Restricted Was the Corwin Amendment “Ironclad”

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

GwilymT

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Ultimately I'm not even sure if ironclad is the real issue. Just the fact that the southern states would have believed that it was ironclad or unamendable is the issue...because they were trying to use it to bring them back in and assure them that slavery would be protected, effectively negating an argument that they left due to slavery
Contrarily, it points to slavery being the issue. Why attempt an amendment protecting slavery to keep them in if slavery isn’t the reason they left?

The fact that there was a Corwin Amendment proposed is one of the strongest indicators that secession was about slavery.
 

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Sure it has...its "unamendablity/unrepealablity" was hotly debated in both houses of congress before passing it. I would have to check to see if those that debated it were constitutional scholars or not but it was addressed clearly
It was debated in the formation of the constitution itself as well - coming down squarely on the idea of amendability as a critical component of the Constitution itself. The one and only exception - and there may even be ways around that - was preserving the equal voting power of in the Senate, which was a carryover from the AOC and a critical peg in the smaller states signing on to a fuller Federation.

There were limitations and ways around the Corwin amendment as well, as well as discussions about its constitutionality in legal scholarship, but honestly my reading of it (admittedly a bit dated) was that most considered it undecided, questionable, and a very bad policy generally, which would have been 'worked around' if ever enacted. But, to agree with you, the INENTION of the amendment was clear - a late ditch attempt to avoid open rebellion.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Contrarily, it points to slavery being the issue. Why attempt an amendment protecting slavery to keep them in if slavery isn’t the reason they left?

The fact that there was a Corwin Amendment proposed is one of the strongest indicators that secession was about slavery.
The Republican program was they would prohibit slavery in the territories, eliminate it in DC, and admit more paid labor states. Eventually they slave state Democrats would lose every vote and one by one the states would abolish it on their own.
The Corwin amendment left the interstate slave trade subject to federal interference. Thus there was nothing in the amendment that was a problem for Lincoln or Seward.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Contrarily, it points to slavery being the issue. Why attempt an amendment protecting slavery to keep them in if slavery isn’t the reason they left?
it was not southern democrats that introduced the amendment..it was the north trying to show protection of slavery...if "protection of slavery" was the only issue that forced slavestates out..they wouldnt have left.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
The one and only exception - and there may even be ways around that - was preserving the equal voting power of in the Senate, which was a carryover from the AOC and a critical peg in the smaller states signing on to a fuller Federation.
there were two exceptions...one expired in 1808
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
the point is...they couldnt have before 1808...obviously Article V does not have the power you assign it....as it was restricted....
The point was never any assigned power.

The OP question was is the Corwin Amendment ironclad.

The answer is no.

tTe other topics are just interesting sidelines.
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
it was not southern democrats that introduced the amendment..it was the north trying to show protection of slavery...if "protection of slavery" was the only issue that forced slavestates out..they wouldnt have left.
But they proved they wanted to leave no matter WHAT the North did! Their actions say so. Kind of makes all this "Corwin Amendment" talk pointless, doesn't it.

Kevin Dally
 

AndyHall

Colonel
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
The Corwin Amendment in it's text prohibited another amendment from overturning it. An unamendable amendment is as ironclad as one can get. Agreed?
It’s not unamendable. Any amendment that is passed and ratified, can be overturned subsequently by another amendment that is passed and ratified. No one amendment is more sacrosanct or privileged than any other. See also: Prohibition
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
It’s not unamendable. Any amendment that is passed and ratified, can be overturned subsequently by another amendment that is passed and ratified. No one amendment is More sacrosanct or privileged than any other. See also: Prohibition
Yep, and it goes even further. You could pass an amendment that rescinds all ability to make any amendment unamendable. You then repeal any amendment that once so claimed that right. Checkmate.

(Now I'm not saying such a pattern is without objection, preferred or even advisable. Merely that it could be done).
 

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
It's the only amendment i have ever heard of that if passed would be unamendable.
No part of the Constitution should be invulnerable to later alteration or repeal.

Which raises a logic problem: if the Corwin Amendment had been ratified and a later amendment said no amendments, past or future, can be made ironclad does this override Corwin invulnerability?
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
federal territories turn into states...it would protect "any state"..including future states.
What's the point, though. They weren't states at the time. They were Federal Territories and the Lincoln administration and the Corwin amendment would have not protected slavery in those places. With slavery being prohibited to begin with, why would residents want their territory to become a slave state?

At least, the governor of South Carolina suspected that the future of slavery would not be safe under the Lincoln administration and his policy of banning slavery in Federal Territories would eventually doom their 'peculiar' institution.

"But if African slavery in the Southern States, be the evil their political combination affirms it to be, the requisitions of an inexorable logic, must lead them to emancipation. If it is right, to preclude or abolish slavery in a territory–why should it be allowed to remain in the States?...In spite of all disclaimers and professions, there can be but one end by the submission by the South, to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be–the emancipation of the slaves of the South."

Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States
December 25, 1860
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
The point was never any assigned power.

The OP question was is the Corwin Amendment ironclad.

The answer is no.

tTe other topics are just interesting sidelines.
the discussion of Article V and what rights were immune to it, directly affects the "ironclad" nature of an amendment designed to be irrevocable. Determining that other rights were immune prove definitively that the answer to the OP is ..yes
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
But they proved they wanted to leave no matter WHAT the North did! Their actions say so. Kind of makes all this "Corwin Amendment" talk pointless, doesn't it.

Kevin Dally
quite the contrary, many falsely attribute "the protection of slavery" as their reason for secession...having an ironclad amendment protecting slavery offered to them ...proves definitively that this was not the case.
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
It’s not unamendable. Any amendment that is passed and ratified, can be overturned subsequently by another amendment that is passed and ratified. No one amendment is more sacrosanct or privileged than any other. See also: Prohibition
again, Article V had restrictions already in place...adding another was well within the power of this amendment or rather the states to do so.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
quite the contrary, many falsely attribute "the protection of slavery" as their reason for secession...having an ironclad amendment protecting slavery offered to them proves definitively that this was not the case.
:bounce:
It WAS for the protection of slavery, they said so time and time again. How many times did they say "slave", "Slavery" and "Peculiar Institution" in their Declarations, as opposed to mentioning "The Corwin Amendment"?
You calling them liars?

Kevin Dally
 

GwilymT

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
quite the contrary, many falsely attribute "the protection of slavery" as their reason for secession...having an ironclad amendment protecting slavery offered to them ...proves definitively that this was not the case.
Among those who “falsely attribute ‘the protection of slavery’ as their reason for secession” are:

The Secession Conventions of South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Mississippi

Countless Fire Eaters

The Vice President of the so called Confederate States

Various delegates to secession conventions in all of the seceding states

The vast majority of scholars and professional historians

And on and on...
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top