I'm sure you could. But your claim still was "Again the Civil War was over States’ Rights not slavery...It was an after thought to the Civil War, meaning it didn’t even occur to politicians until at least a year and a half into the war to free the slaves." It certainly wasn't an after thought to the Southern leaders. It was their primary reason for their rebellion from day one and not something they thought about a year and a half into the rebellion. So it what you meant to say was that it was an afterthought to Northern politicians then that would be more understandable if not entirely accurate.
The Democrat party formed in opposition to the Missouri compromise (1820).
- That compromise admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
- It also prohibited slavery in the new Louisiana Purchase territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north
democrats “...objected to any bill that imposed federal restrictions on slavery and believed that it was a state issue, as settled by the Constitution.”
It took them a long time, but eventually they managed to pass the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854.
That allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to VOTE on if they would be free or slave states.
That ushered in a very violent period in Kansas as both sides sought to gain power to win the issue for the State - and thus for the country by swinging the balance of power.
The Republican party formed in 1854 in direct opposition to Douglas (a top democrat) Kansas-Nebraska act.
That was the root issue in the contention between the two political parties from 1854 to 1860.
In 1860, sitting Vice President John C. Breckenridge split the democrat party into two factions. Douglas led the original rump party. Breckenridge took the splitters.
Had the party remained together and campaigned together, perhaps they could have retained the House and the Presidency.
Imagine how history would have been different had the democrats chosen to remain?
They still controlled the Senate by one vote 30D-29R-1No Nothing. So they should have been able to ‘stone-wall’ most changes for four years. Plus they controlled the Judiciary.
The Republican rise was meteoric. In the House
............Dem..Rep..Whig..KnowNothing
1852-1853...150....0....68.....0...
1854-1855....83...13....54....51...
1856-1857...132...90.....0....14...
1858-1859....83...113....4....14...
1860-1861....44...106....0.....0...(31 Unionist)
No, I have always maintained that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about preserving the Union because the South Seceded because of State’s rights. You need to reread what I wrote and don’t try to put words into my mouth. Lincoln’s stance was clear as he stated it in the letter to the NYT editor.
Madison states that he was careful to not include the word slave and n-gro in the Declaration and Constitution that conflict was inevitable.
Because the institution of slavery was so prevalent leading up to the Civil War, people conflate that institution, economic, with the moral, slavery. However, what people give Lincoln credit for, freeing the slaves, was never his intention, even though he thought the institution to be wrong.
Lincoln has been quoted before writing the emancipation proclamation as saying the spilling of blood to keep the Union intact would be in vain if the slaves were not freed.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a Presidential Proclamation and not a Congressional one. This was only possible through Presidential War Powers and it did not free ALL slaves but only referred to the slaves in the South that were being used to fight the North. And that is the biggest myth about the Emmancipation Proclamation that it freed all slaves when it did not. It only freed those slaves that the South was using against the North. The Emancipation Proclamation was rejected in Delaware. But Lincoln was head strong and used the War Powers to enact it. This occurred in September 1862. The war was goning on for over a year at this point. In the August 1862 letter to the NYT editor, which I referenced, Lincoln was clear that if freeing the slaves was not beneficial to the preservation of the Union he would not do it. The focus was clearly on preserving the Union.
The South seceded from the Union because of laws being enacted that encroached on State’s Rights to make their own judgement on how the state were to conduct business and trade. The Federal Government was encroaching on this . One of the most common fights is the battle between the authority and power of the State versus the Federal Government. You can actually see this fight being played out today with the election laws trying to be passed in Congress and the individual states passing integrity laws. The most famous fight between states and feds in the modern era is the Roe versus Wade fight. There are other example like education etc.
So please before you begin to put words in my mouth again, you need the entire post.