Not at all. But completely ignoring Lincolns words *IS* cheating.
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. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. "
He is of course referring to the Corwin Amendment.
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress 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."
In other words, permanent slavery in the United States.
“In other words, permanent slavery in the United States.”
Not the case. The amendment does not in any way limit a state from outlawing slavery within that state.
It would seem that the economic power behind the evil was such that even Lincoln, who elsewhere morally decried chattel slavery, pussyfooted around here.
There’s one sight that I never saw but I could well imagine what it looked like, on a large estate in Kentucky, on which there was a large mound. I was told that this was a filled-in place where they had chains, not for prisoners (there wouldn’t be any of those visiting a private estate), but for the chattel slaves of travelers. It was a chilling thought.
Now why did people have these slaves in the first place? It was economics... hiring voluntary help would have cost them more.
In this fallen world, money talks far more than it should be allowed to.
What you persist in ignoring is that the Corwin Amendment only protected slavery where it existed while the Confederate constitution mandated the legality of slavery in every square inch of territory the Confederacy had or would ever acquire in the future. Given the two choices which do you think the Southern slaveocracy would prefer?
I understand that what you’re saying is that the war was not about slavery because Lincoln wasn’t in favor of ending slavery. However, Lincoln’s opinion about the start of the war is totally irrelevant, as is the opinion of the Pope, the Queen of England, or the King of Siam. The only relevant opinion is that of those who started the war. Lincoln, like those other three august individuals, did not start the war. It was started by legislatures of the seceding states. They clearly stated (or at least those that stated any reasons) that the reason for secession was slavery. Lincoln fought (initially) to maintain the Union. It is unfortunate that he was willing (at least initially) to condone the existence of slavery, but it’s also immaterial. It only takes one side to start a war, and it was clearly started by the seceding states, and it was clearly started (based on their own words) to maintain slavery, and extend it to the territories