You’re just denying things to preserve your dogma. Postmasters were appointed by the president in those days. That was a massive number of political appointments It’s why presidents were besieged by office seekers. Under the Democrats postmasters could forbid the spreading of abolitionist materials through the mails. That policy could have been changed by Lincoln, and since the mails were the main means of spreading opinion beyond the immediate area, this would be a major change. You say that the post office was the only way most people experienced government, but then conjure up some powerful government strangling the South. There’s a contradiction there. In any case, control of the post office was important in the arguments over slavery.
You set up a straw man of “it was all about slavery” to prop up your “it was about tariffs” doll or puppet, but totally ignore the emotions of the time. John Brown’s actions had raised the possibility of a slave uprising. Texans were convinced that prairie wildfires had been set by abolitionists. Secessionists in the Deep South were convinced that Republicans would find a way to take away their slaves or inspire them to revolt. There were many slaveowning families in the Cotton States and they controlled the governments of those states.
They saw how slavery was fading away in Delaware and Maryland and feared that anti-slavery feeling might spread southward. Even if emancipation was far down the road, the rise of an anti-slavery or non-slavery party like the Republicans in the slave states, built up around federal judges, marshalls, customs officials, and postmasters, terrified those in power in the South. They weren’t in the mood for a two party system if slavery was to be the dividing issue. They had convinced themselves that if Republicans held the White House and Congress, it would threaten their “institutions” and their way of life.
Lincoln was absent and relatively inexperienced. Seward, Stanton and other members of his cabinet assumed that they were more qualified than he was. Similarly, Trump was the “leader of his party” in 2017, but McConnell and Ryan definitely didn’t take direction from him. Lincoln did have a role in the formation of the Corwin Amendment, but that amendment was hashed out in committee meetings behind closed doors in a variety of compromises that he didn’t have any role in making.
Lincoln had a lot on his hands after being inaugurated. Goodwin relates that he was uncertain about whether to even mention the amendment in his inaugural address. He did so, but distanced himself from it. I don’t see anything in Goodwin’s book proving lobbying efforts behind the scenes. It’s doubtful that Lincoln was campaigning even secretly for the amendment when he had Sumter and so many other things to worry about.
There’s a lot more to be said, but you aren’t likely to be convinced by facts, so what’s the point?
Postmasters were appointed by the president in those days. That was a massive number of political appointments It’s why presidents were besieged by office seekers. Under the Democrats postmasters could forbid the spreading of abolitionist materials through the mails. That policy could have been changed by Lincoln, and since the mails were the main means of spreading opinion beyond the immediate area, this would be a major change. You say that the post office was the only way most people experienced government, but then conjure up some powerful government strangling the South. There’s a contradiction there. In any case, control of the post office was important in the arguments over slavery.
I'm well aware of the spoils system. There weren't enough postmaster jobs for anybody to build a political machine that would have influence in an entire region base on that relatively small number of jobs. The post office was the only direct interaction most people had with the federal government. They did not see the tariff collectors at the ports of entry. They didn't travel more than 20 miles from their homes in most cases. They therefore did not see a federal official who was making them get less from the wholesaler for their goods or who saw them be able to sell less of their cotton or tobacco or other crop. They did not see the official who made all the manufactured goods they needed become more expensive. Yet it was the federal government making that happen via its tariff and trade policy as they well knew. So no, there was no contradiction.
You set up a straw man of “it was all about slavery” to prop up your “it was about tariffs” doll or puppet, but totally ignore the emotions of the time.
The "all about slavery" myth is no strawman. That is literally what the PC Revisionists argue.
John Brown’s actions had raised the possibility of a slave uprising.
Had it? No slaves rose up to join him. What it showed was not only that there were bloodthirsty Northern fanatics who literally wanted them dead. It also showed Southerners that these terrorists enjoyed widespread sympathy and support in places like Massachusetts and the government there refused to bring them to justice. Imagine if we found that prominent Saudis had openly financed the 911 terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia refused to bring them to justice or extradite them. That was how Southerners now viewed New England in particular.....not that there would be an imminent slave uprising but that these people were not merely political opponents but actual enemies who were trying to do them harm.
Texans were convinced that prairie wildfires had been set by abolitionists. Secessionists in the Deep South were convinced that Republicans would find a way to take away their slaves or inspire them to revolt. There were many slaveowning families in the Cotton States and they controlled the governments of those states.
Woah! That last point is one the PCers have always claimed and it was always false. Certainly the landed elites had a lot of influence. They did not however control the governments of those states by themselves. They could not get elected nor act without popular support. The vast majority of White Southerners did not own any slaves. And no, they weren't shoeless, toothless, illiterates easily led around by their noses either. That is another ridiculous trope the PCers trot out in support of their bogus claims that the Southern states were some kind of slaveocracy.
They saw how slavery was fading away in Delaware and Maryland and feared that anti-slavery feeling might spread southward.
You repeat this claim yet I haven't seen this thought widely expressed in all my readings of the the events and the politics leading up to the war.
Even if emancipation was far down the road, the rise of an anti-slavery or non-slavery party like the Republicans in the slave states, built up around federal judges, marshalls, customs officials, and postmasters, terrified those in power in the South. They weren’t in the mood for a two party system if slavery was to be the dividing issue. They had convinced themselves that if Republicans held the White House and Congress, it would threaten their “institutions” and their way of life.
No it was more like what both Robert Tombs in the Georgia Declaration of Causes and Robert Barnwell Rhett described in his address. They were concerned that the Republicans were successfully using slavery as a wedge issue to get the Midwest to go along with New England in pushing for extremely high tariffs which would both fatten the profit margins of Northern industrialists as well as allow them to gain market share BUT which at the same time would be economically ruinous to the Southern States They had already been down that road before. As Rhett said:
"To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things."
Get it? They weren't worried slavery would be abolished. They were worried this new sectional political party would be able to use the slavery issue to unite the North and push through huge tariffs.
Lincoln was absent and relatively inexperienced. Seward, Stanton and other members of his cabinet assumed that they were more qualified than he was. Similarly, Trump was the “leader of his party” in 2017, but McConnell and Ryan definitely didn’t take direction from him. Lincoln did have a role in the formation of the Corwin Amendment, but that amendment was hashed out in committee meetings behind closed doors in a variety of compromises that he didn’t have any role in making.
You are massively underselling Lincoln's role in the formulation of the Corwin Amendment, in whipping votes for it among Republicans and in getting the whole party machinery behind it to get it ratified in multiple Northern states.
Lincoln had a lot on his hands after being inaugurated. Goodwin relates that he was uncertain about whether to even mention the amendment in his inaugural address. He did so, but distanced himself from it. I don’t see anything in Goodwin’s book proving lobbying efforts behind the scenes. It’s doubtful that Lincoln was campaigning even secretly for the amendment when he had Sumter and so many other things to worry about.
LOL! That is not at all what Goodwin said. There were plenty of others who also discussed Lincoln's key role in getting the Corwin Amendment drafted and passed.
There’s a lot more to be said, but you aren’t likely to be convinced by facts, so what’s the point?
There you go projecting again.