Anything to get away from white supremacist Abe & his dream of a Lily white land, his colonization schemes, his equivocating speeches and pandering to whatever crowd he was speaking to.
Prof. Charles Dew, in Apostles of Disunion, convincingly demonstrates that the motivation for secession had much less to do with "state's rights," than it did with the slavery issue.
Barf. Long before the states seceded, Lincoln et al made it known that that they had no intention of interfering with slavery, that they had no legal right to do so, and that he had 'no inclination to do so'. Congress passed an amendment guaranteeing the continued existance of slavery. To which Lincoln, in his inaugural speech made it clear - in no uncertain terms - that he favoured it being 'made express and irrevocable.' In other words, Lincoln favoured and even advocated PERMANENT slavery if the South would only remain.
The one issue in which he wouldn't budge, was tariff duties,
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
No. Just a dose of reality for you "southrons." Here is a bit more "southron" pre-war political philosophy. From William L. Harris, Commissioner from Mississippi, speaking before the Georgia legislature, Dec 17, 1860:
To-day our government stands totally revolutionized in its main features, and our Constitution broken and overturned. The new [Lincoln] administration, which has effected this revolution, only awaits the 4th of march for the inauguration of the new government, the new principles, the new policy, upon the success of which they have proclaimed freedom to the slave, but eternal degradation for you and us....
Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality...."
"There were three candidates presented to the North by Southern men, all of whom represented the last degree of conservatism and concession [presumably Breckenridge, Douglas, and Bell] which their respective parties were willing to yield, to appease the fanaticism of the North. Some of them scarcely deemed sound, in the South, on the slavery question, and none of them suited to our ultra men [the fire-eaters]. And yet the North rejected them all; and their united voice, both before and since their overwhelming triumph in this election, has been more defiant and more intolerant than ever before. They have demanded and now demand, equality between the white and negro races, under our Constitution; equality in representation, equality in suffrage, equality in honors and emoluments if office, equality in the social circle, equality in matrimony."
It seems to me that you have little understanding of the philosophies of the secessionists; otherwise you would not so readily embrace their obvious racism and convoluted rationale.