DiogenesLamp: "It was, in fact, a real possibility.
Lincoln announced in his inaugural address that he would agree to the "Corwin Amendment."
The Corwin Amendment would have made it virtually impossible to eliminate slavery before the 20th century."
Or even in the 20th century, except it was unconstitutional.
While DiogenesLamp often weaponizes the 1861 proposed Corwin Amendment to demonstrate that wicked Northerners supported slavery while saintly Southerners did something else, the fact is Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin responded to the new pro-slavery Confederate Constitution by offering reassurances to Border States like Kentucky and Maryland, that the Federal Government would not attack their "peculiar institution."
And Lincoln is alleged to have supported the amendment, but in fact Lincoln's view was: such an amendment was unnecessary because it was already implied by existing laws.
That's because Lincoln had not run for office on a platform to abolish slavery, only to restrict it from US territories and Northern states.
But that was enough anti-slavery for Southern Fire Eaters to declare their secession and Confederacy.
Ohio Representative Corwin's Amendment was intended to keep Border States in the Union, and it did help succeed in that.
But in the end it was ratified by only two Border States and three others, one of questionable validity and another quickly rescinded.
But the biggest problem with Corwin's amendment was its utter unconstitutionality -- it attempted to dictate what future amendments could, or could not, be passed & ratified and that is simply not possible.
Nobody can bind the future in that way.
Corwin's was clearly an act of desperation (one of several), to preserve as much as possible of the remaining union by providing reassurances to Border States that their "peculiar institution" would not be unconstitutionally attacked.
In that, at least, it worked, DiogenesLamp's efforts to weaponize it against the Union notwithstanding.
Look at how you start out a comment. Your entire approach is dripping with disdain in tone, and also inaccurate. Lincoln launched the war. Lincoln agreed to support the Corwin amendment which would have made slavery virtually permanent.
You substitute "wicked Northerners" for Lincoln in the context I made the comment. It is quite likely that Northern legislators would balk at the Corwin Amendment. I don't know, but the salient point here is that Lincoln was going to support it, and he is the guy that launched the war.
And Lincoln is alleged to have supported the amendment, but in fact Lincoln's view was: such an amendment was unnecessary because it was already implied by existing laws.
If you had read my quotes of what Lincoln said, you would have noticed that yes, he did regard slavery as constitutionally legal at that time. Of course this makes you wonder how he could suspend at will something that he had previously regarded as constitutionally legal, but supporters of his war don't bother to look at such logical contradictions as that.
But the biggest problem with Corwin's amendment was its utter unconstitutionality -- it attempted to dictate what future amendments could, or could not, be passed & ratified and that is simply not possible.
How would it be unconstitutional if it was passed by the means laid out by the Constitution? If the Constitution created the amendment process, why couldn't a "no further amendment allowed on this issue" be part of a valid constitutional amendment?
Corwin's was clearly an act of desperation (one of several), to preserve as much as possible of the remaining union by providing reassurances to Border States that their "peculiar institution" would not be unconstitutionally attacked.
And it is significant today because it clearly demonstrates that the principle for which the war was fought was not the freedom of slaves. It demonstrates that the effort of the Union to claim credit for freeing the slaves is hollow, because that is not at all why they sent invading armies into the south.