. Hollywood or not, Lincoln had that right. What if instead of narrowly achieving a 2/3 majority in the house, the vote ended just shy of such a majority, causing the amendment to fail?

Click to expand...

The amendment had already failed once. Another failure would not kill it.

If necessary, Lincoln would wait five weeks, till the 39th Congress began in March; it would require a special session of the House, but that was quite doable. With the Republicans holding 132 of 191 seats, a two-thirds majority is not difficult to achieve. Republicans gained 48 seats in the 1864 election; it's really hard for me to believe that enough "conservative" Republicans would desert on this issue to offset that massive gain.

Without the amendment having passed the house, does Lincoln still get shot?

Click to expand...

Booth hates Lincoln just as much.

If I can bump this thread up two weeks, there's another point that hasn't been considered here yet: Reconstruction. IOTL, even President Johnson - to say nothing of the Republicans in Congress - demanded that the southern states accept the end of slavery and write it into new state constitutions before they could be readmitted to the Union. I don't think the Thirteenth Amendment failing would change any of that. On the Republican end, there would be even more pressure to get a formal legal statement on paper; on Johnson's end, he would still be eager to ruin the large planters.

And let's not forget that Unionist governments in Louisiana and Tennessee had already abolished slavery in 1864 and February 1865 respectively.

So, without a Thirteenth Amendment, slavery would still be illegal under state law in all the ex-Confederate states, as well as Missouri and Maryland. It would still be legal in Kentucky and Delaware, though the plantation system was falling apart in Kentucky with the Union army looking the other way when it wasn't actively tearing it down. This would, of course, have a great symbolic difference, especially to any future civil rights movement. There'd be a few miscellaneous legal effects, too, though most legislation founded on the Thirteenth Amendment was overturned in the Supreme Court. But, on a practical level, I think things outside Kentucky would go much the same.