Corwin Amendment

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Corwin Amendment reached its final Senate vote in the pre-dawn hours of the 4th of March 1861, after a debate that ran without a single recess since the 2nd of March. That same day, Abraham Lincoln delivered his first inaugural address and mentioned the amendment, though he admitted he had not yet seen its final wording. The text Congress had just approved never uses the word slavery. Instead, it wraps the same idea in careful legal euphemism. The outgoing 36th Congress had proposed this amendment on the 2nd of March 1861, weeks before the Civil War began. Its sponsors hoped it would prevent that war and hold the Union together. It failed. Only a handful of Northern states and Kentucky ever ratified it. No deadline was ever attached to its ratification process, which leaves open a strange possibility: a state legislature could still adopt this amendment today. Why did Congress spend its final days writing language that avoided naming the institution it was built to protect? Who pushed it through, who signed it, and why did it collapse once the war it was meant to stop actually began?

• 2. The Unspoken Word

  ›

  Its clause reads: 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. That phrasing echoes a much older dodge. Delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 used nearly identical language when they drafted the original Constitution: Person held to Service, the whole Number of free Persons and three fifths of all other Persons, and The Migration and Importation of such Persons. The authors of the Corwin Amendment followed that same example when they wrote their own clause. The choice was deliberate, not accidental. That language would still need to survive two congressional committees, several rounds of votes, and endorsements from two presidents before the war started anyway.

• 3. A Congress Under Pressure

  ›

  Southern states had already begun seceding after the 1860 election, eventually forming the Confederate States of America. The second session of the 36th Congress convened that December, facing a deepening crisis. The Senate answered by forming a Committee of Thirteen. The House matched it with a Committee of Thirty-three, both charged with finding a way through the crisis. Together, Congress fielded more than 200 resolutions touching slavery, 57 of which proposed outright constitutional amendments. Most of these were compromises meant to avert a military conflict. Senator Jefferson Davis put forward one that explicitly protected property rights in enslaved people. A group of House members went further still. They proposed a national convention meant to accomplish secession as what they called a dignified, peaceful, and fair separation. That convention would also settle the division of federal assets and rights to navigate the Mississippi River. Senator John J. Crittenden offered the broadest compromise of all: six constitutional amendments paired with four congressional resolutions. Congress tabled the entire package on the 31st of December. Weeks later, that same House committee tried again, with language built around a single institution it never named.

• 4. The Vote

  ›

  On the 14th of January 1861, the House committee submitted a plan to protect slavery, enforce the fugitive slave laws, and repeal state personal liberty laws. Its draft language read: no amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as 'all other persons', shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union. While the House debated that language for weeks, six more states left the Union: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. All six joined South Carolina in secession. The floor debate produced one sharp exchange. Owen Lovejoy, an abolitionist Republican from Illinois, interjected: "Does that include polygamy, the other twin relic of barbarism?" Missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered: "Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime?" On the 26th of February, Thomas Corwin put forward his own substitute text. Corwin and Senator William H. Seward, both Republicans and allies of President-elect Lincoln, were the amendment's chief sponsors. Corwin's substitute was not adopted that day. The next day, the House voted 123-71 for the original resolution, short of the two-thirds it needed. On the 28th of February, the House returned to Corwin's version, now House Joint Resolution No. 80, and passed it 133-65, just clearing the two-thirds threshold. The Senate then passed it too, 24-12, exactly the two-thirds required. Congress sent the amendment to state legislatures rather than to state ratifying conventions. Southern conventions were, at that very moment, voting to secede. Legislatures seemed the friendlier ground. It was, in fact, the second time Congress had proposed a Thirteenth Amendment. The first, the Titles of Nobility Amendment of 1810, had failed just as completely. The amendment now needed only the states, and two presidents were about to weigh in before a single legislature voted.

• 5. Presidential Responses

  ›

  James Buchanan, the outgoing president, signed the joint resolution himself, an unprecedented step for any president facing a constitutional amendment. His signature carried no legal weight. The Constitution gives the president no formal role at all in the amendment process, so Buchanan's signature was symbolic rather than necessary. Lincoln, in that same first inaugural address, said he understood the amendment would bar the federal government from ever interfering with "the domestic institutions of the States." That included, in his own phrasing, "persons held to service." He added that he already considered such a provision implied by existing constitutional law. He said he had no objection to seeing it made express and irrevocable. Shortly afterward, with the Civil War just weeks away, Lincoln sent a letter to every state's governor. It transmitted the proposed amendment and noted that Buchanan had already approved it. Lincoln's letter took no position of its own, neither opposing the amendment nor endorsing it. That silence meant the decision now belonged entirely to individual state legislatures, each free to act, or not, on its own timeline.

• 6. Ratification And Rescission

  ›

  Kentucky ratified the Corwin Amendment on the 4th of April 1861, the first state to act. Ohio followed on the 13th of May 1861, then Rhode Island on the 31st of May. Maryland ratified much later, on the 10th of January 1862, and Illinois later still, on the 2nd of June 1863. Three of those ratifications did not survive. Ohio rescinded its approval on the 31st of March 1864. Maryland rescinded its own, on the 7th of April 2014. Illinois rescinded on the 4th of April 2022. One ratification never quite counted. On the 14th of February 1862, an Illinois state constitutional convention purported to ratify the amendment. That was more than a year before the Illinois General Assembly did so properly, in 1863. Because delegates were sitting as convention members rather than as the actual legislature, that vote carried questionable validity. Virginia contributed its own oddity. The Restored Government of Virginia was made up mostly of representatives from what would soon become West Virginia. It voted to approve the amendment on the 13th of February 1862. When West Virginia became its own state in 1863, it did not ratify the amendment at all. A very different ratification attempt surfaced almost a century later, in 1963. Dallas Republican Henry Stollenwerck introduced a joint resolution in the Texas House of Representatives to ratify the amendment. His motive was likely tied to the federal government's push for desegregation at the time. The resolution went to the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments on the 7th of March 1963. It never received further consideration. Congress, meanwhile, had once tried to erase the amendment entirely, nearly a century before Stollenwerck's attempt to revive it.

• 7. The Withdrawal Attempt

  ›

  By 1864, the amendment had fallen out of favor, and the war's momentum had shifted toward the Union. On the 8th of February that year, during the 38th Congress, Republican Senator Henry B. Anthony of Rhode Island introduced Senate Joint Resolution No. 25. It aimed to withdraw the Corwin Amendment from further consideration by the state legislatures and halt its ratification process outright. His resolution went to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that same day. On the 11th of May 1864, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, the committee's chairman, won the Senate's permission to discharge the resolution from committee. Nothing further happened to it. The amendment was never formally withdrawn, and it was never fully ratified either. It simply stopped moving, which left an unusual legal question hanging: what might have happened had it gone all the way.

• 8. What If It Had Passed

  ›

  Under a plain meaning reading of its text, the Corwin Amendment would have made slavery immune to the constitutional amendment process. It would also have barred Congress from interfering with it at all. That reading carries a heavy consequence. The Reconstruction Amendments, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth, all interfere with a state's domestic institutions in exactly the way Corwin's text forbids. Under a strict plain-meaning view, none of them could have lawfully followed a ratified Corwin Amendment. A competing legal theory pushes back against that conclusion. It holds that only the entrenched clauses written into the original 1787 Constitution can resist later amendment under the Constitution's own amending formula. Only one such clause is still active today, protecting a state's equal vote in the Senate. Everything else, this theory suggests, remains open to being overridden. A later amendment could explicitly repeal a ratified Corwin Amendment, the way the Twenty-first Amendment explicitly repealed the Eighteenth. Or it could simply be inferred to have superseded or partly undone whatever the Corwin Amendment had put in place. No amendment has ever taken either path against the Corwin Amendment: no explicit repeal like the Twenty-first Amendment's, and no court ruling that inferred one.