Replies

Protecting slavery was the very first bargaining chip they were prepared to offer up if only their cash cows - the Southern states - would come back in. The original 7 seceding states said no. They were not interested in slavery forever.

It was only protecting slavery in the states where it already existed. It did not protect slavery in future states. It needed 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which seemed unlikely.

The Southern aristocracy was all about expanding slavery into new territory. It was the only way they could figure to keep the institution alive. Cotton needed new ground.

Here is the proposed Corwin Constitutional amendment:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

It was only protecting slavery in the states where it already existed. It did not protect slavery in future states. It needed 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which seemed unlikely.

Lincoln got it passed in 5 states and had the original 7 seceding states indicated that this would satisfy them, it is highly likely it would have passed. Had protecting slavery been their primary concern, they could have had it.

The Southern aristocracy was all about expanding slavery into new territory. It was the only way they could figure to keep the institution alive. Cotton needed new ground.

Nobody seriously thought the West suitable for cotton production. There was almost no effort made to bring slaves into the Western territory and had the expansion of slavery been their big concern, they would hardly have adopted a solution that meant they would leave without making any claim to the Western territory of the US which is exactly what they did when they opted for secession. Expansion before had been about votes in the Senate. With them no longer needing votes in the US Senate, they no longer cared about expanding slavery.

Nice post.

In other words, the central government shall no longer have any authority to abolish or interfere in any States slavery laws. Simple. Sounds to me like a strong states-rights stance. There are those, (some on this thread) who in this year 2024 will bend, twist, spindle and mutilate that most basic statement and use it to prove that Lincoln, Republicans and the Union were promoting Slavery everywhere and forevermore. I put forth that they are part and parcel to the very people who have contributed to bringing our country to its knees today, by tarnishing our heritage.

It was only protecting slavery in the states where it already existed. It did not protect slavery in future states.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Seems as if future states could have slavery if they wanted it. The Corwin Amendment would seemingly prevent Congress from interfering.

It needed 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which seemed unlikely.

16 slave owning states in a Union of 33 states. It only needed 22 states to pass, and the Chief Proponent in the Senate, William Seward, (Former governor of New York, currently Senator of New York, and then designated as Lincoln's secretary of State) said he "guaranteed" that New York would pass it. Given New York's heavy economic dependency on slavery, this was a very realistic probability.

With New York on board, it is quite likely that all the states heavily dependent upon New York economically would have fallen in line. (Great Lake States.)

5 Northern States *DID* pass it.

It was pretty much a certainty that it would pass if the Southern states had taken them up on the offer.

The Southern aristocracy was all about expanding slavery into new territory.

This again. This is the lie that never quits.

Tell you what. You show me *WHERE* you think Slavery would expand to if left unchecked, and *I* will show you why that could not happen.

I will show you why it was impossible to "expand" slavery anywhere.

Cotton needed new ground.

Show me where you think it would have gone, and I'll show you why that wasn't going to happen.

The "expansion" argument was just a trick liberals pulled to stay in power. It was never a serious threat. It was phony baloney nonsense used as propaganda to help them keep a majority in the congress.