Regional protectionist or national protectionist? Because the two are not the same thing at all.
Who was advocating change in 1861?
The Republicans. And to make it clear, we are referring here to "Social Change." Otherwise known as "Societal Change."
Compared to the secessionists, Lincoln was a status quo candidate.
Race Obsessed liberal lawyer from Illinois was the "status quo" candidate? And you didn't notice any subsequent upheaval during his presidency? He was just a caretaker government between Buchanan and Grant?
Biggest upheaval in the Nation's history. Seriously, no other person in US history created so much turmoil in an existing society, and we are still dealing with the shockwaves of what he did.
But objective observers in 1860 wouldn't have seen Lincoln as the candidate of "Big Money, though he did appeal to some who wanted to become rich and eventually did.
Corporate Railroad lawyer had no wealthy Plutocrats backing him? When again did that great rail road land giveaway program occur?
Who did the "International 'globalist" types" in London and Paris like? The Democrats and secessionists. Free trade. The elimination of a powerful trade rival.
Who opposed the Confederates? The people who were at that time controlling the national trade and funneling it through their own pockets, and from the exact same geographical part of the nation from which our own modern domestic globalists emerge.
The North East controlled US global trade back then, and the North East still mostly controls it today.
Idiot. Look at how slaveholders talked about themselves and the crimes and injustices committed against them by the free states. It was one long complaint for the slaveholders. The poor South. The poor South. Slaveowners just can't get a break in the USA.
Were their complaints unfounded? Were all the Northern states innocent of doing anything wrong to them at the time?
My recollection is that the Northern states were not only ignoring blatant illegalities, they were doing the same "Sanctuary City" stuff that Californian and Other modern cities are doing today with illegal aliens.
They wanted the law to not apply to them, and they had no problems abetting the breaking of Federal law.
Nowadays, if Liberals don't like a law, they just break it or ignore it, because they know they don't have the votes to change it.
They want their personal feelings to count for more than a democratically enacted set of laws, and that is still the case today.
You are a very slippery character. Time and time again you make claims and then when people contest or disprove them, you pretend that the discussion was about something else. For example:
Lincoln was clearly a genius. I don't know why you even oppose this accusation against him.
You said that Lincoln was "hailed as a genius" as were Wilson, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama, and that Lincoln got away with things because people thought he was brilliant. But nobody in 1860 thought they were electing a "genius" in Lincoln. And few people today would seriously call Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama a genius. So your stupid comparison breaks down.
Nobody thought of Lincoln as brilliant in 1860. People were intensely critical of his person and his policies in his time. Today, we judge him based on what he did, not because he promoted an image of himself as a "genius," so your analogy was flawed.
Regional protectionist or national protectionist? Because the two are not the same thing at all.
"Regional protectionism" isn't a thing, now or then. Protective tariffs protected Southern hemp and sugar as they protected Northern industries - and as they protected Southern industries. If cotton planters didn't want the protection of national tariffs they couldn't seriously deny that protection was national in intent.
Here again, you change what the original argument was. Republicans were against open borders free trade in 1860, and they were against open borders free trade in 2016, and you tried to make out that Hillary Clinton was closer in her trade position to Lincoln than Donald Trump was, which is hardly the case.
Race Obsessed liberal lawyer from Illinois was the "status quo" candidate?
Read the 1858 debates. The "race obsessed liberal lawyer" was Stephen A. Douglas. He couldn't stop talking about race. Lincoln was talking about the spread of slavery, not about race.
Lincoln didn't campaign on a program of "change." I'd like to think people back then would have seen through the emptiness of such slogans, but in any case, Lincoln platform was to hold the line against plans to permit slavery in the territories. Whatever you think of his later actions or the results of the Civil War, Lincoln wasn't a candidate of "change" and didn't campaign on such a slogan.
Biggest upheaval in the Nation's history. Seriously, no other person in US history created so much turmoil in an existing society, and we are still dealing with the shockwaves of what he did.
"Shockwaves"? That might have been true 150 years ago when slavery fell, but no. We aren't "still dealing with shockwaves" from then.
Who opposed the Confederates? The people who were at that time controlling the national trade and funneling it through their own pockets, and from the exact same geographical part of the nation from which our own modern domestic globalists emerge.
Again, you ignore the facts. In the 19th century world, Britain was the great promoter of "globalism." Ask the Africans, the Indians, the Chinese and people in other parts of the world. France, Germany, the US and other countries tried to imitate the British achievement, but if you wanted your country or your region to be passive providers of raw materials to British factories and consumers of finished goods from British factories you were a "globalist."
I would just as soon not apply the word "globalism" to the 19th century. But if you want to apply it, you have to recognize that globalization was happening whatever the US did. An unindustrialized USA or CSA would just have been a pawn in the new global order, rather than an active player. Globalization was coming and somebody like you who wanted free trade with Britain would not have been against it.
The North East controlled US global trade back then, and the North East still mostly controls it today.
Britain (and to a lesser degree, France) controlled global trade in 1860. That was the globalization of the day and the US didn't control it, though it definitely wanted to play a role in it.
And today, more than at any time since 1850, the Northeast does not "control US global trade." Texas is headquarters to more Fortune 1000 companies than any other state and California is second with New York third. Of the Fortune 500 companies, New York is barely ahead of Texas and California, but as it has one of the worst business environments in the country, it won't have the lead much longer.
Of course, grass isn't growing in the streets of New York. They have the advantage of being a business center for centuries, but the days when New York City dominated the country's economy to the exclusion of other regions are gone.
Were their complaints unfounded? Were all the Northern states innocent of doing anything wrong to them at the time?
You only prove my point. You said that Lincoln represented "Victim hood politics." I pointed out that Southerners indulged in the politics of complaint and victimhood more than Lincoln or the Republicans did, and you prove my point by trying to justify Southern complaining. You can't back up your point so you change the subject.
I can't think that anybody who has made a serious study of American history would ever agree with your screeds. You're just saying "I don't like these people and I don't like these people so they must be exactly alike." It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with somebody like that.