2. Many of the quotes don't support the thesis advanced. Examples follow.
Remember, dbehsman originally asked you (to keep the question at hand uppermost in mind as we go forward),
REALLY? Care to provide us with some quotes that specifically claim that the problem was primarily with slavery?
And now, to your examples:
- Rev John Wrightman, South Carolina, 1861.
Obscure reference, supportive but non-authoritative. One man's opinion, until you show otherwise.
"African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depoulation and barbarism." - South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keitt, 1860
This observation by Congressman Keitt describes the economy of the South and the likely effect of abolition on it, in his view. How does this quote support your contention that "the war was about slavery?"
Keeping in mind, of course, that the "war was about slavery" is a Marxist theme, intended to support vanguardism and (by extension) absolutism of the vanguard elite. Lincoln is their hero for that very reason, and you've never dealt with that.
"[Recruiting slaves into the army] is abolition doctrine ... the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." - Editorial, Jan 1865, North Carolina Standard
Support from the editorialist, but your quote shows signs of selective pruning -- an ellipse, and some words supplied. May we see the entire quote, in context? You aren't capitan_refugio, and I've seldom seen posters sink as low as he did in dredging up alleged support for his fanatical and hate-filled positions, but let's just say that, when your argument is about an overarching theme, context matters.
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
How do we know he was talking about slaves? Your insertion points us in that direction, but would his words exclude his other valuable property? If he were a plantation owner, does anyone think he'd be happy to give up the land, house, and cotton crop to Lincoln's punitive confiscations, if only he could keep his slaves?
The insertion may not be appropriate after all.
Whilst it may be admitted that the mere election of any man to the Presidency, is not, per se, a sufficient cause for a dissolution of the Union; yet, when the issues upon, and circumstances under which he was elected, are properly appreciated and understood, the question arises whether a due regard to the interest, honor, and safety of their citizens, in view of this and all the other antecedent wrongs and outrages, do not render it the imperative duty of the Southern States to resume the powers they have delegated to the Federal Government, and interpose their sovereignty for the protection of their citizens.What, then are the circumstances....?......He stands forth as the representative of the fanaticism of the North, which, for the last quarter of a century, has been making war upon the South, her property, her civilization, her institutions, and her interests; as the representative of that party which overrides all Constitutional barriers, ignores the obligations of official oaths, and acknowledges allegiance to a higher law than the Constitution, striking down the sovereignty and equality of the States, and resting its claims to popular favor upon the one dogma, the Equality of the Races, white and black." -- Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky [Emphasis added.]
To correct him at the outset, Mr. Hale oversimplifies by a vast stretch, for rhetorical effect (unfortunately -- he had a better argument working), the platform of the Republican Party. He mischaracterizes it as well, since I doubt that a canvass of that idea among Republican voters of 1860 would have broken into double digits, that the Republican platform included the advancement of Negro equality. Even Lincoln, no matter what his private opinion might have been, said that he didn't believe that that equality was possible.
The advancement of the idea of giving the Negro the franchise, and then using his vote to annihilate the South politically and turn its population on one another, was a later, Radical addition to the platform and as yet untrue when Hale directed his words to the governor of Kentucky.
Notice, however, the commissioner's repeated references to safety and Northern fanaticism (underscored) -- how do you explain them, if the issue was simply about Southern slaveholders' rights in human property?
There's much more to say, but I'll have to adjourn for now.
Well when you get back please post your quotes showing it was all about tariffs.