But the secessionists feared that Lincoln and the Republicans would weaken slavery and that would mean its eventual abolition. Also, notice the word "primary." It means that Lincoln wasn't opposed to doing things that would weaken "the slave power" if those things didn't threaten the union.
But the secessionists feared that Lincoln and the Republicans would weaken slavery and that would mean its eventual abolition. Also, notice the word “primary.” It means that Lincoln wasn’t opposed to doing things that would weaken “the slave power” if those things didn’t threaten the union.
Again you conflated the Institution of slavery with the individual slave.
The States didn’t fear that the Republicans and Lincoln (who ran on the Whig ticket) AND the Northern Demoncraps would weaken slavery. They feared their livelihoods and their rights were being taken from them by the Federal Government. The Institution of Slavery was the economic factor of slavery, the money.
To think of it this way and to relate to what is going on today, we look at the Gig Economy. The Gig Economy includes anyone who is a contractor for someone else (trying to keep this simple). This would be contractors for hire such as freelancers, wedding planner, mobile disc jockeys, reporters, IT consultants etc. Basically anyone who has a 1099 status. (Now I am not saying these people are slaves I am trying to make a corollary here so that you understand the difference between the Institution of Slavery and Slavery.) The employers are the ones who pay the 1099 Gig worker, even though they are not direct employees of the employer. Thus, the employer does have to include them in certain aspects of the company like benefits etc.
Now California recently passed a law that within its borders, as it has the right to do via Sovereign State’s Rights, that they do not want the Gig economy anymore. And have stated in the law that all 1099 employees must be bonafide employee of the employer and can no longer be a 1099 contractor. California has this right because the inherent rights given by the Constitution on regulating industries within its borders. Other states have balked at this and said they do not want to do this. So in steps the Federal Government trying to pass legislation that in each and every state there will be no more Gig Economy. This violates the State Sovereignty in which the Federal Government has stepped in to stop the gig economy. Meaning no longer can any one be a freelancer anymore they must be beholden to the employer. This usurps State’s Rights.
To corollate this to the Institution of Slavery that would be the Gig Economy and the individual slaves would be the 1099 employees.
Let me be clear here for brevity’s sake that I am not saying a 1099 employee is a slave to the company that has hired them to (even though sometimes it feels like it). The Gig Economy is the economic factor of the Institution of the Gig Economy and the 1099 employees are the moral factor of the Gig Economy. Whether it is right for a company to hire a 1099 contractor/employee is not the issue in this case.
Opponents of the Federal legislation for doing away with the gig economy say the Federal Government cannot do this because each individual state is Sovereign and has individual authority to determine how the gig economy will be run in their state. The Southern States argued this very same concept that the Federal Government is overstepping its Constitutional authority when it interferes with the institutions the states have the inherent right to govern. It is not about slavery and people are quick to say the Secessionists wrote this and that and it is about slavery. IF you go on to read the reason why the Secessionists use slavery as the focal point, it all boils down to intrastate commerce - the money, which is the Institution of Slavery not that slavery was right or wrong. They may have gone to justify why it was right but in the end the Secessionists did not fear the weaking of slavery but the weakening and if not abolishment of said institution.
Something nobody ever goes into was what happened to the plantations after the Civil War. Some plantations were sold for unpaid taxes or were sold to carpetbaggers (people from the North who came to the South). Sometimes the plantation owners would sell or give parcels to former slaves. This had major consequences for plantation owners who in the end was not at fault for losing their business because something that was once legal had now become illegal. They, the plantation owners, on the flip side were responsible for the rough treatment and their handling of the slaves like chattel. Where is their reparations?
It is funny and ironic the plantation owners were in business to make a profit and yes they did it off the back of the slaves. However, these owners did so in a legal manner, right or wrong, and never did they deserve to lose all they worked so hard for. If a Republican owned a business that was legal then lost it because how they ran their business became illegal, that would piss a lot of Republicans off. Why are people crying for states to secede from the Union today? Not in 1860, in 2020? The Federal Government is encroaching on the rights of the states to hold elections and the demoncraps.
Now to the issue of why demoncraps were in power all but 8 years since Jackson, this was because slave states could count, albeit not fully, their slaves as constituents which was written into the Constitution. Since the slave owning states counted the slaves this give the Demoncraps more power in DC until the Civil War.
So when you talk about slavery you are talking about the morality of owning a slave. When you talk about the Institution of Slavery, you are talking about the economic factor brought by the owning of slaves. See why the two are easily conflatd. The latter has no morality associated with it as it is based purely on the profits and losses that is gained by running a plantation/farm or other such measure.
Kinda like that other race obsessed liberal lawyer from Illinois. Obama did everything he could to undermine the rule of law regarding things he disagreed with. Lincoln could have been counted on to manipulate enforcement (In the manner that Antifa burning buildings, cars and assaulting people in Washington DC doesn't get prosecuted, but standing on the grounds does) to favor his preferred outcome.
Eisenhower didn't agree with the Supreme court decision forcing that college to accept black students, but he sent troops there to ensure the rule of law would be enforced. He did not try to undermine the rule of law through the levers of government power.