You have found a tiny acorn and you simply cannot quit crowing about it. "Look at me! I found a tiny quibble which I keep repeating over and over again because this tiny little nonsense point makes me feel *SO* good!!!!!"
You take issue with the word "Permanent." Your utterly stupid point is that a 3/4ths majority of states can amend the constitution. Yes, we know you little child, but for the foreseeable future the point remains that the Corwin amendment would have made it extremely difficult to get rid of it.
No, nothing is "permanent", not even the pyramids. I hear the sun will burn out in another 4.5 billion years, but non childish people do not make a big deal out of pointing out the word "permanent" is not accurate when you postulate infinity.
And this is what I have come to expect from you. Trivial sophistry instead of a valid argument about the facts surrounding the Civil War and the Crony-Capitalist/Federal-Leviathan system which was created and enriched by it.
This is why I often ignore you. When I see your name, I can usually expect some sort of inconsequential bit of whining that doesn't get anywhere near having relevance to what ought to be the main focus of the discussion.
For those of you who do not know what we are talking about, the Corwin Amendment is as follows:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
As d@mn close to permanent as anything i've ever heard insofar as the US Constitution is concerned. An amendment to prohibit amendments to the Constitution on this specific issue?
How are you going to walk that back, oh Handy Dandy?
Ohhh, so close. Now you you walk back that the Amendment “would have made Slavery permanent and irrevocable”. Because that was a lie. Now you realize that the amendment would have made interference by Congress, as Lincoln stated, “permanent and irrevocable”. Ironic that you defend your use of his wording so staunchly. Even though he was not implying what you did. Face it, guy.