And would have stayed at 16. Nothing in the Corwin amendment allowed slavery to expand regardless of how many states were admitted.
Passing the Corwin amendment meant it would linger until the very last state voluntarily gave it up.
Unlike the Confederate constitution which basically prevented individual states from becoming slave-free and arguable prevented any amendment ending slavery entirely.
Now what was it again they claimed they were fighting over?
The South? Slavery. It's in all the history books.
And as has been pointed out many times, it wasn't going to expand to any significant degree anywhere else anyways.
Sensible people of that era knew slavery would be functionally confined to the areas where it already existed simply because it was not economically plausible to "expand" it to be anywhere else.
Unlike the Confederate constitution which basically prevented individual states from becoming slave-free and arguable prevented any amendment ending slavery entirely.
Which is arguably the same thing the US Constitution did.
Now what was it again they claimed they were fighting over?
The South? Slavery.
Your side keeps saying this, all the while ignoring that they had slavery while they were in the Union.
You never explain why they would be fighting for something they already had. You just keep repeating the mantra that they were.
How again were they fighting for something they already had while in the Union?