The fallacy of the Corwin Amendment

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Riffing off discussion in a closed thread.....


The Corwin amendment is often brought forth with the claim that it would resolve the slavery issues that were causing conflict in 1860-1861. The amendment could have restricted future amendments giving additional power to Congress and thus kept Congress from messing with slavery. The fallacy with this argument is that there was enough concern about the power Congress and the President already had that focusing on some theoretical-not-yet-granted-power is irrelevant.

Look at some of the secession declarations.

South Carolina was concerned that "On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States" http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Texas was concerned "they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States."
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

These are not concerns about some possible power Congress might get if there was an amendment in the future; these are concerns about what the Republicans might do now with the existing set of powers.
 
Back
Top