‘Had the South remained in the Union, Slavery would have persisted into the 20th century.’
slight correction; had the South not attempted to extend slavery to the western territories, it might have persisted into the 20th century...
‘Lincoln repeatedly tried to bribe the south into staying by offering them assurances that slavery would be protected.’
I take it you’re referring to the Corwin Amendment, the so-called 13th Amendment; you know, I’m certain, that presidents have no formal role in amendment processes; Buchanan superfluously signed the amendment as his parting shot...asserting that Lincoln introduced this as a bribe is a patent lie; so inform us of the other times he ‘repeatedly’ attempted to do this...
With the 11 states that became the confederacy, it would require a Union of 44 states to override their opposition. (Not possible until 1896.)
1896, huh...? I’m also sure you know the Amendment formally abolishing slavery was ratified in 1865, by 27 states, including 6 of those 11 seceding states...and btw, how do you arrive at the number of 44 needed Union states...?
I have looked at this issue, and the way it has been sold to us does not actually make any sense when you focus on the details. We have been told over and over again that the South wanted slavery in the Western territories, and that it was imperative that this not be allowed.
Looking at the Western Territories, Cotton won't grow at latitudes higher than Kansas, so the number one cash crop for slavery is pretty much impossible in all of the Western States. So what use then would slaves be in the Western States? Not much. The economics wouldn't work for large scale plantation farming, and in what other role could you have employed slaves to make a buck?
Slavery in the Western Territories wasn't practical, so why all the fuss over it? My current belief is the fuss was about political power in Washington. Slave states could be expected to vote together as a block, and at the time the NorthEastern coalition had the upper hand. They absolutely did not want any new slave states entering the Union because that would shift votes in congress back to the South.
Power. It was about Power, not any sense of concern for slaves. This explanation makes more sense than what we have been led to believe.
I’m certain, that presidents have no formal role in amendment processes;
No formal role, but Lincoln signaled his support for the amendment in his First Inaugural Address. He clearly said he would support the amendment protecting slavery.
1896, huh...?
Correct. That was when we would have achieved a Union of 44 states. (West Virginia wouldn't have been a state but for the secession.)
I’m also sure you know the Amendment formally abolishing slavery was ratified in 1865, by 27 states, including 6 of those 11 seceding states
If you think any of those formerly confederate states voted for that amendment of their own free will, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. They were ordered to vote for that amendment by the threat of continuous Federal Occupation of their states. They literally had a gun to their head and were told by Washington DC to vote for it or else.
It was an exercise in sock puppetry, with Washington DC pretending the States were going along with this of their own volition.
and btw, how do you arrive at the number of 44 needed Union states...?
3/4ths of the states are required to ratify a constitutional amendment. 11 states opposed would require 33 states to override. The Union would have to have 44 states to make this possible.