On and after February 22, 1863, all free negroes within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and be deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever.
All negroes who shall be taken in any of the States in which slavery does not now exist, in the progress of our arms, shall be adjudged, immediately after such capture, to occupy the slave status, and in all States which shall be vanquished by our arms, all free negroes shall, ipso facto, be reduced to the condition of helotism, so that the respective normal conditions of the white and black races may be ultimately placed on a permanent basis, so as to prevent the public peace from being thereafter endangered.
If that's true, then it's obvious that Jefferson Davis wasn't planning to free the slaves or replace the slave system. He might consent to emancipation as a very last resort, but it wasn't something he wanted or was working towards.
________
And who's to say that Lincoln's promise not to do anything about slavery didn't work? Of course it had no effect on the seven states where secession resolutions had already been passed. The political leaders of those states had already made their decision. They weren't coming back, anymore than American or Irish or Indian or African revolutionaries were going to give in when Britain gave them the things they were asking for earlier. That doesn't mean that they didn't want those things. They wanted more and wouldn't settle for what they originally wanted. Revolution of rising expectations.
But Lincoln's pledge not to do anything about slavery where it existed did have an effect on the Border States. Most people in those states supported the Union, but Lincoln's oft repeated promise not to do anything about slavery in those states did make secessionism less popular in those states. And Lincoln's promise also worked in the Upper South states that rejected secession before Sumter. That may be why Davis attacked Sumter -- War drove four more slave states into the Confederacy.
But I think the Corwin Amendment's importance has been exaggerated. Would the amendment really have been ratified? How would an "unamendable amendment" work? No, it was a last minute last chance "Hail Mary Pass" -- more an repetition of what the Republicans had already promised than something that would really go through.
Rather it was more that some thoughtful Southern statesmen (and a few not so thoughtful) recognized that there was only so much that Lincoln could do in a four year term. He wasn't likely to do much or even to be reelected. Southerners could stymie his activities if they stayed in the Union.
But the passions of the moment were too strong, and more thoughtful people didn't prevail. It wasn't that slaveowning secessionists didn't care about slavery. It was that they thought slavery (and the economy, culture, and society they loved that rested on slavery) would be more secure outside the union than inside.
If that’s true, then it’s obvious that Jefferson Davis wasn’t planning to free the slaves or replace the slave system. He might consent to emancipation as a very last resort, but it wasn’t something he wanted or was working towards.
Davis acknowledged as early as 1861 that slavery was going to end and had been urging the Confederate Congress to empower an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty which would end slavery for a while before they did so in 1864. That hardly chimes with a guy who felt slavery would be perpetual.
This is just an attempt to weasel. Lincoln fully endorsed slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. He even offered strengthened fugitive slave laws. The original 7 seceding states turned down his offer because slavery was simply not their primary concern. Having control of their economic destiny via freer trade and lower government expenditures which would not be spent for others’ benefit was in their interest. ie their economic interests were diametrically the opposite of those of much of the North. Had slavery not existed in those states and had they had a system of wages or sharecropping, their economic interest in freer trade and lower government expenditures and for their own rather than others’ benefit would have been no different.
Sumter was fired upon because Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla to invade South Carolina’s territorial waters to maintain a fortress on their territory right in the middle of one of their principal harbors. No country would accept that. Had the British kept a fortress in the middle of New York harbor and sent a heavily armed fleet to reinforce it, Washington would have fired upon it.
Rather it was more that some thoughtful Southern statesmen (and a few not so thoughtful) recognized that there was only so much that Lincoln could do in a four year term. He wasn’t likely to do much or even to be reelected. Southerners could stymie his activities if they stayed in the Union.
But the passions of the moment were too strong, and more thoughtful people didn’t prevail. It wasn’t that slaveowning secessionists didn’t care about slavery. It was that they thought slavery (and the economy, culture, and society they loved that rested on slavery) would be more secure outside the union than inside.
Of course you take that position. You have to. A simple reading of the facts completely torpedoes your position. So you have to come up with fanciful explanations and try to weasel out of what the plain facts show. Would the Corwin Amendment have passed? Almost certainly. Remember that the Congress passed it after the Southern delegation withdrew. It takes a 2/3rds supermajority in each house to do that. There was no widespread support for abolition in the Northern states. Abolitionists routinely received a tiny fraction of the vote. Lincoln got a few states to ratify it already. Had the original Southern states indicated they were willing to accept this, its a foregone conclusion that all 7 would have ratified it as would the Upper South and the border states. Plenty of Northern states would have hopped aboard too.
The irrevocability of the amendment stems from the fact that it takes 3/4s of the states to amend the constitution. There were 15 states at the time that still had slavery. Any future amendment to abolish slavery would have required the ascent of several of those states. That could only have been gained via a compensation scheme that fully compensated owners as had been done in Britain and most other countries that abolished slavery during that period of the 19th century. That was the point which everybody understood. Without the consent of the slaveholding states, they could have effectively blocked any future amendment since it would have taken 45 states to ratify any future amendment. 45+15=60 which is 10 more states than are even in the country today.
Lincolns big campaign promise and what he really wanted was Henry Clay’s “American system” on steroids. He wanted high tariffs and lots of government largesse which would inevitably be lavished on Northern business interests and Northern infrastructure as it had always been. Southerners, having experienced the extremely detrimental effects of high tariffs a generation earlier - the tariff of Abominations sparked the Nullification Crisis after all - knew all too well what the Morrill Tariff would bring them. The Morrill Tariff was certain to pass the Senate. All that would have been needed was a little logrolling to pick off one or two more senators. So throw in a protection for Hemp growing here and maybe include a tariff for Sugar there and voila! The Senate votes would materialize. This is standard fare in politics.
The prospect of a massive tariff hike and more unequal federal expenditures ad infinitum is what drove the Southern states to leave - not slavery which the Northern states were only too willing to compromise on.