Consume Product

No doubt slavery was last straw on a series of insults, and probably no secession (and no war) if the slavery wedge not been driven. And Lincoln started the war only to keep the Union and was agnostic on the issue of slavery (until it became advantageous militarily.) Lincoln even tried to offer slavery back to the Govorners (who were now effectively kings) if they were to cancel plans. In a letter to the Gov or Florida, it was outlined. However the letter was not answered in time because in a book by Lincoln's cabinet member, there details Lincolns strategy to antagonize at Charlston, with the union newspapers under his control (they would write propaganda how the South "fired the first shot.") That was exactly what Lincoln needed to convince congress to raise troops. He wanted a Union so he executed on his plan for war by starting a planned scirmish in Charleston

Having studied both much and little, I have personal theories that are not often championed:

and that is A) certain writers in major newspapers, then, was like todays FOX and MSNBC. B) The reformed whig democrats were like today's international Marxists, and C) the abolutionists were somewhat like today's woke social juatice warriors.

So you had newspapers inflaming the public, unwittingly or with intent to start conflict. (We vs them)

Politicians that hated the south and state run currency, who either looked the other way at harm, or sought to directly punish the south through legislation. (Aside from the south not being adequately represented in the first place.)

And the political winds (soros-like vestments?) were being heavily influenced by the monies flowing into revolutionary idea of ending slavery overnight. Doing it overnight sounds good on paper yet the effect would be harsh and immediate. To give an example of impact, would be like turning off social security overnight. Not that extreme. But you get the idea. In the movie Ghostbusters, "dickless" wants to shut the power off to the containment unit. Peck: "**Forget it**, Venkman. You had your chance to cooperate, but you thought it'd be more fun to insult me." So they threw the breaker and accidentally unleashed the ghosts and all hell. Except in actual history, everyone knew without a doubt that secession came next. The abolutionists were the tool to get that done (and history looks kindly on them for having worked with politicians to do it wrecklessly with a BANG).
The idea to flip it off like a light switch at a time when tempers flared, however, is what costs us 750,000 lives.* The well-funded abolutionists were, like blm, unwitting pawns in a larger ploy.

...

> *750k estimate see hacker_cw_dead.pdf

...

For criticisms of Lincoln, read Thomas DeLorenzo, which is a whole different beast, but to Lincoln's credit he did try to restore the union non-violently by offering to undo slavery (a major point history books fail to mention time and time again), and only started the war when other avenues were explored. The major Port in Charleston, however, was too big of a trade artery to give up economically and militarily; so Lincoln decision was made to fight then, before bargaining was thoroughly investigated. And to be honest. The stench of power is so stinky that I don't think any govorner would have given their crown back under negotiations. It wasn't only about slavery. They were euphoric free countries again. So Lincoln knew if the South took the port then they would have had the upper hand. The chips fell where they did but this all goes back to who funded the abolutionists to lobby for an achilees heel attack to get this desired outcome. Even if you are against social security, no sane person would try to kill it overnight. Everyone knew it would have needed to be done tactfully, perhaps with tax breaks, a burning candle, or other concessions that history is full of.