Replies

Inaccurate. The Corwin Amendment merely made explicit the belief of almost everybody, including Lincoln, that Congress had no power to legislate on slavery within a state. Part of the amendment made it impossible to be itself amended by a future amendment. Something that is arguably unconstitutional.

Rather than suggesting the proposed amendment went beyond what was necessary (and possibly even proper), he took the occasion of his inauguration to signal assent. He could even have omitted it from his remarks entirely but instead chose to bring up the issue. I call that supporting continuance of the institution via remarks about the amendment. Consider the purpose behind it rather than what its ultimate effect might have been. Not sure where you are finding an inaccurate statement.

Lincoln, who wasn't yet president, did not support the amendment, which would have been kind of pointless since the president has no role in the amendment process.

You don't believe a man recently elected president has any political influence among the members of congress who would be responsible for supporting any proposed amendment by 2/3, or the states that would ultimately have to ratify? Come on. I'm not even suggesting he lobbied for it beforehand, but he made a pretty clear policy statement that he was fine with the institution of slavery continuing where it existed.

He merely said that if the amendment was desired by the country, he had no objection to it being made "unamendable." This was unobjectionable, since it merely made explicit what he believed the Constitution already said by implication.

I did not characterize the amendment or his remarks otherwise. It is the context of his remarks that prove my point. The purpose of the amendment was to assuage the fears of the southern states that slavery would be abolished. Isn't it odd that the Great Emancipator--the man who would plunge the union into war "to end slavery"--did not take the opportunity to criticize the amendment or its purpose? The war was about preventing the south from breaking away, not freeing those held captive there.

The war was about preventing the south from breaking away, not freeing those held captive there.

Correct, in April of 1861, just as the war with UK was not about independence in April of 1775. I don't really know anybody who claims the purpose of the war in early 1861 was freeing the slaves. That's a strawman argument. As if purposes and goals of wars remain unchanged.

Purpose of the war changed, or perhaps expanded is a better word, in both cases over the first year or year and a half of fighting. Thus Declaration of Independence issued 15 months after fighting started, and Emancipation Proclamation issued 17 months after fighting started.

You construct a straw man of Lincoln's position on slavery. He didn't run as the man who would end slavery, or the "Great Emancipator." He said repeatedly that he had no intention of ending slavery in the states where it existed. What he consistently opposed was the extension of slavery into the territories--check out the Crittenden Compromise, which he rejected.

Nevertheless, the southern states saw his election as a threat to slavery, as evidenced by their Declarations of Causes, among many other documents, and seceded to protect their property interests.

And there's one fact you can't deny: When the war was over, slavery was dead.