Restricted Was the Corwin Amendment “Ironclad”

Joined
Jun 16, 2016
The Corwin amendment most certainly was unamendable in that it would have, if ratified, forbade the federal government from ever abolishing slavery, even via another constitutional amendment:

"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.”

Just a reminder that the Corwin Amendment covered Congress ... not the whole federal government, or the state-initiated process of constitutional amendment.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Just a reminder that the Corwin Amendment covered Congress ... not the whole federal government, or the state-initiated process of constitutional amendment.
Im going to disagree with you -- it covered amendments without saying which process was used to initiate said amendment, so a state initiated amendment that gave Congress a new authority or power over "domestic institutions" would also be forbidden
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Im going to disagree with you -- it covered amendments without saying which process was used to initiate said amendment, so a state initiated amendment that gave Congress a new authority or power over "domestic institutions" would also be forbidden

What if the state initiated amendment simply repealed the Corwin Amendment?
 

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
What if the state initiated amendment simply repealed the Corwin Amendment?

The very concept of an Entrenched Clause in constitutional (small 'c') studies produces vigorous debate and opinons among national and international scholars. There's considerable doubt that any section of our Constitution (capital 'C') is truly 'unamendable'.
So in addition to the several methods of ending Corwin already detailed elsewhere in this thread, the very concept is in question as well...and was questioned even at the time.

It certainly was not ironclad. Those who want to pretend it was … well … let's be nice.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Lincoln and practically all Republicans including the Radicals believed Slavery was a States’s Right. This is the reason they agreed to the Admendment. It gave the South nothing that it didn’t already have. It was the thought of the day. Could have changed, at some point. Politicians always do that.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2016
Im going to disagree with you -- it covered amendments without saying which process was used to initiate said amendment, so a state initiated amendment that gave Congress a new authority or power over "domestic institutions" would also be forbidden

Reread what I said. There are other branches of the federal government aside from Congress, and a state-initiated amendment could abolish slavery without involving Congress, period.
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
What if the state initiated amendment simply repealed the Corwin Amendment?

This would require a 3/4 vote of the states. This means that 12 states could stop any amendment until 1959. There were 15 slave states in 1860 so even if 3 of the slave states became free states then the Corwin Amendment can not be changed until 1959 and if New Mexico came in as a slave state, then even today we would not have enough free states to adopt a new amendment to end slavery. Now if only 2 of the slave states of 1860 became free states, then slavery could still be legal in 2019 as the Corwin Amendment could be blocked by 13 states saying no.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
What if the state initiated amendment simply repealed the Corwin Amendment?
Sure. A Congress initiated amendment could do that too. The Corwin Amendment doesn’t say anything about how an amendment is initiated, it only refers to the content of a future amendment
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
This would require a 3/4 vote of the states. This means that 12 states could stop any amendment until 1959. There were 15 slave states in 1860 so even if 3 of the slave states became free states then the Corwin Amendment can not be changed until 1959 and if New Mexico came in as a slave state, then even today we would not have enough free states to adopt a new amendment to end slavery. Now if only 2 of the slave states of 1860 became free states, then slavery could still be legal in 2019 as the Corwin Amendment could be blocked by 13 states saying no.

Lincoln and the overwhelming majority of Republicans were not Abolitionist. Certainly most Northern Democrats were Pro Slavery. Mid Atlantic and other States didn’t want an influx of Black X Slaves. So, this isn’t fully dependent of the Slave States. The Southern States who had Slaves and remained Union, by no means were Abolitionist. Slavery was Sectional, however Racism was NOT.

Republicans would gain a Political Majority. So the South would of been hog tied. They would of had no influence on National Affairs. This was the Republican Plan. Their Policy was to leave Slavery alone, where it was. Little evidence they would have, or needed to do something differently.

Why socially and economically disrupt the South? Like Lincoln said, pay your Taxes and do whatever you Want.

The Lower South wanted More. If the South had of wanted to just grow Cotton and Sugar for the North. There would of not been any Conflict. Don’t remember the Lower South trying to negotiate about Independence during this period.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
that's a stretch. If most efforts were on one issue that issue would be THE issue....by all metrics.


The issue of protection of Slavery and its expansion, was the major political problem all through the ante-bellum period of American History,, so, Yes, I agree, it was THE issue ...by all metrics.

All issues of Tariffs were settled within the operation and authority of the Constitution and laws .....Slavery was beyond the normal provisions of a peace time Constitution and laws.


P.S. Historically, even the issue of 1830, according to Calhoun and Jackson,, was not tariffs, but, Slavery.
 
Top