The federal government is your shining beacon?! Dude you are very delusional have a good life

From the Declaration of Independence:

"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."

The founders found that the right to self determination was above all else, even "established" government, and that people had the right to step away from a destructive government, and form their own government that was more likely to meet the needs of it's people. This is exactly what the Confederate States did, they altered their government because the existing government was destructive to their their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. For this, and the fact they walked away with the bulk of moneis that went into the federal coffers, they were invaded, defeated, and through the years of the reconstruction era severly punished for their insubordinance to their federal masters.

@KCSantiago no one denied their status; and as you mentioned Lincoln did his best to consider accepting their "system"; but it is true that they feared a loss of power and it is true that the legislators only subservient to their system of aristocracy and privilege which denied that "all men are created equal" and denied "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" to those unrepresented in their population did create an injustice that required correction.

@RCGibb I am assuming by "their system" you mean slavery. Lincoln did not try to "tolerate" their system. As long as blacks were in this country he felt it was a necessity. He said if slavery were ended he felt all blacks should be returned to a British controlled area in Africa. By "required correction" I take to mean you think Lincoln's War was about freeing salves. That could not be further from the truth. Lincoln invaded the Confederate States of America to enforce his will, and to steal their riches, pure and simple. is bringing slavery into it with the Proclamation of emancipation was not only an illegal, meaning un-Constitutional act, as well as a whole hell of a lot of things his administration did, it really had nothing to do with freeing slaves. Two of the slave states remained with the union, a third slave state was illegally created and named West Virginia, and there were many many slaves held by rich yankess all through the north. His proclamation did not free any of those slaves, yankees were allowed to keep their slaves until passage of the 13th Amendment, this includes his General Grant.

Slavery would have come to an end, even if the CSA had maintained their independence, but this is all another issue I am writing about as Part Two. As for slaves in the Confederacy it was a foreign nation where his edicts carried no weight.

@KCSantiago If you believe the quote you made for "Life Liberty and Pursuit of happiness" is invalid and does not apply to enslaved people then perhaps that situation doesn't fall under the auspices of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was not jealous of the South, he had no part in the carpet baggers, in fact he was against that and had different plans that a politically compromised replacement after his death was too weak to prevent. So let's recap, it wasn't the tariffs, it wasn't the freedom of choice in the new states to be free or slave, and it wasn't that the southern states believed that "all men are created equal" or are endowed with "life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but it was the greed of one man, who's only stated hope was to preserve the union? Does that even deserve discussion?

Slavery was the cause, to preserve the Union was the solution, the Civil War and the 13th Amendment were the result.

The two States that stayed in the union confirms that concerns about the Union were important even in slave states, and they possibly believed the President about his slow change. The creation of West Virginia after the war started is a non issue about its cause.

So what was the first major legislation after the Civil War ... 13th Amendment ...

@RCGibb It is not, nor was invalid. It simply needed to be strengthened. But claiming that a war that was fought over ego, and money was about slavery in no way justifies the lives lost. I did not say Lincoln was jealous, never even lightly insinuated so not sure where that comes from. He was very angry because secession caused him some very serious headaches he did not want. His solution was stuffing the Constitution in a drawer, doing what ever he felt was best, and started a war. Preservation of the union was about money, and was wholly against the ideals of the Constitution and the revolution. Placing our modern values on a society 100+ years ago is just pointless. Pretty every single white person in this country was what today would be defined as a white supremacist, even Lincoln. They felt not only blacks were inferior and not quite "men", but indians as well. The people of the two states that remained union was decided by a vote of the people, that is on them for the choice they made for their won nation state, the idea embedded in the Declaration, just as the other states who chose secession was about what they felt best for their nation state. Lincoln figured the federal government was the one to decide what was best for everyone, very much in direct contradiction to the ideals of the revolution. Much like a king, or emperor rather than an elected rep who is supposed to represent everyone, even those who decide to step away.

@KCSantiago "stealing their riches" isn't something someone engages in unless they are envious (jealous). Anyway, to go on ... of course he didn't want the headaches of secession, who did? You are wrong about the abolitionists and the level of their awareness. Even Lincoln's letters reflect this. To claim the state of mind of a long dead person is even harder to do than to read the mind of a living person.

Justifying or assigning values to lives lost is a judgement game that defies logic ... what is the value of a life free or slave, dead or maimed? What is the value of one that gives their life for a fellow comrade in arms ... which happened on both sides. From the very first assault on Sumter lives were lost. Lives lost in Civil Wars with equal levels of technology are notoriously the highest.

But you're saying that all of a sudden a new political party and it's President could without support cause and pursue a War of this magnitude by his own desire? Unbelievable, as has already been noted at least two "slave" states believed in the preservation of the Union also.

Separate "nation" states is nowhere a part of the constitution, it is an odd phraseology.

@RCGibb There is an old saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

Because the words "all men are created equal" was written while slaves were still held is the same thing. Imagine if the Constitution had been totally scrapped and written to say that only white men had rights and that was the founding definition of our legal rights? Do you really think anything would be the same today? If the idea that not all men were actually treated equally back then regardless of race makes the Declaration null void as a whole, then the Constitution itself is also null and void. But it was readjustments of the citizens meaning behinda the Constitution that brought about change through the years. Otherwise the whole game would have been null and void until the success of the suffragette movement in 1920, but I seriously doubt that would have taken place without the Constitution being in place to lead to such a move. One of the glories about the Constitution is that it did not give the federal government unlimited power that could only be changed through violent revolution.

In spite of your argument I realize from what I have learned in my studies through the years that tariffs, and states rights were the core reasons for secession. Sure slavery played a peripheral part, but since slavery was not in any real danger of being outlawed in the near future it was not the central reason for secession, and where it did come into play was due to the federal government's over reach of it's authority as restricted in the Constitution.

As for the 13th Amendment I am writing about that in the next post, but real quick here, one main reason the republicans forced it's passage so quickly was to appease European nations that had provided aid to the union on a condition that slavery would be abolished in the union regardless of their winning or not. As has been pointed out there were many slave owners all through the union. There were also ulterior motives regarding the reconstruction era I will be discussing in the Part Two.

@RCGibb Sorry the assessment about theft is not an absolute at all. Yankees needed money and the people who put Lincoln in office seriously opposed higher taxes. As for separate nations I use the phrase "nation states" which was a term I found often reading the words of the founding fathers and others through that time

@KCSantiago The desire for equality was an often mentioned hope of the founding fathers in their writings, but coming from a world situation where it was a fact of life required the delicacy fo the founding documents to begin the undoing of it, which was their expressed intent. And the specific omission of race in the documents could not have been an accident either.

Although I think I have defended the causation of slavery as opposed to tariffs and states rights concerning the origins of the Civil War. Slavery was in danger of being isolated and reduced by the competition of the frontier opportunities and the minority the south held in the legislature. Preserving it was I believe the reason for secession and Slavery as a result the reason for the War. So I still think Slavery was the cause, to preserve the Union was the solution, the Civil War and the 13th Amendment were the result.

I appreciate though the discussion, and look forward to part 2

@KCSantiago "nation" states I think in those context referred to nation states in the European sense, I might be wrong on that. I know there is a long history of that reference.

@RCGibb I am really enjoying the discussion myself. Thank you for the exchange without any personal assaults.

"The "Southern" states were upset with the possible election of a Republican president."
In part because that republican president would be put into office by the richer yankees who owned all the various mills, and factories that used much of the southern raw materials like lumber, and cotton to make the products they sold. In the previous years northern businesses had refused to pay market prices for these materials. Southerner business owners then created new markets in Europe where they got prices they wanted, which angered the yankees. Instead of getting raw materials at rock bottom prices they wanted to pay they instead were having to pay competitive prices or their markets were being filled with finished products that cost them business. They responded by passing import, and export taxes the destroyed the over seas market that had been tapped into. They were holding southern businesses as economic hostage through votes in senate and congress because they had far more votes due to their populations.

"They were getting frustrated by things like the Missouri compromise, which restricted slave states"
This goes back to state rights. Until then individual state chose to allow salve or not, these new laws with new states were seen as an a violation of the restrictions placed on the federal government by the Constitution. Another important thing to understand, in order to understand the attitude of the north, which has been terribly skewed by the education the federal government has forced on us, the feds deciding if new states could have slaves, or not was not due to some altrusitic thoughts about how wrong slavery is. The new states were meant for a means of over crowded cities in the north to have people leave to the new states for a new beginning. Those anti slave laws governing the new states was something like England emptying out their debtor prisons by sending everyone to the colonies, or sending other prisoners to Australia. Yankees wanted to get rid of as many poor people in their midst as they could. Making them "free" states was also meant to entice those free blacks in places like New York to leave. Not only would this, as they saw it, rid them of the blight of poor people, but blacks as well. Settling the new states would also mean those people would have to carry the burden of dealing with issues like the indians before the rich folk headed west.

"The southern states can read the writing on the wall, now there are 15 slave and 19 free states, so legislative advantages are rapidly shrinking for the slave states."
This goes back to the afore mentioned economic hostage situation, and over reach of the federal government. I used to work for this little store and the boss was teaching me how to set the prices for new merchandise. Our standard mark up was 33%. Customers had the choice to pay that mark up or take their business else where. If the customers were given the right to vote on how much the boss could mark up new merchandise, and voted to restrict it to only 2% there would not be any reason to keep the store open, the boss would have lost his livelihood. That is what the north was doing to southern farmers, ranchers, plantations through legislative actions which was seen as very un-Constitutional, an over reach of the federal government where it had no business being. With the victory of the yankees then we have seen nothing but that long over reaching arm extending more and more and more because the feds set the precedent of over ruling the Constitution.

@KCSantiago their frustration about the Missouri compromise was based on the geographic areas that were limited to slavery, their size was only about a third of the land described; not the disadvantage of the states not being able o choose their futures. When the pioneers were allowed to choose their status they overwhelmingly chose free states. This was because it enfranchised the poor and did not empower the land owners, like in the southern states where the only constituents their elected leaders concerned themselves with were the plantation owners. They were intent on saving their aristocracy, and class system. That attitude was dying thanks to the opportunities available to the new pioneer expansion, and as I said the changing attitudes of America and Europe.

The tariff issue was being reduced after the tariff reductions Polk introduced in 1846 and the additional reductions begun in 1857, so tariffs were becoming much less of an issue. The tariff increases in 1860 were only successful because of the lack of attendance from the seceding states, had the Senators that resigned been there for a vote the tariff would have failed. So 14 years of continuous tariff reductions doesn't seem like a major reason for the war. As the freedom of the citizens to choose their status as a state doesn't either.

As to the extent Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and continue the slow changes taking place rather than have the turmoil a divided union would bring, give him credit for proposing compromises. And as to what the South expected from a Republican President; since there had not as yet been one, that is pure speculation. As was indicated by the three options the secessionists debated. Break now, break in a little while, or see what happens. They chose not to wait.

"That was also largely an issue because all of those states suspected his abolitionist leanings."

Not sure about abolitionists as whole, but Lincoln, though confessing a belief slavery was wrong, still was not any kind of "friend" to black people. In speeches for senate, and the presidency he repeatedly said he had no desire to end slavery in the United States. If it were outlawed he also made it clear he believed the only thing to do would be to gather all the blacks in this country, and ship them back to the African continent, preferably to a country under British rule. This was because he did not believe blacks capable of living peacefully side by side with whites as free men. If they were not slaves he felt white men would still be responsible for taking of them because they would not be able to take care of themselves, and would also become a terrible burden through crime as a means to sustain themselves.
The only time Lincoln made slavery of any importance in the yankee war effort was with the Proclamation of Emancipation which we have been taught since grade school made him the Great Emancipator. That had two purposes, neither of which was to do any favors for salves themselves. Up to then the yankees had been handed their asses on a silver platter in fight after fight with the Confederate Army. With the issuance of the PoE it was hoped all the blacks in Confederate states would learn of this, believe they were free, and rise up against their masters the families of their masters. It was an effort to turn the tide of the war in yankee favor. It was also meant to sucker European nations into thinking this what the yankee war effort was all about. Hopes they could get aid for themselves, while undermining aid the Confederacy was being given from Europe.

@KCSantiago

So what are your authoritative source documents?