More sloppy thinking by Diogenes. Lincoln played a major role in the abolition amendment, but no, he didn't do it all by himself. He did fight for that amendment, and it's not likely he would have fought very hard for the Corwin Amendment. Notice what Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Not exactly fighting words, or an indication that Lincoln really believed in and would fight for such an amendment.
That makes no sense in light of Lincoln's efforts to protect slavery by amending the constitution. Even if you are correct that 3/4ths of the states wouldn't ratify it, it still speaks to Lincolns' intent.
The Corwin Amendment was something Lincoln gave half-hearted support to in order to stop or turn back the secessionist tide and prevent war. It wasn't an expression of his deepest beliefs and it wasn't taken seriously by the secessionists.
You cannot rationally claim the war was about ending something the very man who launched the war was trying to further protect just a month earlier.
I never said the war was fought to end slavery. I said slavery was a cause of the war -- the cause in different ways, some indirect and some quite deep.
Acquiescence to a pro-slavery amendment pretty much contradicts the theory that "Slavery is so evil we must launch a massive war to stop it!"
Lincoln's position was "If you want your slavery, you can keep your slavery", which makes it sound very much like the continuation of Slavery was not a bone of contention for the USA, therefore it is deceitful to claim the war was fought over it.
If Slavery was not the bone over which the two sides fought, then what was? What was the sole non negotiable for Lincoln? It was economic independence. That is the one thing he would never allow.
I said slavery was a cause of the war -- the cause in different ways, some indirect and some quite deep.
How can it be the cause of the war when it was offered up on a silver platter by Lincoln a month before the war started? As Charles Dickens noted at the time. "Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North." (and he wasn't writing to the public, but was instead writing in a private letter to someone else.)
The Truth is that the North would have tolerated slavery in the South for the next several decades, so long as the South remained in the Union. They could not legally dislodge it even if they had tried. There simply wasn't enough anti-slavery states to vote it out.