Replies

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.

FLT-bird: "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."

100% of Democrats voted for Corwin, the majority of Republicans opposed it.
Northern Democrats were, of course, allies of Southern Democrat secessionists, and were eager to do whatever they could to preserve as many Democratic seats in Congress as possible.
All Republicans opposed expanding slavery, but some -- a minority -- were willing to give Union slaveholders assurances that Congress would not pass laws to abolish slavery nationally.
Under Corwin, states were still free to abolish slavery on their own.

FLT-bird: "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. "

That only means you didn't actually read the Confederate constitution.
In fact, it explicitly prohibits any restrictions on slavery.

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]
Article IV Section 2(1) "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."[31]
Article IV Section 3(3) In all such [Confederate] territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[32]
Article I Section 9(1): "The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden..."

In the Confederacy, congress could not abolish slavery in states or territories, nor could states refuse to recognize slavery laws of other states.
So even if a Confederate state tried to abolish slavery, it's state laws would be trumped by the Confederate constitution and effectively rendered meaningless.

The Confederate constitution did allow importing slaves from the United States.

FLT-bird: "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."

Prior to Dred Scott (1857), slaves who were kept beyond legal limits in a free-state were declared freed.
The hope of overturning Dred Scott was a key reason why anti-slavery Republicans became majorities in most Northern states.

The Confederate constitution did allow imports of slaves from the United States.

FLT-bird quoting Divine: ". . . 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."

The "Old Union" was a "slaveholders' reactionary utopia".
In 1860, Republicans had never been in power nationally when Southern Democrats began declaring secession and their new slaveholders' utopia.

FLT-bird: "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."

Seward acted on his own, not by Lincoln's direction -- at that time Seward considered Lincoln to be a country bumpkin to be humored, not a national leader to be followed.
Seward's efforts resulted in 100% support from Democrats and a minority of Republicans for Corwin's amendment.
The majority of Republicans opposed Corwin.

Corwin was signed, not by Lincoln, but by Democrat President Buchanan.

Aside from saying he would not oppose it, there's no evidence of Lincoln directing Seward regarding Corwin.

FLT-bird: "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."

According to Lincoln, Corwin did not change the Constitution as he understood it.
But, any of the several other proposed amendments, which did offer slavery more protections, those Lincoln and Republicans did oppose.
Nothing in Corwin offered Confederate states the blanket levels of protection for slavery found in the new Confederate constitution.

No Confederate state "turned down" Corwin because it was never "offered" to them, and none ever considered it.
Had they done so, they would have immediately realized that the Confederate constitution provided them much stronger guarantees for slavery than the Union Constitution ever could.

On grounds of protecting slavery alone, Corwin was of no value to Confederate states.
It did, however, reassure some Union slave-states (KY & MD) that Congress would not pass laws abolishing slavery.

Lincoln's letter of transmittal to the states said nothing supporting or opposing the proposed Corwin amendment.

Bottom line: Corwin was strongly supported by 100% of Democrats in Congress and Democrat Pres. Buchanan, obviously hoping to hold onto as many Democrat states as possible.

Corwin was opposed by the majority of Republicans, though not by Pres. Lincoln who said it made no change to the Constitution as he had always understood it.