DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "In reference to Kansas, I was just pointing out that you can't exactly act like one side had all the blame and the other was clean as the driven snow.
You were trying to use it to blame one side, when it can be used to blame both."
The blame is totally clear when you remember the fact that in 1858, legitimate Kansas voters rejected the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution by a margin of six to one.
Real citizens of Kansas did not want slavery, no how, no way, regardless of how many Border Ruffians came up from the South.
In 1859 Kansas voters approved the anti-slavery Wyandotte Constitution by a margin of two-to-one.
So, by law and by rights, Kansas was a free state, and pro-slavery thugs had no business trying to intimidate voters there.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln was the first republican president and the republican party had not actually passed any tariff laws yet.
But they were big supporters of higher tariffs.
Just look at the republican platform."
By 1860 US tariffs had fallen from the 1830 high of 35% under Southern President Jackson and Vice President Calhoun to just 15%, the same rate as in 1792, under President Washington.
The original Morrill Tariff raised them back to 25%, or roughly the levels of 1845.
It was generally supported by Republicans, opposed by Democrats, but some Republicans voted "no", and some Democrats voted "yes", including a good number from the Border States.
Neither the Morrill Tariff, nor any other tax, is mentioned in any Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Don't cite the Constitution as a reason for Lincoln to go to war.
The Southern states were doing the same thing that the American colonies did."
But there is no legitimate comparison -- zero, zip, nada -- between our Founders' Declaration of Independence and the Slave-Powers' declarations of secession.
For starters, the Declaration of Independence came only after the British king formally declared the colonies to be in rebellion -- a formal declaration of war on Americans.
By stark contrast the Slave-Power first declared it's secession, then provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States, then sent military aid to Confederate forces fighting in Union states.
So all your complicated logical "justification" is just rubbish, because it makes no difference.
When the Confederacy started and declared war on the United States, it sealed its own destruction, period.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Your ignorance of history is showing."
No, it's your mis-information about history that's showing.
Regardless of what excuse you concoct, the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter was an act of war, just as certainly as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
And just like Pearl Harbor with the Japanese, Fort Sumter was the attack which ultimately destroyed the Confederacy, and the slavery it fought to the last to preserve.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...the Civil War made the Federal government superior to the states, and showed what big government with no respect for limited self government looks like."
But 100% of the blame for every change brought by the Civil War lies with the Slave-Power which first provoked, then started, then formally declared war on the United States, while sending military forces to invade Union states.
That made the Confederacy an existential threat to the United States, which could only be defeated, unconditionally.
"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."
Charles Dickens published an article saying
"If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
So it appears that you believe that people can only exercise their right to choose their own form of government after somebody attacks them? Sad logic there.
If the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war, then what was not-so-honest-Abe Lincoln's breach of his promise in sending arms and reinforcements after he promised to relieve the garrison?
Also, I love how you skirted the whole issue about the Marxists. Remember this discussion started in regards to the republican party. You claim the republican party of the 1860s was conservative, yet it wasn't. The famous republican Greeley was a socialist and had Marx writing articles for his paper. Lincoln got congratulation letters from Marx on his election. Communists simply flocked to the Republican party and Lincoln promoted many to high positions. Let me just mention a few....
Carl Schurz: A participant in the 1848 socialists revolutions in Europe, fled to America after the revolutions failed. Was appointed by Lincoln (who knew his revolutionary history, as minister to Spain. Came back the next year and served in the Union army and was promoted to Major General.
George Harney: A communist journalist who propagandized for Marx and Engels. Was a big supporter of the republican party and started a paper called the Red Republican.
Franz Sigel: Played a large part in the socialist revolutions in Germany in 1848, was made minister of war of the short lived socialist government, upon the revolution's failure fled to America. Served in the Union Army as a Corp commander.
Louis Blenker: Another Forty-Eighter who fled to America and served as a General in the Union army. Was such a big fan of the war that he organized an infantry regiment (8th New York).
August Willich: Known as the "Reddest of the Red", this fellow was another Forty-Eighter and friend of Marx. Fleeing after the revolutions failed he went to America. When the war started, he raised a regiment (9th Ohio) and became a general.
Alexander Schimmelfennig: Another Forty-Eighter who fled to America. Was appointed a Brigadier General during the war.
Frederick Salomon: Another Forty-Eighter who became a General.
Charles Salomon: Another Forty-Eighter who became a General.
Joseph Weydemeyer: A forty-Eighter and close friend of Marx and Engels. Published the Communist Manifesto in America, organized the New York Communist Club, founded the Proletarian League, , and published a German language paper Die Revolution. Was a strong supporter of Lincoln and the republican party and volunteered his services when the war broke out. Was made a general.
Peter Osterhaus: Another Forty-Eighter who became a General and served with Sherman during his slash and burn jaunt through Georgia.
Max Weber: Another Forty-Eighter who became a general in the Union army.
Julius Stahel: Another Forty-Eighter who became a general in the Union army. Frederick Hassaurek: A Forty-Eighter and a strong supporter of the Republican party. Stumped for Fremont, the republican nominee in the 1856 election. Was a strong supporter of Lincoln.
Alexander Asboth: Another Forty-Eighter who became a Union general. After the war he was awarded a ministerial post.
Albin Schoepf: Another Forty-Eighter who became a Union general and later became the camp commandant of a cruel prison camp.
This is just a sampling. There were many others.
Many historians have noted Lincoln's political alliance with the Forty-eighters. Historian Carl Wittke, in an article published in 1959 noted that "Lincoln was fully aware of the political influence of the Forty-Eighters in the campaighn of 1860."
Think about it logically. If Marx and his followers supported the republican party and Lincoln as president, then the republican party could not be a conservative small-government party. Communists don't flock to parties that are all about small-government. They flock to liberal big-government parties. Which is just what the republican party was.