Of course not. They knew the political math and understood how devoted the slave states were to their "peculiar institution"
Lincoln did introduce a bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. It went nowhere. Given that failure, why would he attempt the impossible? It could only inflame Southerners without producing any results.
And the price of abolishing the sale of slaves in the District was accepting the Fugitive Slave Law and the rest of the Compromise of 1846.
P.S. When Arlington and Alexandria returned to Virginia in 1846, schools for African-Americans were closed down, because they were illegal in Virginia -- something I just found out researching this.
Something else I just learned: at the beginning of the war, Lincoln wanted the Virginia side restored to the District but the Senate disagreed.
“Of course not (prior to the war not one Congressman or Senator from the northern states . . .ever introduced a constitutional amendment to end slavery). They knew the political math and understood how devoted the slave states were to their “peculiar institution”
This indicates the northern states were not equally devoted to abolishing slavery by using the constitution. Decade after decade after decade after decade went by and the North would not even try to pass an amendment.
This is why so many question the North’s claim to “moral high ground.”
You are correct that while a Congressman Lincoln proposed a law eliminating slavery in Washington. In his proposed law, Lincoln included a fugitive slave provision allowing slave owners to recover their slaves who had escaped into Washington. Lincoln's attempt to placate both sides of the slavery issue was not successful and the bill died.
As I also remember, Lincoln believed that the Constitution demanded a fugitive slave law. Lincoln's speech notes for an 1859 speech said [Link]:
"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the Constitution demands it."
Shortly after Lincoln was inaugurated in 1861, the Fugitive Slave Commissioner (I don't remember the exact title of the job) in Springfield, a friend of Lincoln whom Lincoln had endorsed for the Commissioner position, allowed a slave owner from Missouri to go into Chicago to retrieve some fugitive slaves. Chicago at that time was a sanctuary city for escaped slaves, and a large population of fugitive slaves was living in the city. My speculation is that when he was in Springfield before his inauguration, Lincoln had suggested to the Commissioner that he permit a slave owner to go into Chicago to recover his slaves, something apparently not done in Chicago back then. Here was the result (which I posted to you back in 2007, Link):
New York Times, April 9, 1861. Departure of Fugitive Slaves for Canada
Chicago, Monday, April 8. One hundred and six fugitive slaves left this city last night for Canada via the Michigan Southern Railroad. It is estimated that over one thousand fugitives have arrived in this city since last Fall, most of whom have left since the recent arrest of five by the United States Marshal.
Detroit, Monday, April 8. About three hundred fugitive slaves, principally from Illinois, have passed into Canada at this point since Saturday, and large numbers more are reportedly on the way. Many are entirely destitute, and much suffering is anticipated, notwithstanding the efforts made for their relief.
The message got through to the fugitive slaves that the Fugitive Slave Law was going to be enforced in Chicago by the new administration. Hence the fugitive slaves got the heck out of Chicago as fast as they could. But it was too late for that adherence to the law to make any difference to Southerners, what with Lincoln's battle fleet already approaching Charleston and Fort Sumter at that point in April 1861.