Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.
Please. In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. The Slave Power had
enormous economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits. Of course, then you have other problems.
Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt they were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.
We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.
Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.
The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.
The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. You know, since Lincoln was shot and all. Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.
"Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point. That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.
Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.
That's cute. What makes you think you're in any position to make demands? Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels. The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.
The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.
Peacefully and legally my ass. Tell Captain McGowan of the
Star of the West or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.
The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Declaration of Independence
1776
And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -
Declaration of Independence said:
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance. You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.
The lying POS lincoln also said;
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848
Yeah. But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power. QED.
In his first inaugural address he also said;
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...
Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.
yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.
Make your threats, they mean nothing to me. Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it. Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas. Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on. The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades. It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.
Some things are worth war; that was one of them. In short:
