90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Politics

The ‘Ghost Amendment’ That Haunts Lincoln’s Legacy

The Corwin Amendment -- which would have made slavery constitutional and permanent -- reveals a deep flaw in the design of the U.S. Constitution. This undated photo shows a cover letter to the so-called "Ghost Amendment" signed by Abraham Lincoln. (North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources/AP)

Stephen Spielberg’s “Lincoln” could win the Academy Award for Best Picture. I’ve seen it three times, and have enjoyed each viewing more than the last. It is inspiring. It is moving. It is timely. But it tells only one half of the story — the good half — and leaves untold the bad, both about the man who freed the slaves and the Constitution he died defending.

The movie follows Abraham Lincoln, elected president of the United States in November 1860, as he lobbies aggressively and craftily to convince the House of Representatives five years later to amend the United States Constitution to make slavery unconstitutional. The amendment proposed to ban slavery across the land and authorize Congress to enforce the ban against any state that defied it.

The initial 13th Amendment -- also known as the Corwin Amendment -- would have made slavery constitutional and permanent -- and Lincoln supported it. (AP)

The initial 13th Amendment — also known as the Corwin Amendment — would have made slavery constitutional and permanent — and Lincoln supported it. (AP)

“Lincoln” focuses on the struggle to cobble together the constitutionally required two-thirds majority in the House. But there was much more to amending the Constitution. The anti-slavery amendment also needed two-thirds approval in the Senate and three-quarters approval from the states. It is hard to imagine that kind of consensus today on any issue, let alone on a subject that divides the nation as much as slavery did then. Nonetheless the anti-slavery amendment eventually passed and it is now inscribed in the Constitution as the 13th Amendment.

But the 13th Amendment we know now differs substantially from the one first proposed. The initial amendment would have made slavery constitutional and permanent — and Lincoln supported it.

This early version of the 13th Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, was proposed in December 1860 by William Seward, a senator from New York who would later join Lincoln’s cabinet as his first secretary of state.

The Corwin Amendment read as follows:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress 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 was an effort to placate the South and contain secessionist sentiment. It proposed to do three things. First, to protect slavery by giving each state the power to regulate the “domestic institutions” within its borders. This was an enticing carrot for the slave states: stay in the Union and you can keep slavery. Second, to dispossess Congress of the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. And third, to make itself unamendable by providing that “no amendment shall be made to the Constitution” that would undo the Corwin Amendment.

After Seward proposed the Corwin Amendment, then newly-elected President Lincoln defended the states’ right to adopt it. In his first inaugural address Lincoln declared that he had “no objection” to the Corwin Amendment, nor that it be made forever unamendable.

The Corwin Amendment won two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate in early 1861. Ohio was the first state to ratify the amendment, and Maryland and Illinois followed suit, but the onset of the Civil War interrupted the states’ ratification of the amendment. Had it been ratified, however, the Corwin Amendment would have become the 13th Amendment, forever protecting slavery instead of abolishing it. And the Amendment would have passed with the support of the man who later freed the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, orchestrated the constitutional death of slavery, and is by any measure one of history’s greatest leaders.

Although its ratification was disrupted by the Civil War, the Corwin Amendment is not actually dead. To this day, it lies dormant, ready to be ratified by the required number of states.

That the Corwin Amendment was approved in both the House and Senate, and subsequently ratified by some states, reveals a deep flaw in the design of the United States Constitution. Although its ratification was disrupted by the Civil War, the Corwin Amendment is not actually dead. To this day, it lies dormant, ready to be ratified by the required number of states. Its adoption by the House and Senate is now a constitutional fact that cannot be reversed.

Even though it was last approved by a state in 1861, if another 35 states voted today to approve the Corwin Amendment (or perhaps 36, since some dispute Illinois’ ratification vote), there would be a genuine question of constitutional law whether it overruled the current 13th Amendment.

Perhaps this is too far from reality to be taken seriously. But even its theoretical possibility should prompt us to ask difficult questions about the values the United States Constitution expresses by making the Corwin Amendment even the most remote of possibilities.

Between now and the Academy Awards on Sunday, it is likely that I will have watched “Lincoln” a fourth time. It is one of my favorite movies, for both the story and the actors that make it come alive. But what I admire most is how much “Lincoln” teaches us about our 16th president and our history, and how much we have yet to learn about both.

Related:

Tags: Film/TV, History, Race

The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the writer and do not in any way reflect the views of WBUR management or its employees.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    But even its theoretical possibility should prompt us to ask difficult questions about the values the United States Constitution expresses by making the Corwin Amendment even the most remote of possibilities.
    Question the values of the constitution? Thats a scary new trend.

    • Samaritan

      Yeah I didn’t understand that part. Is he suggesting we should take the constitution as a whole less seriously because of some arcane, irrelevant flaw?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        the amendment did not even pass which is evidence the system works.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1068565340 Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

          The South seceded. First, seven States, then after the tyrant called for their fellow States to invade, four more States seceded. Ratification of the Corwin Amendment became a moot issue.

  • Andrew Turner

    The Corwin Amendment as worded would forbid Congress from repealing it, placing it outside the powers of not only Congress but even the States to amend the Constitution. That would have made the amendment effectively above the rest of the Constitution, established as the supreme law of the nation. How could anyone serious about constitutional law have seen this clause as legally defensible?

  • http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php?disp=bloggers citizenkane

    The first part of the Corwin Amendment simply perpetuates the tergiversation on slavery that prevailed at the Constitutional convention, whereas the second part is in such obvious violation of Article V that it’s surprising it was ever taken seriously.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1068565340 Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

      How is that??

  • jefe68

    Giving that the Voting Rights Act is now under attack in Alabama and some other Southern states it’s clear to me that while this kind of Amendment would hardly be enacted today the rights of minorities is still under attack by the same kind of mindset that drafted the vile and inhuman Corwin Amendment,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-alabama-countys-challenge-to-voting-rights-act.html?_r=0

  • Historian56

    Such an timely and interesting article – given the Oscars AND President’s Day. Well done. The movie was wonderful, but it’s fascinating to see how much more there was to the story. The richness and depth of our history is truly mind-boggling and this author managed to take something almost-forgotten and remind us in a fresh and timely way. Bravo.

  • stevefranklin54

    Consider the history of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution which regulates Congressional pay raises. Originally proposed in the 1790s, an insufficient number of states ratified it. But two hundred years later in the 1990s, more states acted on this proposal and it DID achieve ratification.
    Who knows how many other forgotten proposed Amendments are out there waiting to be brought to life?

  • Geoff Dutton

    “Lincoln” is a factually flawed movie, despite its great acting and superb atmospherics. It is upsetting that Richard Alpert is taking it at face value on this page. It’s a Hollywood movie, not an exegesis on the constitution. If commenting on docudramas is how we debate public policies now, it is a sad state to which conducting the affairs of state has devolved.

  • lawstudent

    I didn’t like the movie for the reason that this author suggests–it doesn’t tell the whole story. Not only is the Constitution deeply flawed but so was Lincoln himself. I’m not sure we should fear the Corwin Amendment ever being ratified but it is scary to think that it could be. By the way, the Corwin Amendment is not the only so-called “ghost amendment” in American history. There is also the Child Labor Amendment and the Titles of Nobility Amendment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Woodward/731937958 Jim Woodward

    talk about the dumbing down of america. the author is a constitutional law professor, and don’t know the constitution? the corwin amendment, nor the equal rights amendment, can be ratified now, without the entire procedure beginning again. there is a seven year limit on ratification of a constitutional amendment

    • lawyer2

      Incorrect. The Corwin Amendment did not include a seven-year deadline for ratification.

  • http://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaFlagger Billy Bearden

    Of course the movie didnt dare touch the various subjects like a large group of Union Generals appointed by Lincoln were the failed revolutionaries from Europe in 1848. Or that Lincoln was getting mail from Karl Marx. Or that Lincoln was still shipping blacks back to Africa.

    No, the Emancipation Proclamation didnt free any slaves, it was by his own admission a war measure to keep Britain and France from siding with the CSA.

    • Spuddie

      The movie also left out the part showing where the guys who wave the confederate flag around now also like to dress up in women’s clothing and cruise rest stop men’s rooms.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1068565340 Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

    “and leaves untold the bad, both about the man who freed the slaves and the Constitution he died defending.”
    NAW!!! Wrong on both counts!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1068565340 Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

    And more importantly, this alone PROVES that if THE ONLY reason the Southern States seceded was to protect involuntary African servitude, they neednt have so done. They could have repealed their ordinances of secession, rejoined the US, taken part in the ratification process and there might yet still be the institution to this day.

TOP