Twentieth century "libertarians" created an imaginary Confederacy that was only concerned about freedom and not about slavery. For them it was all about economics and somehow the massive wealth invested in slaves didn't count as economics. That ignores the important role of slavery in the Deep South states. It was central to their economy and their society. Fear of emancipation and of slave revolt were present to a degree that late 20th century economists couldn't (and didn't want to) imagine.
The Confederacy was no more committed to slavery than the US was.
The US Constitution refused to mention slavery. The Confederate Constitution did refer to slaves. Thus it was more committed to slavery. Few honest, unbiased and thoughtful people would have denied that in 1861.
Just because the people of one state had chosen to get rid of slavery it does not necessarily follow that they would then try to force their choice on others. Most Southerners saw it as a matter for each sovereign state to decide.
"The people of one state" is a variegated group. "The people" of a Northern state would include abolitionists. Southerners had done all they could to drive abolitionists out. Clearly, admitting free states would mean admitting abolitionists. They would be fewer in some states than others, but most Southern politicians wouldn't really want any.
Barring free states from joining the Confederacy would have been bad public relations. It would have alienated foreigners and others who might sympathize with the CSA, but that didn't mean that the CSA could realistically expect to admit Northern states or that it would want them.
What the Confederacy was really committed to was respecting the sovereignty of each state.
Yet slaveowners didn't want more free states to be admitted to the union, and Missourians were filling up Kansas to make it a slave state. Why would they change now?
Slave states weren't happy about free states blocking the return of runaways. When they had the upper hand they weren't opposed to federal overreach, as in Taney's Dred Scott opinion. But you repeat it as a dogma that they were all about state sovereignty.
Lincoln worked closely with Corwin and Seward to draft it, get it passed with a supermajority in both houses of Congress and then lobby state governments to pass it.
That just isn't true. Buchanan had called for such an amendment. The House went through 57 drafts of the amendment. Early on, John Crittenden played a major role in drafting proposals that were unacceptable to Republicans, so Seward and Corwin jumped in to come up with an alternative. Lincoln submitted possible versions of an amendment. So did a lot of other people. It had to be hammered out in the House and the Senate. Corwin and Seward were there on the scene. Lincoln didn't arrive in Washington until about 10 days before his inauguration.
Seward was more experienced than Lincoln. He thought he was the better man and that in the new administration he would play the role of prime minister and head of government to Lincoln's more passive role as head of state. He wasn't going to take direction from Lincoln. Corwin was giving advice to Lincoln, rather than getting direction from him. Corwin was active in hammering out the compromise. He was an experienced parliamentarian capable of handling all of the maneuvering himself.
Lincoln played a peripheral role in getting the amendment passed. He could sweeten the pot by offering appointments to the supporters of politicians that Seward needed to vote for the amendment or abstain from voting. That apparently happened in one case. Lincoln was far from any kind of mastermind, though. Seward and Corwin were in charge. After the amendment was passed Lincoln sent letters to governors informing them that the amendment had passed Congress, but he wasn't energetically lobbying them. If you have any evidence of that, please provide it now or stop repeating that claim.
Politicians lied then just as they do today.
Yes, politicians lie. People lie. After the Civil War some of them helped give the lie that it was all about tariffs a start. Lincoln had more of a role in the origin of the Corwin Amendment than he claimed, but less of a role in its origin and promotion than modern day conspiracy theorists claim.
Twentieth century "libertarians" created an imaginary Confederacy that was only concerned about freedom and not about slavery. For them it was all about economics and somehow the massive wealth invested in slaves didn't count as economics. That ignores the important role of slavery in the Deep South states. It was central to their economy and their society. Fear of emancipation and of slave revolt were present to a degree that late 20th century economists couldn't (and didn't want to) imagine.Late 20th century PC Revisionists who were 1960s Leftists engaged in the long march through the institutions came up with the revisionist school of thought in the 1980s that was really just a revival of Northern wartime propaganda - to wit: the all about slavery myth.
They tried to focus obsessively about slavery and pretend both secession and the war were really a morality play which in the end showed that states rights/decentralized power was morally evil and that the local yokels could not be trusted while federal/centralized power was enlightened, humanitarian and for the best. They had to ignore the North's very mercantile and financial reasons for going against the values the Founding Fathers espoused such as government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed and the traditional American support for secession as even Lincoln called "a principle to liberate the world" in 1848. They also had to ignore the Corwin Amendment in which the North offered to explicitly protect slavery in the US Constitution effectively forever as well as the Congressional resolution made which explicitly stated that they were not fighting over slavery. They also had to ignore the repeated statements of both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis saying that they were not fighting over slavery.
These were all inconvenient for the Leftist "all about slavery" narrative.
The Confederacy was no more committed to slavery than the US was. The US Constitution refused to mention slavery. The Confederate Constitution did refer to slaves. Thus it was more committed to slavery. Few honest, unbiased and thoughtful people would have denied that in 1861.
The Confederate Constitution was more honest in explicitly saying "slave and slavery" but provided no additional rights or protections that had existed for slavery in the US prior to secession. In fact, it arguably provided less in that it banned the African slave trade immediately while the US Constitution allowed for it for 20 more years. Few unbiased or thoughtful people would deny this.
Just because the people of one state had chosen to get rid of slavery it does not necessarily follow that they would then try to force their choice on others. Most Southerners saw it as a matter for each sovereign state to decide. "The people of one state" is a variegated group. "The people" of a Northern state would include abolitionists. Southerners had done all they could to drive abolitionists out. Clearly, admitting free states would mean admitting abolitionists. They would be fewer in some states than others, but most Southern politicians wouldn't really want any. Barring free states from joining the Confederacy would have been bad public relations. It would have alienated foreigners and others who might sympathize with the CSA, but that didn't mean that the CSA could realistically expect to admit Northern states or that it would want them.
Voted down was a proposal to bar the admission of states that did not allow slavery - in reference to the Confederate Constitution's drafting in Montgomery, Alabama. The Confederacy was perfectly willing to leave the matter of slavery up to each state - just as had been the case under the US Constitution. There were several reforms in the Confederate Constitution such as outlawing riders, giving the president a line item veto, requiring a balanced budget, setting a maximum tariff rate of 10%, more explicitly recognizing the sovereignty of each state and giving each state more influence in terms of removing Confederate officials and much tighter restrictions on the general welfare clause. These were the things they altered - not protections of slavery.
What the Confederacy was really committed to was respecting the sovereignty of each state. Yet slaveowners didn't want more free states to be admitted to the union, and Missourians were filling up Kansas to make it a slave state. Why would they change now?
There had been a power struggle in the US over the tariff and over government expenditures as well as an underlying struggle to prevent further usurpation of powers not expressly delegated to it under the US Constitution by the federal government. That power struggle was what was driving the debate over the admission of slave vs non slave states. Once the Southern states were no longer part of the US, that power struggle was over. They no longer needed concern themselves with obtaining more states that allowed slavery. Thus they were willing to secede with only their own sovereign territory and without making claim to any of the Western territories of the US they had paid with their blood and treasure too in order to acquire when they were part of the US. They were willing to admit states that did not allow slavery into the Confederacy.
Slave states weren't happy about free states blocking the return of runaways. When they had the upper hand they weren't opposed to federal overreach, as in Taney's Dred Scott opinion. But you repeat it as a dogma that they were all about state sovereignty.
Then as now, if you want to find hypocrisy on the federal vs states rights issue, you can easily find it on both sides. Each side was only too happy to go against what they had previously supported if it meant an immediate political victory for their team. Sound familiar? It should. Politics today is no different. Witness the push by some Republicans now to enact a federal ban on abortion after the argument since Roe V Wade had been that this was an issue for the states to decide and not the federal government. As soon as they get the upper hand or perceive that they've gained the upper hand, some on that side will then turn 180 degrees and do exactly what they fought against for years.
Lincoln worked closely with Corwin and Seward to draft it, get it passed with a supermajority in both houses of Congress and then lobby state governments to pass it. That just isn't true. Buchanan had called for such an amendment. The House went through 57 drafts of the amendment. Early on, John Crittenden played a major role in drafting proposals that were unacceptable to Republicans, so Seward and Corwin jumped in to come up with an alternative. Lincoln submitted possible versions of an amendment. So did a lot of other people. It had to be hammered out in the House and the Senate. Corwin and Seward were there on the scene. Lincoln didn't arrive in Washington until about 10 days before his inauguration.
No. That just IS true. Seward submitted it to the Senate and Corwin the House. Lincoln had a central role in drafting the Corwin Amendment as Doris Kearns Goodwin lays out in Team of Rivals. One would hardly expect such an important piece of legislation to not involve the president elect - the defacto leader - of a political party. The Crittendon Compromise was something else entirely.
Seward was more experienced than Lincoln. He thought he was the better man and that in the new administration he would play the role of prime minister and head of government to Lincoln's more passive role as head of state. He wasn't going to take direction from Lincoln.
Seward recognized that Lincoln, not he, had been elected president.
Corwin was giving advice to Lincoln, rather than getting direction from him. Corwin was active in hammering out the compromise. He was an experienced parliamentarian capable of handling all of the maneuvering himself.
False. Lincoln, not Corwin was the party leader. Corwin was taking direction from Lincoln, not the other way around.
Lincoln played a peripheral role in getting the amendment passed. He could sweeten the pot by offering appointments to the supporters of politicians that Seward needed to vote for the amendment or abstain from voting. That apparently happened in one case. Lincoln was far from any kind of mastermind, though. Seward and Corwin were in charge. After the amendment was passed Lincoln sent letters to governors informing them that the amendment had passed Congress, but he wasn't energetically lobbying them. If you have any evidence of that, please provide it now or stop repeating that claim.
This is just patently false. Lincoln was instrumental in the drafting of the Corwin amendment as well as the political horse trading and arm twisting needed to whip the votes in Congress for its passage. Similarly, he played a key role in getting it passed in multiple Northern States using his influence with politicians, Newspapers, etc to see to it. You really need to read Team of Rivals on this subject. She goes over it in great detail - though she is hardly the first.
Politicians lied then just as they do today. Yes, politicians lie. People lie. After the Civil War some of them helped give the lie that it was all about tariffs a start.
Some today are attempting to promulgate the lie that it was all about slavery and that the tariffs were not a much more important issue to both sides.
Lincoln had more of a role in the origin of the Corwin Amendment than he claimed, but less of a role in its origin and promotion than modern day conspiracy theorists claim.
Lincoln had an absolutely essential role in both the drafting as well as the passage of the Corwin Amendment.
