Replies

Look back at the Dred Scott decision. If blacks were not and could never be citizens, then free or slave they did not deserve representation in Congress. So the South shouldn't have even had the 3/5ths total.

Like I said we agree on this.

And what in the Constitution guaranteed the South the right to control the Northern states, much less be equal to them?

Nothing what so ever, but they had enjoyed the upper hand for a while in compromises, i.e. the 3/5ths of a count clause.

And what prominent Southern Republican was available to run with Lincoln in 1860?

None, or none that I ever heard of prominent or not. But! nothing ever said they had to pick a Republican, they certainly didn't the second time around. National Union, Republican what ever. However we do know that they didn't try, and why? cause they didn't need to. It was all in the math, you could ignore the southern states and still win the Presidency. They no longer mattered.

The Corwin Amendment had a fatal flaw that the South would not have stood for - it protected slavery only where it existed and did not protect the expansion of slavery into the territories. Nor would any amendment protecting the expansion of slavery ever pass out of the House.

We don't know that. As Shelby Foote said, the American Genius was the art of compromise, and this is where both sides failed at this point in history.

So the South did leave,... The confederate constitution....most likely guaranteed that an amendment ending slavery was impossible to pass.

Just like the Corwin Amendentment most likely would have.

Nothing what so ever, but they had enjoyed the upper hand for a while in compromises, i.e. the 3/5ths of a count clause.

Then why didn't the rest of the country threaten to leave I wonder?

We don't know that. As Shelby Foote said, the American Genius was the art of compromise, and this is where both sides failed at this point in history

We do, actually. Look at the fate of the Crittenden Compromise and the Washington Peace Conference. Look at the more outrageous proposals floated by Toombs and Davis and Douglas and Hindman. The first two were compromises that either allowed the expansion of slavery and none went anywhere. Two in the second set were proposals that either allowed the expansion or denied it. They, too, went nowhere though the Corwin amendment most closely resembled Sewards. The Davis, Toombs, and Hindman proposals were surrenders, and never had a chance. In the end none were acceptable to both sides.

Just like the Corwin Amendentment most likely would have.

But the Corwin amendment allowed the government to limit slavery to where it currently existed, and to outlaw its spread to the territories. The confederate constitution guaranteed that slavery would never be limited and that every bit of territory the confederacy acquired would be slave territory. That's the difference between the two, and the difference that the South would not accept.