[DiogenesLamp]

No, it wasn't a lock. Seven of those slave states were already gone and weren't coming back.

We know that in hindsight, but in March of 1861 it was a reasonable possibility. This is why Lincoln wrote to each of those governors informing them of the passage of the Corwin amendment.

It's strange that you are so cynical but take Seward at his word. He was trying to sell the amendment, so of course he made claims for it that exaggerated its strength.

New York controls commercial access for the great lakes states to the sea. I have come to view these states as a sort of cartel, and even their voting patterns show that they simply follow New York's lead most of the time.

With New York the primary beneficiary of the Southern states production, it is inconceivable to me that the state would not do what was most in their financial interest.

It isn't cynicism, it is having faith that humans will pursue their own self interest.

[x]

This is why Lincoln wrote to each of those governors informing them of the passage of the Corwin amendment.

Did any of them change their minds? No. They weren't coming back.

New York controls commercial access for the great lakes states to the sea. I have come to view these states as a sort of cartel, and even their voting patterns show that they simply follow New York's lead most of the time.

Yes, you impose your own notions on the history. And again with the stupid Bush v. Gore map. I could post a dozen maps from US electoral history that show different configurations of states with parties, but don't want to waste time on that.

With New York the primary beneficiary of the Southern states production, it is inconceivable to me that the state would not do what was most in their financial interest.

So when you aren't saying that NYC wanted war with the South, you are saying NYC would do what it took to be the South's bidding.

No consistency. No surprise.