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.
Bravo Sierra. YOU are the one espousing the white separatist ideals of Lincoln, and ingonoring his oft repeated comments about NON-INTEREFERENCE with slavery. He wanted the money, plain and simple, and waged war to prevent utter economic devastation to the North:
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.And this on SLAVERY:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.