Replies

So just what is it that you're arguing here? That the protection of slavery had nothing to do with southern secession? There is far too much documentation--secession declarations, editorials, speeches--that says otherwise.

Assuming they did so, and no war occurred, would slavery have been permanent? You state that it would have lasted until the mid-20th century, almost another hundred years. How does extending it end it? Would allowing the states to continue abortion unfettered end it?

What are you talking about? You seem to be trying to have your states rights cake and eat it, too. If you're arguing that only the federal government had the ability and, indeed, the responsibility to end slavery throughout the United States, your position would seem much closer to that of the Radical Republicans than Lincoln, much less the Confederate leadership.

and per the Supreme Court, could carry it to any territory, IF that was their sole desire.

That is something that Lincoln was adamant about changing. From the Cooper Union speech: "Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively." There was a strong determination in the Republicans to find a way to overturn Dred Scott, since the logical extension of its legal reasoning was that slavery couldn't be outlawed anywhere in the north.

A sentiment for UNION. Much of the American industry relied on cheap Southern cotton, and few whites wanted to compete with blacks for jobs, especially the free-soilers. Restoring the union with slavery intact would accomplish both.

Nor did they want to compete with slaves in their own states. So why was it that the Republicans won the election so handily? Why did Lincoln carry the agricultural western states by as large of margins as the industrialized New England states? Minnesota was carried by the same margin as Massachusetts.

Lastly, tariffs were very important, enough that the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs designed to 'promote or foster any branch of industry'

But not so important that the states made more than passing mention of them in their secession declarations, while slavery and the associated issues are mentioned over and over again.

Though not insane like some other neo-Confederates who post on Free Republic, 4CJ will endlessly twist the facts and ignore logic in order to justify his obvious contempt for black people and a wish that patriotic Americans had never abolished slavery.

There are better things to do than argue with America-haters, be they al-Queda or Communistst or neo-Confederates.

So just what is it that you're arguing here? That the protection of slavery had nothing to do with southern secession? There is far too much documentation--secession declarations, editorials, speeches--that says otherwise.

As I pointed out, not even the north - with the exception of a few abolitionists - advocated for an end to slavery - there was too much money to be made, and a Lincoln himself noted, such a platform would not have won him the election.

But not so important that the states made more than passing mention of them in their secession declarations, while slavery and the associated issues are mentioned over and over again.

Southern states had protested high tariff rates for DECADES. Newspapers across the republic, and around the world spoke of the monetary concerns:

So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils.

Additionally, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his sole object was collect the revenues from tariff houses - it was refusal to allow this that incensed Lincoln.

If you're arguing that only the federal government had the ability and, indeed, the responsibility to end slavery throughout the United States, your position would seem much closer to that of the Radical Republicans than Lincoln, much less the Confederate leadership.

Nope. I'm saying to not portray Lincoln as an abolitionist when he was not, or that the war was waged to end slavery - it was to restore the union as it WAS. W could attempt to have the courts set aside Roe v Wade, returning the issue to the states - in essence the Lincolnian position. The Reagan position was to support an amendment ENDING abortion - which is the only way (in a union absent judicial activism or legislative coup [radical republican position]) that a people of several states may Constitutionally override the people of a another state.

There was a strong determination in the Republicans to find a way to overturn Dred Scott, since the logical extension of its legal reasoning was that slavery couldn't be outlawed anywhere in the north.

Nonsense, it was a state decision. No state could force slavery on another absent a constitutional amendment. The courts had already held that the territories were property in common for ALL the states of the union. Any territory could abolish slavery once it was a state, the federal government had no delegated authority to do so. All states agreed to those terms upon ratification, and as no constitutional amendment had been passed, it was illegal for a state, the federal Congress, or the President to do so.

Nor did they want to compete with slaves in their own states.

I'll agree - most small landowners, including my ancestor, saw the use of slaves as economically unfair.

So why was it that the Republicans won the election so handily? Why did Lincoln carry the agricultural western states by as large of margins as the industrialized New England states? Minnesota was carried by the same margin as Massachusetts.

Democrats split their vote between two candidates. Maybe Lincoln knew he had it in the bag, he didn't even campaign IIRC. Maybe northern voters wanted to continue their socialist wealth redistribution schemes, or supported a massive land grant to railroads and the route west, or simply favoured protection from black competition? Maybe it was because Lincoln promised continue the the Whig platform of high tariffs and internal improvements (PORK)? Much as todays Dims promise job security, higher wages, more social income redistribution, protection of shipping interests etc. Most politicians campaign on the platform to giving you someone else's monies (including that of your children).