[LS]

Slavery in the territories---which the south understood to be SLAVERY---was indeed "on the ballot." There would have been no secession if the South viewed Lincoln as irrelevant to "slavery" proper.

It goes back to my larger argument that Americans KNEW what the issue was, and they KNEW it had to be dealt with, but desperately wanted to avoid doing anything about it.

[BroJoeK]

LS: "Slavery in the territories---which the south understood to be SLAVERY---was indeed "on the ballot." "

Agreed. Slavery in the territories, and fugitive slave laws in non-slave states were important to both sides.
But these had nothing to do with slavery in slave states, and simply reflected the highly aggressive, expansionist nature of the Southern Slave Power, which held any restrictions on slavery's expansion to be threats against SLAVERY itself.

I think, the aggressiveness of the old Democrat Slave Power (S.P.) equates closely to that of today's Democrat Secular Progressives (S.P.) who claim that any attempt to restrict the powers of Government is a "war on women" or racism, or "attack on the elderly", etc.

So, relating back to this thread's theme, traditional Conservatives now find our strongest support in the Republican South.

Given that, we're not so surprised to see the current appeal of "northerners with southern values" -- among whom all three non-Romney candidates grew up in southern Pennsylvania, an area which historically produced Doughfaced "northern men of southern principles".

Thanks for a great discussion.