Replies

Our FRiends FLT-bird and DiogenesLamp, among others, have put a lot of effort into magnifying the importance of the 1861 proposed Corwin amendment, saying that it proves:

Slavery was not so important to Southerners since, when they were offered the Corwin "guarantee" for slavery, they "turned it down."
Anti-slavery was not so important to Republicans since a "supermajority" of Northerners voted for Corwin's guarantee of perpetual slavery.

So Corwin, they say, proves the Civil War was not "all about" freeing the slaves.

In response, there are long lists of arguments showing that, yes indeed, slavery and anti-slavery were very important on both sides.

The point I want to bring out here concerns the alleged "supermajority of Northerners" who voted for Corwin.

FLT-bird on Corwin (post #232): "Sure, but a supermajority of Northerners supported it."

So let's look at these numbers.

The House of Representatives vote for Corwin (February 28, 1861) was 133 yes, 65 no, a 2/3 "supermajority".
The breakdown of "yes" votes is:

57 Southern Democrats voted "yes" and that is:
43% of all "yes" votes came from Southerners.
26 Northern Democrats voted "yes", that makes:
100% of all Democrats voted "yes".
50 Republicans voted "yes" and that is:
41% of all Republicans (122) voted "yes".
133 total House votes for Corwin, of which 43% came from Southern Democrats, 20% from Northern Democrats and 37% from Republicans.

65 Republicans voted "no", plus 7 abstentions made 59% in opposition to Corwin.

In summary:

51% of all Northerners & Westerners voted for Corwin, not a supermajority.
100% of all Southerners in Congress voted for Corwin, unanimous.
100% of all Democrats voted for Corwin, unanimous.
41% of all Republicans voted for Corwin, a minority.

Doughface Democrat President Buchanan signed Corwin.
Republican President Lincoln said he did not try to block Corwin because it made no change to the Constitution as he understood it.