I'd call that a brilliant piece of propaganda -- how to turn "slavery, slavery, slavery" against the Union while simultaneously absolving Confederates from it!
The only problem is it crashes & burns in the face of real facts.
First of all, the Corwin amendment began with Senator Jefferson Davis in December 1860, and Davis should have known -- if anyone did -- what really mattered to secessionists, right?
If Davis assured his Senate colleagues "this will do the trick", why would they doubt him?
Second, yet again: Lincoln did not believe Corwin was any change in the Constitution's meaning, so its effects were purely symbolic, in Lincoln's view.
If Corwin would help hold some Border States in the Union, then it was not a problem for Lincoln.
Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the Union.
DiogenesLamp: "That they offered it, and the Southern states were not moved by it, demonstrates clearly that neither side really gave a sh*t about the issue of slavery, and so modern attempts to portray the war as having been about that are just dishonest."
Total absurd rubbish.
Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents, (see my post #649) clearly show that protecting slavery was their first concern, and for many their only reason.
The Republican 1860 platform clearly shows their intentions to protect US territories against slavery, mentioning it in four of 17 "planks".
So slavery was vitally important to both sides.
Indeed, that "Southern states were not moved by" Corwin only tells us they received a much better offer from the Confederate constitution which made slavery lawful in all places at all times, for all time.
Corwin merely restated what the US Constitution already implied, and secession itself proved that was not enough for Deep South slavocratic rulers.
DiogenesLamp: "The one most damaged by the "Corwin Amendment" is Lincoln, who clearly offered his support for it in his first Inaugural address.
It makes him appear to be two-faced. "
Only to people who hated "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans in the first place.
DiogenesLamp on making slavery mandatory everwhere: "And effectively what the US constitution also gave them, though many people in the North refused to accept it."
It certainly does not, regardless of how often you repeat it.
Yes, Dred Scott said something close to that, but it was never recognized before, anywhere, or after by the vast majority of Americans.
It's what elected Republicans in 1858 and 1860.
They hated legislation from the Supreme Court's bench.
DiogenesLamp: "Forbidding any state law to interfere with the return of a slave to his master effectively nullifies any and all laws against it."
Against what, slavery??
If so, that was a lie the first time you posted it, and every time since, regardless of how often you claim it.
You invented that out of thin air, with no historical or legal support whatever.
Indeed, one would have to loathe & despise his own country to take such a bald-faced lie about it seriously.
Of course free-state citizens rightly feared the Taney court could soon make just such a ruling, but nobody before Dred-Scott believed or advocated it.
Why do you?