the Conservative TAKE
Politics • Culture • News
The Recent Major Pro-Trump and Conservative Rulings
post photo preview

In the past two months (late April to June 2025), the U.S. judicial system has delivered several significant rulings that bolster policies and priorities aligned with President Donald Trump’s agenda or resonate with his conservative base. From curbing judicial overreach to advancing parental rights, religious freedom, and Second Amendment protections, these Supreme Court and federal court decisions reflect the influence of Trump’s judicial appointees and his administration’s focus on executive power, cultural conservatism, and government efficiency. Notably, cases involving LGBTQ+ issues and parental rights have emerged as key battlegrounds, with rulings reinforcing traditional values and state authority. Below is a comprehensive list of major pro-Trump rulings, including those addressing LGBTQ+ policies, parental rights, and other conservative priorities, drawn from recent legal developments.

  1. Trump v. CASA – Nationwide Injunctions (June 27, 2025)

    • Case Description: Challenged nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts blocking Trump’s executive order to restrict automatic birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens or undocumented immigrants.

    • Ruling: In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts lack authority to issue universal (nationwide) injunctions against executive actions, partially staying injunctions from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington district courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, with liberal justices dissenting. The Court allowed the policy to proceed in jurisdictions not tied to named plaintiffs, remanding cases to lower courts to reassess injunction scope.

    • Impact: A major win for Trump, as it limits judicial ability to block his executive actions broadly, empowering policies like the birthright citizenship order and others (e.g., ending funding for sanctuary cities, suspending refugee resettlement, or banning federal funds for gender-affirming care). Trump called it a “monumental victory for the Constitution.”

  2. Mahmoud v. Taylor – LGBTQ+ Books and Parental Rights (June 27, 2025)

    • Case Description: Christian and Muslim parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, sued to opt their children out of public school lessons featuring LGBTQ+-themed storybooks, arguing the lack of an opt-out violated their First Amendment religious freedom rights. The books included titles like Uncle Bobby’s Wedding and Pride Puppy, which the parents claimed promoted transgender ideology or same-sex relationships.

    • Ruling: In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials cannot require children to participate in lessons with materials conflicting with their parents’ religious beliefs. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, including images from the books in an appendix, emphasizing their content for young readers. Liberal justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, warning of “chaos” for public schools.

    • Impact: A significant victory for parental rights and religious freedom, aligning with Trump’s campaign promises to restore parental control over education. The ruling supports conservative efforts to limit exposure to LGBTQ+ content in schools and may lead to broader opt-out demands for other curricula (e.g., evolution or sex education). Trump celebrated it as a “tremendous victory for parents.”

  3. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton – Texas Age-Verification Law (June 27, 2025)

    • Case Description: The Free Speech Coalition challenged a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing online pornography, arguing it violated adult free speech rights.

    • Ruling: In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the law, applying intermediate scrutiny and affirming the state’s interest in protecting minors.

    • Impact: While not directly tied to Trump’s administration, this ruling supports conservative social policies often endorsed by Trump’s base, reinforcing state-level restrictions on content deemed inappropriate for minors, which aligns with broader anti-LGBTQ+ and family-values rhetoric.

  4. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services – Reverse Discrimination (June 5, 2025)

    • Case Description: A straight Ohio woman sued her employer, alleging her gay boss denied her a promotion due to her sexual orientation, challenging a requirement for majority-group plaintiffs to provide extra evidence of discrimination (e.g., statistical patterns).

    • Ruling: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects majority groups (e.g., straight, white, or male individuals) equally, eliminating the “background circumstances” requirement. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring.

    • Impact: A conservative win that aligns with Trump’s critiques of DEI programs, making it easier for majority-group members to file discrimination lawsuits. This could challenge workplace policies perceived as favoring LGBTQ+ or minority groups.

  5. Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico – Gun Rights (June 5, 2025)

    • Case Description: Mexico sued Smith & Wesson, seeking damages for cartel violence linked to trafficked firearms, claiming the company was liable.

    • Ruling: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), shielding gun manufacturers from liability for crimes involving legally sold firearms unless specific laws were violated. Justice Elena Kagan authored the opinion.

    • Impact: A major victory for gun rights advocates, a key Trump constituency, reinforcing Second Amendment protections and limiting foreign legal challenges to U.S. gun manufacturers.

  6. Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin – Religious Freedom (June 5, 2025)

    • Case Description: Wisconsin denied Catholic Charities an unemployment compensation tax exemption, arguing it didn’t perform traditional religious functions (e.g., sacraments).

    • Ruling: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the exemption applies to all factions of a religious entity, not just those performing traditional religious duties. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion.

    • Impact: A win for religious freedom, aligning with Trump-era priorities to protect religious organizations’ participation in public programs, which often intersects with conservative stances on social issues like LGBTQ+ rights.

  7. United States v. Skrmetti – Tennessee Gender-Affirming Care Ban (June 18, 2025)

    • Case Description: Parents and advocacy groups challenged Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care (e.g., puberty blockers, hormone therapy) for minors, arguing it violated equal protection and parental rights.

    • Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban in a 6–3 decision, finding the state had a legitimate interest in protecting minors from irreversible medical procedures. The ruling rejected claims that the ban discriminated based on sex or infringed on parental rights.

    • Impact: A major win for conservative policies restricting transgender healthcare, aligning with Trump’s agenda to limit gender-affirming care (e.g., his executive actions against federal funding for such procedures). Critics, including dissenting justices, argued it undermines parental rights, but the ruling supports state-level bans favored by Trump’s base.

  8. J.G.G. v. Trump – Alien Enemies Act Deportations (April 7, 2025)

    • Case Description: The Trump administration used the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, alleged gang members, to third countries like El Salvador.

    • Ruling: On April 7, the Supreme Court temporarily lifted temporary restraining orders (TROs) blocking these deportations, allowing them to proceed, but remanded the case to lower courts to address habeas corpus jurisdiction issues.

    • Impact: A temporary win for Trump’s aggressive deportation policies, though a later D.C. district court ruling (June 4, 2025) required due process for detainees, slightly limiting implementation.

  9. Social Security Administration Case – DOGE Access (June 6, 2025)

    • Case Description: The Trump administration sought to grant the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security records to streamline federal operations.

    • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security Administration could provide DOGE access to records, overruling a discovery order requiring internal communications to be disclosed.

    • Impact: Supports Trump’s government efficiency agenda through DOGE, aligning with his goal to reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, though details remain limited due to sparse primary-source confirmation.

Federal Courts & Appeals – Major Pro-Trump Rulings

  1. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump – Tariffs (May 28, 2025)

    • Case Description: Lawsuits challenged Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), arguing they exceeded presidential authority.

    • Ruling: The U.S. Court of International Trade initially struck down the tariffs, but on May 28, a federal appeals court granted a temporary pause on the injunction pending appeal, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect temporarily.

    • Impact: A partial win for Trump, preserving his tariff policy for now, though the case may escalate to the Supreme Court.

Summary Table

Court & Case

Date

Ruling Summary

Impact

SCOTUS – Trump v. CASA

June 27, 2025

Curbed nationwide injunctions, allowing Trump’s birthright citizenship order in some jurisdictions

Empowers executive actions, limits judicial overreach

SCOTUS – Mahmoud v. Taylor

June 27, 2025

Parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ+-themed lessons due to religious beliefs

Win for parental rights and religious freedom, aligns with Trump’s education agenda

SCOTUS – Free Speech v. Paxton

June 27, 2025

Upheld Texas age-verification law for online content

Supports conservative social policies

SCOTUS – Ames v. Ohio

June 5, 2025

Removed “background circumstances” burden for majority-group discrimination claims

Levels anti-discrimination law, challenges DEI frameworks

SCOTUS – Smith & Wesson v. Mexico

June 5, 2025

Upheld PLCAA, shielding gun manufacturers

Major win for Second Amendment advocates

SCOTUS – Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin

June 5, 2025

Upheld tax exemptions for religious charities

Expands religious freedom protections

SCOTUS – United States v. Skrmetti

June 18, 2025

Upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors

Supports conservative restrictions on transgender healthcare

SCOTUS – J.G.G. v. Trump

April 7, 2025

Lifted TROs, allowing Alien Enemies Act deportations

Supports Trump’s deportation agenda

SCOTUS – Social Security/DOGE

June 6, 2025

Allowed DOGE access to Social Security records

Advances Trump’s efficiency agenda

Court of Int’l Trade/Appeals – V.O.S. Selections v. Trump

May 28, 2025

Paused injunction against Trump’s tariffs

Preserves tariff policy pending appeal


Key Takeaways

  • LGBTQ+ and Parental Rights: The Mahmoud v. Taylor and United States v. Skrmetti rulings are direct wins for conservative policies limiting LGBTQ+ content in schools and restricting gender-affirming care, aligning with Trump’s campaign promises to prioritize parental rights and traditional values. These decisions reflect the influence of his appointed justices (e.g., Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch) in the 6–3 conservative majority.

  • Executive Power: Trump v. CASA strengthens Trump’s ability to implement controversial policies (e.g., birthright citizenship, sanctuary city funding cuts, transgender care bans) by curbing nationwide injunctions, a tool often used to block his agenda.

  • Cultural Conservatism: Rulings like Free Speech v. Paxton and Catholic Charities bolster conservative social priorities, resonating with Trump’s base on issues like family values and religious liberty.

  • Civil Rights and Guns: Ames and Smith & Wesson support conservative critiques of DEI and Second Amendment protections, key Trump priorities.

  • Immigration and Efficiency: J.G.G. v. Trump and the Social Security/DOGE case (though less documented) advance Trump’s immigration and government streamlining goals.

     

In the end...

These rulings from late April to June 2025 underscore the significant influence of Trump’s judicial appointees and his administration’s priorities in shaping legal outcomes. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has delivered key victories in limiting judicial overreach (Trump v. CASA), protecting parental rights and religious freedom (Mahmoud v. Taylor, Catholic Charities), restricting LGBTQ+ policies (United States v. Skrmetti), and upholding gun rights (Smith & Wesson). Federal courts have offered mixed but notable support, particularly on tariffs. Together, these decisions bolster Trump’s agenda on immigration, cultural conservatism, and government efficiency, while fueling debates over parental rights and LGBTQ+ issues in schools and healthcare.


Notes

  • LGBTQ+ Context: The Mahmoud v. Taylor ruling directly addresses parental rights to opt out of LGBTQ+-themed education, a flashpoint in conservative culture wars. United States v. Skrmetti reinforces state-level restrictions on transgender care, consistent with Trump’s executive actions against federal funding for such procedures. These align with sentiments expressed in X posts celebrating religious liberty and parental control.

  • Parental Rights: The Mahmoud ruling is seen as a “huge win” for religious liberty and parental rights, though critics warn it could disrupt public education by enabling broader opt-outs.

  • DOGE Case: Included based on an X post, but limited primary-source confirmation suggests caution in assessing its scope.

  • Lower Court Activity: Few federal court rulings in this period were outright pro-Trump, as many (e.g., tariff and deportation challenges) faced initial blocks, though appeals like V.O.S. Selections provided temporary relief.

community logo
Join the the Conservative TAKE Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1906302926571618409

By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...

00:00:46
00:01:20
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3

00:00 Introduction
02:03 Week 13 review
04:56 Our Current Education System
05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country
09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America
10:44 The Foundation of Law
12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence?
13:52 Benjamin Rush
15:44 What is Patriotism?
18:34 Summary of Workbook

00:25:36

Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of people are grifting off Charlie Kirk’s memory for clicks. I’m not saying everyone, and shoot, I could probably be accused of the same thing. Fair point. My team is waiting for at least the funeral before putting out a full load of content... but the former just doesn’t feel right. Full disclosure: I did a one-hour livestream that night and was a guest on another show a few days later, but that’s about it.

I truly appreciate the sincere takes from people who’ve had the courage to speak. So all I’m really asking for is discernment and tastefulness, at least until after the funeral. But that’s just me, and just my opinion.

What I do know is this: The Left is already spinning (and distracting away from) this. I submit that are trying desperately to ease their guilt, undermine Charlie’s vision, and divide MAGA. They are trying to save their (soon to be out of power for the foreseeable future) Democrat Party.

The real takeaway is...

🧨 The Deep State’s Attempt to Spin Damning Declassified Evidence

As declassified documents continue to expose what appears to be a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, the Deep State and their media allies are in full damage-control mode.

Case in point: Fox News just featured an op-ed by former CIA officer and Biden State Department spokesman Ned Price, attempting to “debunk” the bombshells released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Make no bones about it, this isn’t an objective counterpoint. This is a narrative-management operation by a career Deep State insider.

🕵️‍♂️ Here’s What They’re Trying to Sell You:
That Obama couldn’t have led a coup because… he congratulated Trump after the election. (Yes, seriously.)

That Gabbard is using “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms, even though her claims are backed by declassified U.S. intelligence.

That the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was sound , even though multiple internal reviews, the Durham Report, and Senate oversight found evidence it was politicized.

That the ...

post photo preview
Why Subpoena Them If They’ll Plead the Fifth? Because It’s Protocol for Prosecution.

Here is what many do not understand. I get the frustration but there is a method to the madness. Let me explain.

Subpoenaing Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and others over the RussiaGate scandal (even if they ultimately plead the Fifth) is not just a procedural move; it’s a necessary step in any serious pursuit of justice and public accountability.

🔹 Why Subpoena Them?

1. Establish the Record:

You must formally bring these individuals under oath to compel their testimony. Whether they answer or invoke the Fifth, the act of subpoenaing is essential to build the official record and demonstrate due diligence in investigating the alleged conspiracy.

2. Indictment Requires Precedent:

Before a prosecutor can credibly seek an indictment (especially against former high-level officials) there must be an evidentiary trail. That includes prior sworn testimony or refusal to testify. Subpoenaing them is a legal and political prerequisite to indictments.

3. Public Opinion Matters:

...

post photo preview
Lafayette: The Fire and the Fog

Act 1: Foundations and Fault Lines

In a quiet chateau nestled in the green hills of Auvergne, a boy was born into a name older than most nations. Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier—known simply as Gilbert to those who loved him—would grow to be one of history’s most celebrated revolutionaries. But from the very start, Lafayette's world was one of contradictions.

He was born into nobility, yet surrounded by stories of poverty and loss. His father, a decorated grenadier, was killed by a British cannonball before Lafayette ever saw his face. His mother, devastated by grief, fled to Paris, leaving young Gilbert to be raised by his stern but kind grandmother in the countryside. She taught him duty, discipline, and stories of battlefield glory. Under the watchful eyes of abbés and aristocrats, Lafayette soaked in the values of the French Enlightenment. Reason, liberty, the rights of man—these became the drumbeat of his youth.

But knowledge alone doesn’t make a man wise.

From the halls of Paris to the salons of Versailles, Lafayette learned to charm and maneuver. He married Adrienne de Noailles, a fourteen-year-old girl from one of France’s most powerful families. At sixteen, Lafayette was rich, married, and well on his way to joining the king’s elite guard. But behind the courtly elegance, something restless stirred in his heart. He longed for purpose—glory, as he called it. The kind that would echo through time.

So when whispers of rebellion across the Atlantic reached his ears, he was enthralled. America, a land fighting for liberty against the British—the very empire that had taken his father—became an obsession. Even when King Louis XVI forbade it, Lafayette defied him, sneaking across the sea to join George Washington’s struggling army.

From a worldly point of view, it was heroic. A young man leaving behind wealth, a pregnant wife, and privilege to fight for strangers. But beneath the idealism, there was a flaw—a subtle one, but dangerous.

Lafayette believed that man could save himself.

Through reason. Through revolution. Through liberty unanchored from any higher truth.

He didn’t yet understand what the Bible makes clear: that the heart of man is “deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), and that liberty without virtue is just another form of chaos. Lafayette loved the idea of freedom, but he lacked a framework that could keep that freedom from becoming an idol. He was, in many ways, a knight in search of a cause—but without a compass pointing to God's moral order.

While Lafayette crossed the Atlantic in search of glory, Adrienne was left behind in Paris, pregnant and alone. She received glowing letters—tales of cannons and courage—but little concern for her own trials. She had married a boy still chasing the ghost of a father he barely knew.

In America, Lafayette was welcomed… reluctantly. The Continental Congress had seen too many glory-seeking Europeans hoping to play general. At first, they dismissed him. But when Lafayette offered to serve without pay, and when they read letters of praise from Benjamin Franklin, they reconsidered. Lafayette was given the honorary title of major-general—though he would command no troops.

He met George Washington soon after, and an unexpected friendship blossomed. Washington, a man of discipline and restraint, took the fiery Frenchman under his wing. Lafayette found in Washington a father figure, and in the American cause, a sense of belonging.

But even as Lafayette fought bravely in battle—earning respect and even suffering wounds—he never stopped chasing applause. And back in France, Adrienne suffered silently, raising children alone, enduring gossip about Lafayette’s rumored mistresses, and using her influence to protect his reputation.

She loved him. He often forgot to love her in return.

The story of Lafayette was already being written in two parallel threads: the public hero, adored on two continents, and the private man, blind to the cost others paid for his ambitions.

Even his noblest efforts—his fight for liberty, his calls to end slavery, his dreams of global reform—were built on a foundation that was subtly cracked.

He believed, as many Enlightenment thinkers did, that humanity was basically good, that progress was inevitable, and that the right ideas could fix the world.

But history—and Scripture—tell a different story.

"Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127:1)

Lafayette’s foundation was bold. But it wasn’t biblical.

And the storm was coming.

Let me know if you're ready for Act 2: Fallout and Fractures. It will dive into the French Revolution, betrayal from both sides, Adrienne’s suffering, and the unraveling of Lafayette’s ideals.


Act 2: Fallout and Fractures


The smell of smoke lingered in the Paris air. The Bastille had fallen. The people roared. The king trembled. And in the center of it all stood Lafayette—beloved by some, cursed by others, and no longer sure who he truly was.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
Slavery, Union, and Constitutional Compromise: A Study of the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment (1860–1861)

Abstract

This article explores two major political proposals advanced in the final months before the American Civil War: the Crittenden Compromise (1860) and the Corwin Amendment (1861). Both efforts sought to preserve the Union through constitutional concessions on slavery. We examine their content, motivations, political support and opposition, and how they reflected  (and ultimately failed to resolve) the irreconcilable tensions between North and South. Special attention is given to the evolving role of President-elect and later President Abraham Lincoln, whose principled opposition to slavery’s expansion shaped Republican resistance to compromise efforts. The article situates these proposals within a broader constitutional framework of federalism, natural rights, and the limits of amendment power.

I. Introduction

In the months following Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860, the United States faced an unprecedented crisis. Southern states began seceding from the Union, fearing that a Republican administration would restrict or abolish slavery. As secessionist sentiment grew, Congress and national leaders proposed several last-ditch efforts to avoid civil war through constitutional compromise. Among the most notable were the Crittenden Compromise, introduced in December 1860, and the Corwin Amendment, proposed in early 1861. Though differing in scope and content, both proposals reflect the extent to which the federal government was willing to entrench slavery in constitutional law in hopes of maintaining Union.

II. The Crittenden Compromise

A. Background and Purpose

On December 18, 1860, Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky introduced a series of six proposed constitutional amendments and four congressional resolutions, collectively known as the Crittenden Compromise. Crittenden, a member of the Constitutional Union Party, sought to calm Southern fears and avert secession by providing federal guarantees for slavery.

B. Main Provisions

The core elements of the compromise included:

  • A constitutional amendment reinstating the Missouri Compromise line (36°30′ N latitude), permanently prohibiting slavery north of the line and guaranteeing it south of the line in current and future U.S. territories (U.S. Senate Journal, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1860).

  • A prohibition on Congress interfering with slavery in states where it already existed.

  • A federal guarantee for enforcement of fugitive slave laws.

  • A requirement that future constitutional amendments could not abolish or interfere with slavery in slaveholding states.

C. Reception and Defeat

The Crittenden Compromise was broadly supported by Southern politicians and some Northern moderates, but strongly opposed by Republicans, including Lincoln, who rejected any compromise that would allow the expansion of slavery into new territories. Through backchannels and private correspondence, Lincoln discouraged Republican senators from supporting the proposal (Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4, p. 152).

The compromise ultimately failed in committee in January 1861, and its defeat accelerated Southern secession.

III. The Corwin Amendment

A. Introduction and Legislative History

In the aftermath of the Crittenden proposal’s failure and with several states having already seceded, Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced a new constitutional amendment intended to reassure the South. The Corwin Amendment passed the House on February 28, 1861, and the Senate on March 2, 1861, just days before Lincoln’s inauguration.

The proposed text read:

“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.”
— Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1861)

B. Purpose and Scope

Unlike the Crittenden Compromise, which addressed slavery in territories, the Corwin Amendment focused exclusively on preserving slavery in existing states, permanently prohibiting Congress or any future constitutional amendment from interfering with state domestic institutions, including slavery.

It was a more limited proposal, intended as a symbolic assurance to slave states that the federal government would not abolish slavery where it existed, even under future administrations.

C. Lincoln’s Position

Though a longtime opponent of slavery’s expansion, Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861:

“I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
— Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (1861)

Lincoln directed Secretary of State William Seward to send the amendment to the states for ratification. Some states, including Ohio and Maryland, ratified it, but the amendment never achieved the necessary approval from three-fourths of the states, especially as war broke out shortly after.

IV. Comparative Analysis

FeatureCrittenden CompromiseCorwin Amendment
ProposedDec 1860Feb–Mar 1861
ProposerSen. John Crittenden (KY)Rep. Thomas Corwin (OH)
Key ObjectiveAllow slavery south of 36°30′ in territoriesConstitutionally prohibit federal interference with slavery in states
Lincoln’s ViewOpposedSupported (as peace gesture)
StatusRejected in committeePassed Congress; unratified
Amendment NatureMultiple amendments and resolutionsSingle proposed amendment
Historical ResultFailed to prevent secessionSuperseded by Civil War and 13th Amendment


V. Constitutional and Originalist Considerations

A. Federalism and State Sovereignty

The Corwin Amendment affirmed the federalist structure of the Constitution, where states retained authority over domestic institutions, including slavery. Its logic aligned with the Madisonian view that powers not delegated to the federal government remained with the states (see Federalist No. 45).

B. Limits on Constitutional Amendment Power

The Corwin Amendment attempted to shield certain subjects from future amendment. Although Article V allows for limitations (as with the equal suffrage of states in the Senate), many legal scholars debate whether any constitutional amendment can permanently bar future amendments. This raises complex issues about constitutional entrenchment.

C. Slavery and the Founding Vision

The Crittenden and Corwin proposals represent divergent paths in response to a growing national crisis. While the Founding generation accepted slavery as a temporary evil (e.g., Madison at the Constitutional Convention), these 1860–1861 efforts reflect a move to permanently constitutionalize an institution many of the founders viewed as incompatible with natural rights.

VI. Conclusion

Both the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment reveal the lengths to which American politicians were willing to go to preserve the Union through accommodation of slavery. However, their failure also underscores the irreconcilability of a republic founded on liberty with a system built on bondage. Abraham Lincoln’s careful balancing act was opposing slavery’s expansion while tolerating its existence where entrenched, framed the constitutional limits of compromise.

With the firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the era of compromise ended. The actual 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, would abolish slavery entirely,  reversing the direction of both earlier proposals and reaffirming the Declaration’s principle that all men are created equal.

Sources

Read full Article
The Prophet of Progress: Woodrow Wilson's Road to Power and Ruin

Act I: Foundations and Fault Lines


Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 into a deeply religious Southern Presbyterian family. His father, Joseph Ruggles Wilson, was a respected minister and educator. His mother, Janet—called Jessie—was a devoted Scottish churchwoman. From the outside, the Wilson home seemed soaked in Scripture and tradition, but beneath the surface, a different foundation was quietly forming.

As a boy, “Tommy” Wilson was clever but struggled to read until age twelve—what today might be considered dyslexia. Still, he grew to admire ideas and institutions more than people. Though he spent his childhood in the Confederate South during the Civil War, the conflict seemed to leave little mark on him emotionally. His loyalties remained Southern, though, and he absorbed the white supremacist thinking that had gripped post-war Democratic circles.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals