I agree 100%. That is why I reject any notion that slavery was the cause of secession or the Civil War. I have seen no evidence to support it. I used to see it; but once you un-see it, you can never see it again.
*************
>>x wrote, "I'll spare everybody the Latin, but it applies here. Roberts assumes that secession couldn't have been about slavery and then just ignores the evidence to the contrary. If you don't already believe that tariffs were the cause of the war, he gives you no reason to believe that."
One thing is for certain: there is not a shred of evidence that Lincoln started the war because of slavery. Slavery was certainly a major part of the American economy of those days, and a major source of funding for the crony capitalists. But it makes no sense that Lincoln would want to eliminate a major source of funding for his pet projects (e.g., for the Trans-continental Railroad,) nor does it make sense that the Southern political leaders were dumb enough to believe that Lincoln would want to destroy a major source of his funding. Slavery definitely played a role, but it was for Southern propaganda purposes, and not much else.
*************
>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "The tariff issue was on-going. Lincoln's support for a high tariff was very unpopular in most of the South."
>>x wrote, "Protective tariffs were more central to the Whig party platform than to the Republicans. Republicans had old protectionist Whigs and old free trading Democrats in their membership, but the Whig party was built around high tariffs."
True. Lincoln is on record as a devout Henry Clay supporter:
"In politics Lincoln spent most of his public life in Henry Clay's conservative Whig Party, the opposition to leveling radical Jacksonism. He reluctantly left that organization in 1856 when it disintegrated and affiliated with the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, always frowning on abolitionism and various plans to hurry along changes in the American social system. In his famed Cooper Institute Address of 1860 he stood on solidly conservative ground, criticized John Brown, and harked back to the Founding Fathers."
[Luthin, Reinhard H., "The Real Abraham Lincoln: a complete one volume history of his life and times." Prentice Hall, 1960, pp.127-128]
But Lincoln, being the consummate politician, was careful not to alert the free-traders of his motives:
"The tariff, a major issue in pivotal, protectionist-minded Pennsylvania and smaller New Jersey, two of the doubtful states, proved a source of supreme strength to Lincoln. He had a long record as a disciple of Henry Clay, whose cardinal principles had included demands that Congress enact higher import rates in order to protect American industry."
"Lincoln made known his high-tariff past to at least one Pennsylvanian, but cautioned him not to agitate the issue, lest it drive away the former 'free trade' Democratic element of the Republican Party. To Edward Wallace, of Philadelphia, Lincoln in October, 1859, wrote: 'I was an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than on any other. I have not changed my views... Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it.'"
[Ibid. p.207]
*************
>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "Yet Southerners and those of Southern origin voted for the Whigs and even ran as Whig presidential candidates. The Whigs were competitive in Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina. That wouldn't have happened if tariffs were such a big bugaboo in the South."
That is over-simplified. There were areas of the South that supported or tolerated a protectionist tariff, provided they were not overtly harmed, or were being protected.
*************
>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "What is a Neo-Confederate?"
>>x wrote, "If you think slavery wasn't the main reason for secession, you just might be neo-Confederate yourself."
You have to be historically challenged to believe slavery was the main reason for secession; so count me in.
*************
>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "There was no threat from Lincoln that would cause slave holders to lose their slaves."
Lincoln's motives were strictly financial. He was a power-hungry politician, period; and money is power.
*************
>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "Perhaps you will be so kind as to show us references that explain what you are referring to."
>>x wrote, "This is your lucky day. I have plenty of evidence and put it on my freep page. If you want more, you can go to James Epperson's site, or read Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech or Jefferson Davis's April 29th Message to the Confederate Congress or Charles Dew's book, Apostles of Disunion."
You could have picked a more reliable source than Guelzo to open your list.
Pick any one of your source quotes, and let's analyze it.
Mr. Kalamata
Once you start "un-seeing" things that are really there, you have a problem.
That is over-simplified. There were areas of the South that supported or tolerated a protectionist tariff, provided they were not overtly harmed, or were being protected.
So you agree with me. The tariff wasn't such a big deal in the South as a whole and wouldn't have produced such an uproar on its own.
Lincoln's motives were strictly financial. He was a power-hungry politician, period; and money is power.
Neo-confederate caricature.
Pick any one of your source quotes, and let's analyze it.
You asked for sources repeatedly, like a parrot. I provided you with sources that you ignore - like you ignore most of the evidence of the conflict over slavery - and now you ask me to repackage everything for your own bloody convenience and more rounds of your blathering. You are not seriously interested in the actual history. Do not post to me again.