Replies

He didn't push for passing it, he just didn't oppose it.

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.

William Seward was the lead proponent of the Corwin Amendment in the Senate, and he assured everyone that he could get New York to pass this amendment. William Seward was Lincoln's secretary of state, and Lincoln's claim that he had not seen the amendment is very likely another case of him talking out both sides of his mouth. There is evidence that Lincoln constantly pushed behind the scenes to get this thing through the congress, which did in fact pass it. Five Northern states also voted to ratify it. If Seward could deliver New York as he promised, that would make six. With the addition of the 16 slave holding states, that would be 22 states which would approve this amendment.

This leaves only 3 more states required to pass this amendment, and I assure you that if New York (Seward) and Ohio (Corwin) passed this thing, all their little satellite states would have followed suit.

Lincoln also took what I believe to be the unprecedented step of writing letters to each governor of every state, including the seceded southern states, informing them of the passage of the Corwin amendment. If he was opposed to the passage of this amendment, why would he attempt to expedite it's passage by informing these governors?

The slaves were freed. Trust the results of his actions.

If he had said that was his intention from the beginning, then there would be some credibility to your claim, but as he intended to leave the slaves in bondage for nearly the first two years of the war, you can hardly claim he was fighting it on their behalf.

Charles Dickens summed up the situation perfectly.

"Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."

Had the South capitulated sooner, the slave would have been thrown out of the compromise and would have remained in bondage. Lincoln even said so in his letter to Horace Greeley.