We've established that Duncan Kenner went to Europe in 1865 authorized by Davis to promise that the CSA would abolish slavery in exchange for recognition from Britain and France. I pointed out that this wasn't Davis's idea, that Davis rejected the plan when it was first suggested to him, that he didn't involve the Confederate Congress, and that he waited until near the end of the war to agree to the plan and put it into effect.
You claim that it was Davis idea and that Davis had supported emancipation for some time. You have to either offer proof for that or stop saying it. And you haven't done so. Can we agree that you should stop saying it? I think you latch onto half-truths, see part is true, and don't bother to find out if the rest is true. But just because there's a fact in there somewhere doesn't mean the whole thing is true.
[Lincoln] never recanted or changed his position on the fugitive slave laws.
Of course he did. That was what the Emancipation Proclamation was about. If that's not enough, Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Act on June 28, 1864, presumably with Lincoln's approval and signature.
There were some who supported secession based on the economics alone.
You must have seen the National Parks historian on C-Span 3 this weekend. He said secession was about economics. The economics of slavery. Slaves were worth millions, and slaveowners thought that those millions (and their own lives and well-being) were at risk.
For that time though, the economic interests of the Southern states lay in low tariffs. Being Jeffersonian Democrats they always believed in limited government and balanced budgets. It is no coincidence that that is still the dominant political philosophy in the Southern states today. Southerners have never liked big government.
Even during the New Deal? Not likely. Jeffersonian Democracy had a lot to do with local elites opposing groups that challenged their power.
But back to the point under discussion. Deep South politicians had already been radicalized enough to think that cotton would provide everything they wanted. Politicians in Virginia and Tennessee tended to be more sensible and recognized that the "balanced economy" your source mentioned earlier was the way to go.
It's surprising that you think that Southern politicians were anticipating the end of slavery and thinking of what system of labor control would replace it, but they weren't so far-sighted as to recognize that providing raw materials for foreigners wouldn't serve as a permanent basis for a modern economy. I'm inclined to think that they weren't very farsighted on either issue, however much one wishes they were.
The politicians who campaigned on it lost with very very little support and most of the major papers were not in favor of abolition at all.
Few Americans were in favor of abolition in 1860. But Northerners were as fed with what they saw as gutless surrenders to the South as Southern radicals were with what they understood as capitulations to the Yankees. So there was no guarantee that the Corwin Amendment would have gone through.
Look, 7 states had already left. They wouldn't be ratifying the amendment. It's likely that the US government wouldn't accept those secessions. It would still expect 7 ratifications to put the amendment through, and those amendments weren't coming.
I am really lousy at math, but I think that virtually every one of the remaining states would have to ratify for the amendment to go into effect. Maybe one or two could reject it, but not more than that. It would be different if those 7 states had not left the union or if they were to return to it, but barring that the Corwin Amendment was quite unlikely to be ratified.
Neither they nor the Northern states were fighting over slavery. Both made that quite clear. Revisionists came along after the fact and tried to claim that it was “all about slavery” despite both sides saying it was not.
There is abundant evidence that secession was about slavery. So directly or indirectly, slavery was a factor in causing the war. I haven't seen serious claims that Northerners went to war to free the slaves, though as the war progressed it did free slaves. I wouldn't throw around the term "revisionist" though. That more accurately fits people who try to erase slavery from the history of the war.
The importers of the time were the exporters.
I see that you have been drinking Kool Aid with Diogenes. Bill Gates, Tim Cook, and Bob Iger head companies that bring a lot of dollars from exports to the US. But when you buy a Japanese radio or CD player, you pay the tariff on it yourself.
Keitt said he would support secession on the economic basis alone. He was far from alone in the South in thinking that.
Just because somebody cuts up a quote and puts it on a website designed to make a particular point doesn't mean it corresponds to reality. Laurence Keitt clearly said exactly the opposite of what you claim:
"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860.
Or try this on for size:
Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism."
Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States."
If you come across a website full of half-truths and unsubstantiated claims, it's worthwhile to question some of the claims and look for evidence which supports (or refutes) those claims.
“Of course he did. That was what the Emancipation Proclamation was about. If that’s not enough, Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Act on June 28, 1864, presumably with Lincoln’s approval and signature.”
You make it sound like Lincoln preserved the pretext until there was no longer a need to preserve the pretext.
By June 28, 1864, most of the 600,000 had already been safely buried.