[DiogenesLamp]

So tired of hearing the Civil War was not about slavery. Of course it was. And the Democrats, who controlled the South at that time, wanted to keep it in place. Hence the Civil War. It was ALL about slavery.

It was already in place. Lincoln offered to support the Corwin amendment which would have kept it even more firmly in place.

So since Lincoln was saying "If you like your slavery you can keep your slavery.", then how could the fight be over slavery?

Seems to me that the fight had to be over something else, because Lincoln offered protection for slavery before the war even started.

[SamAdams76]

The fight was over the spread of slavery. At that time, the slave states and free states were evenly matched. However, the U.S. was still rapidly growing and adding states. This was the pre-war battlefield. Neither side wanted to lose advantage. The South feared a situation where they were outnumbered by free states so they aggressively looked to bring potential new states into the slavery fold (i.e. "Bleeding Kansas).

It is true that Lincoln expressed no desire to end slavery in the South. I think it was a practical position for him to take at the time. Even many Northerners did not care about slavery in the South, they just didn't want it in their back yards. His main aim was preventing the spread of slavery out west and slowly increasing the political power of free states (over slave states).

[HandyDandy]

Good for you. You’re still evolving, I see. Just earlier today you had stated that the Corwin Amendment would have made slavery permanent and irrevocable in the Union. Seems you’ve softened that a tad and now you say the Corwin Amendment would have “kept it more firmly in place”. Hopefully, by day’s end, you will realize that the Corwin Amendment was all and only about making slavery a States rights issue, and not an issue that Congress or the Feds could have any hand in. That would be real progress on your part.