[DiogenesLamp]

Your belief is a consequence of propaganda, and it isn't correct. The facts clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was going to protect slavery. The South did not have to defend slavery at all. It was legal. It would have remained legal if Lincoln hadn't broke the law, and so therefore the claim that the South "rebelled to defend slavery" is not only idiocy, it's a clearly demonstrable lie.

But you and others will repeat it, because it's the only straw you have to justify the bloodshed of murdering people to maintain control of their economic output.

You hate to hear this, but money was at the root of this whole thing. Money that New York and Washington had controlled for years, and it was that loss of control that triggered the war against the South.

Slavery was legal in the USA for "four score and seven years", and it would have continued being legal for the foreseeable future if the South had remained in the Union, so stop lying about why the North invaded them.

[morphing libertarian]

lincoln was supportive of slavery?

Why did southerners try to assassinate him at the baltimore train station his first trip to DC

Why was the smithy afraid he would support more free than slave states when the territories became states.

What was all the bother for if he supported slavery. Seems like a lot of death and trouble.

[ladyjane]

In fact, even Massachusetts didn’t enact laws to outlaw slavery. They did use the courts to allow some slaves to be freed.

At the same time, many Massachusetts towns required a large bond if anyone wanted to free their slave. The towns were afraid that they would have to support those slaves and didn’t want the responsibility.

In those days you needed land to be a farmer or some skills to support yourself. The slaves had neither and relied on their servitude to keep a roof over their head.

[DoodleDawg]

Your belief is a consequence of propaganda, and it isn't correct.

Your definition of 'propaganda' being facts that you do not accept or which show your opinions to be wrong?

The facts clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was going to protect slavery. The South did not have to defend slavery at all. It was legal.

Yet the facts clearly show that the South rebelled to protect their institution of slavery from the Republicans in government.

... and so therefore the claim that the South "rebelled to defend slavery" is not only idiocy, it's a clearly demonstrable lie.

So then I guess the writings of the time clearly show that the Southern leaders were idiots? And liars?

You hate to hear this, but money was at the root of this whole thing. Money that New York and Washington had controlled for years, and it was that loss of control that triggered the war against the South.

So you keep saying. And I never cease to find your claims amusing.