I'm not sure how you square the idea of 'free labor' extending for thousands of years when slavery and serfdom where the primary economic foundations of nearly every society and great power until the Enlightenment era
There are societies with free labor, and those with slave labor. There are even slave societies which also incorporate free labor. The point is that you've misconstrued a restatement of labor law appearing in 1877 as retroactively labeling free laborers as "held to labor," a term of art with a very specific meaning that is exclusive of free labor.
Regarding legislative history, without moving this topic into Chat, I think we can all agree that legislative history has little to do with how constitutional amendments are interpreted.
No, we cannot. Legislative history is relied upon heavily by judges in interpreting any law.
The Second Amendment, for example, clearly meant for the right to bear arms to be exercised within the context of militias. The Fourth has been consistently rolled back in its extent, while the Tenth is, arguably, routinely ignored.
I agree that
DC v Heller was wrongly decided for that very reason. You can't just pretend that the words "well-regulated militia" don't appear either.
To say that 'legislative history' would prevent the application of the Corwin Amendment to other state institutions asides from slavery is something of folly, IMHO.
Well, that's your opinion. American courts do not share it.
Further up the thread mrmandias raised the issue of family law, a position I hadn't even thought of (and I'd be interested in hearing more from him on the topic), so its fairly clear the Amendment could be applied to other state institutions.
And I'm equally sure that it would not. The debates in Congress over the amendment, as well as its historical context, make its purpose clear. The courts would not extend it to non-slavery issues any more than the courts have held that conscription violates the 13th's ban on involuntary servitude.