I know you believe that, but after having read so many of your worn groove responses that usually don't address the point to which you are responding, I have mostly given up on seeing anything that I would regard as an objective rebuttal.
It's one difference between scholarship & mere propaganda.
Scholarship is acknowledging the Corwin Amendment, and it's significance to the Northern claim that the war was over slavery.
Objectivity is realizing both can't be true.
You and your cohort seem to be the only ones saying it was over slavery. And what you and your friend continue to ignore about the Corwin Amendment is the fact that while it protected slavery where it existed it did not guarantee the expansion of slavery. Having adopted their own constitution which protected slavery far more than the Corwin amendment did, why would the Southern states accept half a loaf?
” Northern claim that the war was over slavery.”
What Northern claim? Everyone knows that the Union fought to preserve the Union in 1861. If we made a drinking game out of it, we’d all be plastered it’s been posted so many times.
Of course, as a certified Lost Causer propagandist (CLCP), you simply cannot acknowledge anything contradicting your own orthodoxy.
Otherwise you'd be decertified, tarred, feathered & run out on a rail, right?