[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

You're thinking slavery, the south was thinking economic wealth and your ignoring the host of other serious issues that connected to how the south operated. Yes, the two are connected, but it was more than slavery in itself. In fact, a small percentage owned slaves.

Of course slavery was tied to economics, and of course the Southern States were trying to stay alive, and of course they viewed the Northern States as trying to destroy their way of live. But the economics were tied to slavery, and that was the central issue.

My response is mostly to this statement:

Political correctness makes the war about slavery, it wasn't.

That is a flat statement, and it is flat wrong. As I said the first time, the war was over secession and preserving the Union, and the Southern States seceded over slavery. That is what they said at the time, and I don't think they had a reason to lie about it.

The bigger issue, it really wasn't about slaves to Lincoln or most the north, they wanted it like it was, just wanted the north to have an unfair balance of power.

Not so. I'm sure there were power-hungry politicians in the North, just as I'm sure there were power-hungry politicians in the South. Lincoln, I'm equally sure, was concerned with preserving the Union for the simple reason that he was of the second generation following the Founders, and he firmly believed that whole "Hang together or hang separately" thing. I think he was sure that the country separated could not survive.

If, as you say, they just wanted to have an unfair balance of power, then you cannot attribute strictly bad motives to them and then assign strictly pure motives to the South. It's not fair to assume only the worst of one and only the best of the other.

Many states didn't secede until after Lincoln called up troops, even asking the south for many troops, in doing so the entire south left, none of them would accept an army coming into their state. Check your fact, it was after this that the entire south left.

I already know my fact(s). Seven States seceeded over Lincoln's election. Four (hardly "many" in the total) more seceeded after the call for troops. I don't assign any other motive than reaction to the call-up to the four. Of the seven, five listed the cause for secession, and every one of them put slavery as the primary reason.

Lincoln got elected because a warped electoral system, like I said, he wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states.

So you're saying that Lincoln one because the election was rigged against him? Or did he win despite not beeing on the ballot in those states, which means the election must have been rigged in the northern states?

Lincoln got elected because the majority of the country voted for him. He handily won the popular and electoral votes. I used to think that he won because the Democrats were divided among several different candidates. This is true of the popular vote, but even if they were all combined Lincoln still would have carried the electoral vote. There is no evidence the election was rigged in Lincoln's favor. In fact you seem to be saying that in the South at least it was rigged against him.

And, as I said, what was the reason he wasn't on those ballots? I already gave my answer. I'm waiting for yours.

I'm also still waiting on my request for evidence to support your prior claim:

Secession was about lack of representation and taxation, with the south paying the majority of taxes

The scary thing is, what if it didn't work out, it could've gone the other way and totally ruined America, then we would be calling Lincoln a zero, not a hero.

Not necessarily. Lincoln may have been remembered as the man who tried to save America and failed, while Jefferson Davis might have been remembered as the man who destroyed it.

Or the South may have succeeded, and two separate countries might have survived side-by-side. I don't dismiss any possibilities.

The sad fact is racism continued in full force long after the CW.

No one can argue against that.