Why did Abe Lincoln try to pass an amendment to the Constitution forever enshrining slavery?

Question

Here's an article by Lincoln scholar Thomas DiLorenzo that discusses Lincoln's first 13th Amendment;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html

It doesn't make any sense to say that Lincoln didn't want war with the south, because he could have chosen to just let the south secede if that were the case.

Answer 1

I don't know what DiLorenzo's problem is with Lincoln, but to characterize the so-called "Corwin Amendment," named after the Ohio Republican who proposed it, as a measure that would have "legally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution" is completely misrepresenting the facts. In the first place, slavery had been "enshrined" in the Constitution from the very beginning. If you don't believe me, read Article I, Section 9, Article IV, Section 2, and Article V (see link below, if you don't have a copy handy). In particular, Article V expressly forbade federal government interference in the slave trade until 1808, after which time Congress abolished it (the slave trade, that is, not the Article).

Anyway, the Corwin Amendment, which, if ratified, would indeed have become the 13th Amendment, simply reinforced the idea, already present in the Constitution, that the federal government would not interfere in certain matters pertaining to the states, in this case the decision to be free or slave. The Amendment would not have prevented the eventual abolition of slavery; it merely left it up to the individual states to decide to do this, as all Northern states had already done by the beginning of the Civil War.

Corwin proposed this Amendment, and Lincoln supported it, as a last-ditch attempt to prevent the secession of the Southern states and the inevitable conflict that would ensue, given Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union.

Lincoln believed very much in the concept of the "rule of law," the very foundation of this country, and did not believe that he, or any president, could simply abolish slavery, since it was protected by the Constitution. He loathed slavery, and believed that it's stain must eventually be removed from this country, but he believed that the only proper way to do this was through the law, else the Constitution was not worth the paper it was printed on.

Lincoln was no saint, and he did some things, such as the temporary suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War, for which he has rightfully been criticized. But for DiLorenzo to try to tarnish the reputation of one of our greatest presidents by so grossly misrepresenting the nature of the amendment in question, and implying that somehow the "Lincoln Cult" has tried to keep this hidden, is unconscionable.

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as something being "forever enshrined" in the Constitution. That document, contrary to the beliefs of people like Supreme Court Justice Scalia, is a living, breathing thing, always subject to revision. The sections referred to earlier which "enshrined" slavery in the Constitution were effectively erased as a result of the 13th Amendment that was actually ratified after the Civil War. Prohibition was "enshrined" in the Constitution by the 18th Amendment, until it was "unenshrined" by the 21st Amendment.

Answer 2

Because he wanted to keep the Union together. Go through Lincoln's history and all of his writings. He firmly believed that there was a difference between whites and blacks and that they should never intermarry. He also agreed with trying to find a country that the free blacks could be sent to. He did not agree with slavery, at least in a large group of books that I have read, he never wrote about agreeing with slavery.

Lincoln did not want the war. Anybody who suggests that he did is a fool. I, personally, am glad to have seen by his writing how his beliefs on slavery changed throughout his career. I bet he still felt that blacks would never be equal to whites but that did not matter to him. What mattered most to him, was ending the bloodiest war in American history as fast as possible. He would do whatever it took. If it took an amendment that allowed slavery to prosper, so be it. If it allowed some to be free and others to remain slaves, as in the Emancipation Proclamation, so be it. And if it meant destroying the south and reconstucting it, then SO BE IT!

I do not believe this goes too far against the person, man and president whom I have grown to love and admire.

Answer 3

Lincoln's number one goal as president was to keep the union together. He didn't really want to be remembered as the President who lost the southern half of the country.

As the Civil War begun, the South had almost all the advantages. Most of the officers in the Army were southern, they could win with a tie (armistice), and they were going to primarily be fighting on home territory. It was bad enough for Lincoln to fight a war against his own countrymen, but even worse to lose.

He has a famous quote which accurately describes his position: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that"

Answer 4

I think this is" Much Ado About Nothing" At this point in time, Lincoln was willing to try anything to avoid going to war with the south. Lincoln had pressure from the south which wanted slaves and slavery and the north which didn't want blacks for any reason. He also felt that states should handle their own domestic affairs.

Answer 5

I'm far to the right of Jeffrey S (I think he misunderstands Scalia, for example), but he's done a fine job here clarifying what Lincoln was up to here.

And he is dead right about DiLorenzo. The man is NO Lincoln scholar [his field, BTW, is economics], and sadly is free with slander of those who are.

If you've read much by real Lincoln scholars and/or spent some time with Lincoln's own writings you'll be quite familiar with the things D cherry-picks from Lincoln to support his arguments. What is particularly despicable is that it is HE who does the things he falsely accuses Lincoln scholars of doing! He repeatedly misrepresents and leaves out things that don't fit his conception. (By the end, HIS "real Lincoln" is a MONSTER. Indeed, in one article he paints him and his "regime" as comparable to or worse than the worst 20th century despots!)

DiLorenzo seems to COUNT on his readers not being very informed so that he can gull them into thinking that what he is putting out --quotes that people with a casual familiarity with the story usually haven't heard-- is material that others are HIDING. If you accept his readings, completely ignoring OTHER things Lincoln said repeatedly (including the very context in which Lincoln said things D. quotes) and what he actually DID, you may well be convinced.

A good example of D's selective quoting from the very article cited -- he quotes a passage from *Team of Rivals*, telling of TWO things Lincoln proposed in a particular letter in the winter of 1861 to try to prevent further secession. But the book lists THREE proposals, and D ignores the other, viz., the proposal to require a JURY trial for those accused of being fugitive slaves (to prevent what was essentially the kidnapping of free blacks, a practice the North was very angry about). Why skip over this point? Simple. It doesn't fit the picture he wants to draw!

In fact, D's whole picture of Lincoln's views of blacks and efforts toward their freedom is seriously skewed. Jeffrey S points out Lincoln's CONSTITUTIONAL views and his hope of slavery's eradication by containing its expansion (a common view of anti-slavery Republicans, like Seward). Though Lincoln himself laid this out repeatedly and in detail, D sees fit to ignore it. He cherry-picks quotes from the Lincoln-Douglas debates to suggest Lincoln was driven by racism, but ignores words in the very same paragraph that show a strong SYMPATHY for blacks and a belief in their RIGHTS.

As for Lincoln's actions as President, D has little interest in exploring his many efforts BEFORE the Emancipation Proclamation to convince the loyal border states to accept compensated emancipation. Nor does he consider Lincoln's vigorous campaign to gain passage of the REAL 13th Amendment (including a lot of "log rolling" as well as pushing through Nevada's statehood to secure another vote for ratification).

Of course, none of this fits D's narrative.
_____________________

If you want an overview of Lincoln's words and actions on slavery, one decent starting place is the following site (and yes, it does speak of the Corwin Amendment):
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=3&subjectID=1

Answer 6

one reason was they were tried of blacks takin all the jobs and there was no jobs for the whites and they basicly was not making any money so they wanted to do away with it.

Answer 7

Whatever?