The tone of your response is evidence of the value of your argument. You tell us that we shouldn't believe Stevens because he was a politician, and all politicians lie. Yet you want us to believe Lincoln when you provide a butchered quote, because . . . ? Because he wasn't a politician? Because he never lied? You're stepping on your own dick here.
Your comment about an "original source" is hilarious, given that you never provide a shred of support for any of your ex cathedra
statements. The quote which you have disingenuously referred to was from Lincoln's comments on emancipation, at the time of his first attempt at an emancipation proclamation. What he actually said was:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
In January, 1861, two months after Lincoln was elected, but two months before he was sworn into office, an armed mob from Pensacola, Florida attempted to seize the Federal property at Forts McCrae and Barrancas. Lieutenant Adam Slemmer drove off the mob, and his detachment, which had already removed most of the powder to Fort Pickens in the harbor, then spiked the guns they could not remove, and set fire to the rest of the arsenal. The State of Florida subsequently sent in militia to seize and hold those now useless forts. The actions of the State of Florida, and the State of Alabama in sending troops to Pensacola clearly violate Article One, Section 10, third paragraph, of the constitution.
In February, 1861, at Montgomery, Alabama, seven states formed the Confederate States of America, including states which had originally ratified the constitution without reservation about the provisions of Article One, Section ten, first paragraph which was violated by their actions.
In December, 1860, little more than a month after Lincoln was elected, and more than three months before he was sworn in, South Carolina militia occupied water batteries in the harbor at Charleston, and set up other batteries in the attempt to command Fort Sumter. They were outraged that Major Anderson had removed Federal property from the arsenal in the city to his position at Fort Moultrie, and when Anderson removed his garrison to the more defensible Fort Sumter, state authorities loudly complained of a "breach of good faith," and began a seige of the fortress. President Buchanan refused an indirect summons, just as Major Anderson refused a direct summons--both in January, 1861, two months before Lincoln was sworn in. This was a clear violation of Article One, Section ten, third paragraph of the constitution, as was South Carolina's adherence to a confederacy in February a violation of the first paragraph. So was the act of firing on The Star of the West
which attempted to supply and reinforce Major Anderson at Fort Sumter--once again, before Lincoln had been inaugurated.
The fact that you are not an American calls into question your ordinary knowledge of American history. You have never demonstrated any particularly well-informed knowledge of the subject, and all you do is offer your unsubstantiated ipse dixit
comments. If you really wanted to be taken seriously, you'd demonstrate your knowledge, and provide support for your claims. This is, of course, something you never do. If you allege that the war was about "sorting out" the constitution, inform us of what about the constitution needed to be sorted out, and how pre-emptive military action on the part of an illegal confederation of states intended to accomplish this.
To those who do know the history of this country, the Southern reaction is no surprise at all. In 1858, Lincoln held a series of debates with Stephen Douglas in Illinois. Both men were vying for a Senate seat, at a time when the state legislatures appointed Senators, and therefore they were each campaigning for their respective parties, in the hope to taking control of the legislature and securing the appointment. Lincoln spoke on behalf of the new Republican Party, and Douglas on behalf of the Democrats. Lincoln effectively torpedoed Douglas' eventual bid for the Presidency, although Douglas was appointed to the open Senate seat. It was precisely because Lincoln forced Douglas to come out against slavery in the Lincoln-Douglas debates that the former Vice President John Breckenridge split the Democratic party in the 1860 election--to provide pro-slavery Democrats a candidate in preference to Douglas. Douglas beat Breckenridge in the popular vote, but Breckenridge carried all of the southern states, and therefore took more votes in the Electoral College. The effect, of course, was to throw the election to Lincoln and the Republican Party, which has been soundly defeated when John Frémont had run for the office in 1856.
So the response of the South is obvious--the election of Lincoln lead them to believe that the institution of slavery would be abolished--never mind that Lincoln had no such power, and never mind that had their Congressional delegations remained in place, the constitution could not have been amended. Therefore, they violated the constitution by forming a confederacy, and by raising troops and levying war. They were not in the least subtle about it, either--they did so before Lincoln was even sworn in. James Chestnut, the senior Senator from South Carolina, lead the state delegation out of the Congress immediately after Lincoln's election, and even before the state had passed a secession ordinance. The reaction of most of the rest of the states which would form the Confederacy was the same. James Chestnut went back to South Carolina, and immediately began organizing the siege of the Federal installations in the harbor. He became the military aide to President Davis during the war, and his wife's diary is one of the most important primary source documents for life in Richmond and in the Carolina back country during the war.
The casus belli
of the South could not be more obvious. That you choose to align yourself with the peddlers of the various feeble apologias
for the South just further demonstrates how little you know. "Sorting out" the constitution? Please . . . at least make some kind of effort to produce an argument.
I suspect both that Snood is not insulted by anything i've written, and that he doesn't need your help to decide if he has been insulted.