Replies

DiogenesLamp: "an amendment that would guarantee slavery in the United States indefinitely...
they voted to keep slavery forever...
Lincoln urged all the states to ratify this amendment in his first inaugural address."

dayglored: "I was unaware of this proposed amendment (the "Corwin Amendment"), nor of Lincoln's support of it.
Thank you for including your comment about it."

One reason you never heard of it is because the way DiogenesLamp tells it, it's all lies.
The truth is:

Corwin-type amendments were first proposed in December 1860 by, among others, Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis.
Davis promised that Republicans accepting his proposal would prevent Mississippi from declaring secession.
But Republicans rejected Davis's proposals, and others similar (i.e., Crittenden), because they expanded slavery beyond the existing limits on it.
The result was Mississippi and other slave-states declared secession, and formed their own Confederacy, which provided every protection of slavery they could ask for.
These Confederate constitutional protections included:
- No Confederate state or territory could abolish slavery.
- No Confederate state or territory could restrict slaveholders who "shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property".
- Confederate states could import slaves from the United States.
- Article I Section 9(4): "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]"
So, not only was abolition impossible in the Confederacy, but so were any restrictions "impairing the right of property in negro slaves."
Given the Confederacy's total protection of slavey, there was no way the Union could offer the Deep South a "better deal".
Nor did they try to.
The Corwin amendment was not intended to lure Confederate states back into the Union, but rather to reassure Union Border Slave-States that existing laws would not be changed.
Corwin simply said there would be no national laws abolishing slavery in states where it was legal, just as there had been none since the Constitution was ratified in 1788.
Corwin did not prevent states from continuing to abolish or restrict slavery as they saw fit.
Corwin did not prevent Federal government from abolishing slavery in US territories or in Washington, DC.
Corwin did not prevent the US Supreme Court from defining the human rights of slaves.
As Lincoln said in his March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address, he did not oppose Corwin because it made no changes to the Constitution as Lincoln understood it.
Finally, the necessary support for Corwin in Congress came from 100% of Democrats joined by a minority of Republicans (RINOs).
The majority of Republicans in Congress opposed Corwin.

Kentucky, Rhode Island, Maryland and Illinois ratified Corwin.
All but Kentucky later rescended their ratifications.

One reason you never heard of it is because the way DiogenesLamp tells it, it's all lies. The truth is: Corwin-type amendments were first proposed in December 1860 by, among others, Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis. Davis promised that Republicans accepting his proposal would prevent Mississippi from declaring secession. But Republicans rejected Davis's proposals, and others similar (i.e., Crittenden), because they expanded slavery beyond the existing limits on it. The result was Mississippi and other slave-states declared secession, and formed their own Confederacy, which provided every protection of slavery they could ask for. These Confederate constitutional protections included: No Confederate state or territory could abolish slavery. No Confederate state or territory could restrict slaveholders who "shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property". Confederate states could import slaves from the United States. Article I Section 9(4): "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]" So, not only was abolition impossible in the Confederacy, but so were any restrictions "impairing the right of property in negro slaves." Given the Confederacy's total protection of slavey, there was no way the Union could offer the Deep South a "better deal". Nor did they try to. The Corwin amendment was not intended to lure Confederate states back into the Union, but rather to reassure Union Border Slave-States that existing laws would not be changed. Corwin simply said there would be no national laws abolishing slavery in states where it was legal, just as there had been none since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Corwin did not prevent states from continuing to abolish or restrict slavery as they saw fit. Corwin did not prevent Federal government from abolishing slavery in US territories or in Washington, DC. Corwin did not prevent the US Supreme Court from defining the human rights of slaves. As Lincoln said in his March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address, he did not oppose Corwin because it made no changes to the Constitution as Lincoln understood it. Finally, the necessary support for Corwin in Congress came from 100% of Democrats joined by a minority of Republicans (RINOs). The majority of Republicans in Congress opposed Corwin. Kentucky, Rhode Island, Maryland and Illinois ratified Corwin. All but Kentucky later rescended their ratifications.

The problem with this, is that its all lies the way BroJoeK tells it. The truth is, the Northern was willing to pass a constitutional amendment to expressly protect slavery effectively forever.

As for the Confederate Constitution". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .

Get it? States did not have to have slavery to join the CSA and states that were in the CSA were free to abolish slavery. They could not deny transit of their territory by citizens of other Confederate States with their slaves, but they could ban it within their own state if they so chose. This was no different from the law in the United States at the time after the Dred Scott decision. Similarly, allowing slaves to be traded between states but not allowing the Atlantic slave trade was no different from the law in the US prior to 1860. The Confederate Constitution simply did not differ from the US Constitution in this regard.

"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .

". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)

The Corwin Amendment was named after Republican Senator Thomas Corwin. It was not only backed but was in fact orchestrated by Lincoln. It was also backed by Republican William Seward. Lincoln ensured its passage in 5 Northern states and doubtless it would have been ratified by more had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it. And yes, it was most certainly intended to lure them back into the US. They turned it down because slavery was not the Southern states' primary concern.