It's certainly nowhere near as simplistic as your historically oblivious presentation of Lincoln as a great opponent of slavery.
Too, the quote you provide doesn't support your statement;
I beg to differ for reasons noted (see previous post where I specifically outlined elements of Lincoln's quote while detailing what they referred to). As for your above assertion seeing as you have done nothing to demonstrate why what you assert is so, I need only point out quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
: it was not 'unrepealable"
To the contrary. The amendment's authors specifically wrote it to be established as an unamendable amendment. Yes, there is some question as to if and to what degree they could prevent themselves from passing a second amendment altering it, but in its intent and original form, the amendment was said to be unrepealable.
it was left to the states.
Insofar as the government specifically could not impose a ban on slavery on any of the states.
You might want to re-read the proposed amendment.
I've already read it repeatedly. I do advise you to take your own advice though.
Now, Lincoln, as I as say, among his many gifts, was a pragmatic man. He knew that if slavery were limited to the areas where it existed and was not allowed to expand into other states and terrtories, it would ultimately die.
Ultimately it sure would have. But unfortunately for your cause, his little amendment would have prolongued that quite a bit. Go read it again. It prevents the government from interfering with the domestic institutions of any state with no further stipulation. Under any reasonable reading, this must be taken to apply unconditionally to any state so, for example, if, say, Arizona came into the union and then decided it wanted to be a slave state, the congress could not have done one thing to stop it because doing so would have been in interference "with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, your argument that simply containing slavery to the existing slave states was Lincoln's goal fails you, as his amendment does not do that.
Your statement that Lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure is simply NOT supported in the record.
Ah, I see you are skilled at jousting with scarecrows, as that is not what I said. I said specifically: "The historical Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."
There's a BIG difference between that and saying "lincoln only opposed slavery because of the war." Even you must admit that much. And considering that Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed...and perhaps even then some...as demonstrated for his prominent public support of an amendment that did exactly that, I think it is safe to say that my comment was perfectly legitimate and accurate.
And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.
I refer you back to what I said earlier:
"From 1854 to his nomination for the presidency in 1860, as James McPherson noted in his DRAWN WITH THE SWORD, "the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery as a vital first step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction." In those years he gave approximately 175 political speeches. McPherson notes that the "central message of these speeches showed Lincoln to be a "one-issue" man - the issue being slavery." Thus, Lincoln's nomination to the presidency was based on a principled opposition to slavery on moral grounds, and that position was clear to voters both in the South and the North."
Lincoln worked for the gradual elimination of slavery well before the war.
I see you pass over what I said about Lincoln vs Lee. Lincoln undertook, well before the war, "governmental actions" to use your phrase, to attack slavery.
It simply is not correct to say that he only adopted an anti-slavery stance with the coming of the war, and you cannot torture the record into supporting such a position.
Now, Lincoln faced, on his very first day in office, a gigantic rebellion against the lawful government. The insurgent area covered seven states. Lincoln didn't want war. That is one thing you've shown with your stressing this proposed 13th amendment. You have shown that Lincoln was willing to bend over backwards to avoid war. So thanks for bringing that out.
On the other hand, as he made very clear in his first inaugural address he was definitely going to maintain the Union at all hazards. And that is pretty much what happened.
Of course this segue of yours does show us one thing: You want to hold Lincoln to some impossible standard, to take him out of a real situation, dealing with real events and real people. Lincoln did a masterful job of holding the country together. He brought the ship of state home safe and sound and we can all thank him for that, can't we?
Walt