“...Two days before his first inauguration in March 4, 1961, Lincoln and the Republicans passed a proposed 13th Amendment, which enshrined slavery by prohibiting Congress from abolishing or interfering with state-allowed slavery. (Today it is known as the Corwin Amendment.} ...”
The Corwin Amendment, BTW, is still the law of the land. No one has ever bothered to repeal it, and it has no “sunset” clause, so it remains in effect. Which means that if the required number of states were to ratify it TOMORROW, slavery once again would be the law of the land, only this time with a specific constitutional protection.
It also bears mention (because it’s one of the many inconsistencies in the “It was about slavery” argument) that the Corwin Amendment was sent to the states for ratification BEFORE the 12 April action at Fort Sumter (the date chosen by yankee historians to mark the beginning of the war). And not only did the enticement of keeping their slaves NOT manage to lure the seven states that already had seceded into applying for readmission to the Union, neither did it prevent the other four eventually joining the Confederacy. None of those four even bothered voting on the amendment.
A mighty curious course of action for someone so bent on keeping their slaves at any cost, even to the point of dissolving the Union.
The Corwin Amendment was never ratified so it isn't the law of anything.
They didn't vote on it because they had already seceded and adopted a constitution that protected slavery to an extent never proposed by the Corwin Amendment. Returning would have been a step backwards for them from the slavery standpoint.