Disunion in the New York Times recently described Abraham Lincoln early in his presidency as a “Rookie Executive” and it was true. Lincoln had no real executive experience before becoming president, and even in his law partnership he tended to concentrate on litigation and not administration.
Yet despite his inexperience, early on Lincoln demonstrated he would be diligent in handling his executive duties. A good example is the 1861 version of the 13th amendment–or the Corwin amendment as it is often called–that had passed Congress on March 2, just before his taking office. On March 16, 1861, Lincoln dutifully forwarded this proposed constitutional amendment to the states to consider its ratification.
The Corwin amendment was dealt with in an earlier edition of Civil War Emancipation. But since it is short and simple, here again is the text: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
The Corwin amendment would have given constitutional force to Abraham Lincoln’s pledge not to interfere with slavery where it already existed. When Lincoln’s letters forwarding it to the states resurfaced several years ago, some people tried to sensationalize the discovery, asserting it showed Lincoln was not the “Great Emancipator.” However, to anyone with a factual knowledge of the Civil War, it was not inconsistent with the position on slavery held by Lincoln in March 1861. To whit, that he merely wanted to prevent the institution from expanding, and even if he had opposed the amendment he still had a duty as head of the executive branch to forward it to the states for consideration.
In any case, the letters forwarding the Corwin Amendment, and the controversy that emerged when they resurfaced, are a useful reminder of where Lincoln stood on emancipation early in his first term as president. However much Lincoln found slavery personally distasteful and saw its long-term survival as inconsistent with American ideals, he was willing to continue tolerating the institution where it already existed and was not going to obstruct a constitutional amendment that might tie the federal government’s hands about slavery. Which is not to say Lincoln was enthusiastic about the Corwin amendment and neither was the nation. It was only ratified in three states (arguably two) and never came close to entering the U.S. Constitution. It would take a bloody Civil War to achieve a just resolution of the slavery controversy, even as in March 1861 some people must have hoped but not have been enthuiastic that the Corwin Amendment would settle the matter.
Civil War Emancipation 
While the view that the Constitution affirmatively endorsed slavery was very much in the minority outside the slave states, I don’t think there was much dispute that, at the minimum, the original constitution tolerated the continued presence of slavery in those states where it already existed at the time of the Constitutional Convention and left the issue of whether or not to end slavery to each state. Individual states had already ended or begun the process of ending slavery before the Constitutional Convention. The Corwin Amendment essentially made this explicit. It also appears to be an attempt to assuage slave state fears that, as more free states joined the Union, there would eventually be enough to amend the Constitution to end slavery nationally. If indeed, all the South wanted was to be left alone, the Corwin amendment addressed that. The flat rejection of it by the states that had or were about to join the rebellion puts the lie to the “just wanted to be left alone” claim. For good or ill, the time for the Corwin Amendment, if it ever existed, had passed before it even was submitted to the states.
The (first version of the) Thirteenth Amendment, signed by Lincoln, was the only amendment ever signed by a president. It was soon passed by Lincoln’s home state of Illinois and guaranteed the legality of slavery in the South in perpetuity.
Hi Charles. Lincoln forwarded the Corwin Amendment (as the 1861 version of the 13th amendment is commonly known) to the states, as was his constitutional duty. However, I don’t think he ever signed it. Abraham Lincoln definitely signed the later 13th amendment, ending slavery, before forwarding it to the states, even though it did not require his signature. I think that says a lot about Lincoln’s true feelings concerning slavery.
Don Shaffer
Donald,
He didn’t just forward the Corwin Amendment to the states – the idea was his from the very beginning. He explicity supported it in his first inaugural address, “”I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service.” Then, while “holding such a provision to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
His true feelings toward slavery were apathetic. His solution to slavery was to forcibly deport slaves to Africa – he sat on committees for years in this very cause. If emancipation were his true goal, then why did he not fight against slavery in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland – or in New Jersey. All he cared about was power – and using that power to enrich himself. His entire political career was in his own words, “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank … in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.”
It was not slavery, but the tarriff and corporatism that drove the rich railroad lawyer into politics.
Mike, you hit the nail on the head. The other lie we live with in the south is that the south started the war, we were drawn into the first shot but we didn’t start the conflict that caused the first shot. More can be learned through the “Sons of Confederate Veterans”
Keith, for what reasons do you disagree with the scholars — Freehling, McPherson, etc. – who say the South started the war? Or, are you just a Neo-Confederate (and thus do not worry about reasons)?
Martin
Martin, many people disagree with said scholars because many people, like a. Lincoln, say they are wrong. There are many records which recount how Lincoln and his higher ups discuss how to get the south to fire the first shot and thus look like the bad guy. all people including historians have a point of view and often an agenda. they promote facts which support their point of view and downplay facts which do not. Im sure there are many records saying the south was wrong, I can show just as many saying the north was. my problem with your post is since you disagree with Keith you have to add the last sentence as an attempted insult. It is best to refrain from such statements as it makes your earlier statements look petty and insecure.
greg
“Sons of Confederate Veterans” is simply an extension of the Lost Cause crusade created by Southerns who were attempting to re-write the history of the Civil War after it ended. Much of the history about the Civil War has been altered by their attempts to change history and make the South seem less at fault. The South did start the Civil War, they were the ones who left the Union, which is the actual cause behind the war. Regardless of who shot first, it was their unconstitutional secession from the Union that is the ultimate cause of the Civil War…and yes Lincoln did support the ideas of others about creating colonies outside the U.S. to send former slaves. However, these were not his original ideas about what to do regarding slavery, they were merely ideas he adopted along the way, same as his proposal for the Corwin Amendment, and same as his support for the final version of the 13th amendment. Unfortunately the “lies the South has to live with” are fewer than the lies the rest of the country is forced to believe because of Southerners changing the facts of the war after it ended.