[PeaRidge]

"What oppression?"

You did not have to wait for Lincoln to take office for the threats of oppression to occur.

12/3/1860 When Congress convened in Washington, several Republicans, especially from the mid-western states,

“swore by everything in the Heavens above, and the Earth that they would convert the rebel States into a wilderness.”

“Without a little blood-letting,” wrote Michigan’s radical, coarse-grained Senator Zachariah Chandler, “this Union will not be worth a rush.”

The danger of losing access to the lower Mississippi valley accounted for the bellicosity of many mid-westerners. The people of the Northwest, said the Chicago Tribune, would never negotiate for free navigation of the river.

“It is their right, and they will assert it to
the extremity of blotting Louisiana out of the map”.

The Union congress was already threatening extreme oppression.

[Ditto]

You are really grasping at straws now. Should I pull out some of the overheated rhetoric from radical Southern congresscritters and scribblers to play tit for tat with you, or will you admit that at the point when secession began, not one act of oppression of any type had been committed, and Lincoln had vowed that none would be under his presidency?

And how about the fact that even your "source" only complaint relates to the institution of slavery? Does that mean you now agree that the South seceded over slavery?