“Only if it would be totally undemolished by his support for the Corwin Amendment”
You’ve really studied your talking point playbook, haven’t you?
First of all, I’d like to point out that among rather stiff competition the “Corwin Amendment” is one of the silliest laws ever proposed. You can’t declare that future amendments can’t be made concerning X and Y issues. That’s ridiculous. The only way to prevent future amendments would be to abolish the amendment process. In the meantime, your amendment could be washed away like sand on the beach by passing a further overturning amendment, as the 21st did to the 18th.
Which brings me to my second point. I suppose your argument is something along the lines of had the Corwin amendment would’ve prevented passage of the 13th amendment. Well, in reference to the paragraph above, I think it’s clear that it’s hubristic for any amendment to say that particualr kinds of future amendments can’t be passed. Article V of the Constitution still would’ve held firm; amendments could still be made. And if the 13th would’ve passed with a section declaring the Corwin amendment null and void, I don’t see why that wouldn’t have been the new law.
If Lincoln supported it at the time, and I believe he did, does that mean he doesn’t get any credit for the 13th? No. Unless you take the no future amendments poart seriously, and you shouldn’t, he could change his mind. As I might remind you, a rather extreme series of events occured between his support in ‘61 and his death in ‘65, during which time he switched from a free soiler to a full abolitionist.