That wasn't Lincoln's, that was Corwin. But at that it would have been totally opposed by the Southern leaders, because like other compromise proposals they shot down it protected slavery only where it existed and did not guarantee its expansion into the territories or the other free states. By comparison, let's look at some floated by the rebel leadership. Toombs wrote a doozy:
Resolved, That declaratory clauses to the Constitution of the United States, amply securing the following propositions, be recommended for adoption:
1. That the people of the United States shall have an equal right to emigrate to and settle in the present or any future acquired territories, with whatever property they may possess, (including slaves,) and be securely protected in its peaceable enjoyment, until such Territory may be admitted as a State in the Union, with or without slavery, as she may determine, on an equality with all existing States.
2. That property in slaves shall be entitled to the same protection from the government of the United States in all of its departments, everywhere, which the Constitution confers the power upon it to extend to any other property; provided nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or restrain the right now belonging to every State to prohibit, abolish, or establish and protect slavery within its limits
3. That persons committing crimes against slave property in one State and fleeing to another, shall be delivered up in the same manner as persons committing other crimes, and that the laws of the State from which such persons flee shall be the test of criminality.
4. That Congress shall pass efficient laws for the punishment of all persons in any of the States who shall in any manner aid and abet invasion or insurrection in any other State, or commit any other act against the laws of nations, tending to disturb the tranquility of the people or government of any other State.
5. That fugitive slaves shall be surrendered under the provisions of the fugitive slave act of 1850, without being entitled to either a writ of habeas corpus or trial by jury, or other similar obstructions of legislation by the States to which they may flee.
6. That no law shall ever be passed by Congress in relation to the institution of African slavery in the States or Territories, or elsewhere in the United States, without the consent of a majority of the senators and representatives of the slaveholding States.
7. That none of these provisions, nor any other provisions of the Constitution in relation to slavery, (except the African slave trade,) shall ever be altered except by the consent of each and all the of the States in which slavery exists.
Why not just sign all powers over to the slave states? And notice how the entire concept of state's rights as they pertained to the non-slave states went right into the crapper. And then there was Davis' proposal. Shorter, but no less subtle in guaranteeing slavery's expansion:
Resolved, That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof.
Again, takes the concept of a non-slave state off the table by guaranteeing slave owners the right to move to a non-slave state with their chattel and there was nothing local laws could do about it. Not to mention again making sure that all territories were slave territories.
So please tell us all about that enlightened attitude in the South towards slavery. I'm sure we would all love to hear about it. All that culture and heritage and all.
“That wasn’t Lincoln’s, that was Corwin”
Perhaps my source is wrong? My reading of it is one in which Lincoln supported this proposed amendment as written. Can you provide a reference that will, perhaps enlighten me?
“So please tell us all about that enlightened attitude in
the South towards slavery.”
There was no enlightened attitude toward slavery for either side. Individaully, and in certain groups, there was anti-slavery sentiment and activity. But, not as a whole for either side. IMO, degree of participation does not negate the fact of participation.
Why would Lincoln support the proposed amendment if he was so moved to stop slavery?