“Nobody was under any illusions about him attacking the South or slavery had the Southern states remained in.”
The South was in the union in 1859 but they were attacked by John Brown in a murder raid financed by prominent northerners. The financial backers were given sanctuary by politicians in the north.
The South was in the union in 1860 but they were attacked by northern business and political interests in the form of confiscatory taxation - with higher rates promised by regional candidate for president A. Lincoln.
And in his “House Divided” speech, Lincoln had said slavery would end by hook or by crook. Southerners were alarmed by his reckless disregard for the benefit of the bargain provided for in the constitution.
It is true slavery could not be legally abolished by the North through constitutional amendment without southern support. What southerners feared going forward, and rightly so, was extra-constitutional methods, including economic warfare and violence.
The South was in the union in 1859 but they were attacked by John Brown in a murder raid financed by prominent northerners. The financial backers were given sanctuary by politicians in the north.
The South was in the union in 1860 but they were attacked by northern business and political interests in the form of confiscatory taxation - with higher rates promised by regional candidate for president A. Lincoln.
And in his “House Divided” speech, Lincoln had said slavery would end by hook or by crook. Southerners were alarmed by his reckless disregard for the benefit of the bargain provided for in the constitution.
It is true slavery could not be legally abolished by the North through constitutional amendment without southern support. What southerners feared going forward, and rightly so, was extra-constitutional methods, including economic warfare and violence.
That I completely agree with. It wasn’t so much “slavery” being attacked as it was they knew they’d been getting screwed bigtime and that it was going to get much much worse as they balance tilted ever more in favor of Northern business interests and the Northern politicians they had in their pockets.
I have no problem with this particular argument, since it emphasizes the true root cause of secession -- Southern fears over what "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans might do against slavery.
But we should also note that many Lost Causers posting here -- including DiogenesLamp, FLT-bird and robowombat -- deny the centrality of slavery and instead focus our attention on whatever shiny objects they can conjure, be it tariffs, "Northeastern power brokers" or "money flows from Europe".
So, in the time honored tradition of jeffersondem responses, may I invite critic to answer critic?
;-)