Well if it's so important to strengthen slavery at the beginning of the war, so as to preserve it as founded, then why was it okay to ignore article 4, section 2, later?
Most Republicans did not support Corwin, but enough did to pass it with nearly all Democrats voting in favor and Democrat President Buchanan (not Lincoln) signing it.
Well this is what Lincoln had to say about it at his inaugural speech.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Now you are going to tell me that this means that he was adamantly against it, and people are just interpreting his words incorrectly, and really it was all about Pearl Harbor or something, and "Look! Squirrel!"
Try this: if you declare & wage war against the United States, you'll lose some of your constitutional rights.
DiogenesLamp: "Now you are going to tell me that this means that he was adamantly against it, and people are just interpreting his words incorrectly, and really it was all about Pearl Harbor or something, and "Look! Squirrel!""
Corwin passed both houses with just the bare numbers required and opposition came entirely from Republicans.
Publicly, Lincoln did his constitutional duty which was to forward it to the states.
In fact, Corwin may have helped keep both Kentucky and Maryland, which ratified Corwin, in the Union, but had no significance beyond that.
In time Corwin was replaced by the 13th amendment which had Lincoln's full backing & support.
Maryland was the 4th state to ratify the 13th.
Kentucky never ratified the 13th until 1976.