Lincoln was a lawyer. Apart from whatever his motives ere, he took every action based on law and the constitution. He could not legally or constitutionally ban slavery within states that were still loyal to the Union. It was constitutionally debatable whether states had a right to secede from the Union. But it was unquestionably an act of war for southern forces to fire on Ft Sumpter. So that is what Lincoln acted against.
It seems apparent that neither side had a clear vision of the future. How could they? Do we have a clear vision of the future of the Mideast or of Ukraine? Wars are as much a battle of wills as of the military. Neither side knew what Ft Sumpter would lead to. But slavery was a primary, perhaps THE primary issue from the beginning of the Constitution. We can't seriously suggest it wasn't an essential issue that resulted in civil war.
Um...study the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the aftermath.
The cultural baggage that enabled the institution of slavery in the Americas came from Britain.
While slavery, as in the ownership of people, wasn't an issue in Britain, the extent of government power was. That rhetoric was mirrored in 1850s America. I submit that the same attitudes came from Britain, and though resolved—sort of--in Britain, it wasn't in British society as exported to America.
It was that baggage that made, in the Southern mind, firing on Ft Sumter acceptable. It was that baggage that was the actual issue that had to be expunged, or at least overcome. Chattel slavery just came along for the ride..
You seem to think we have a disagreement. I've always maintained (based on other's observations more than my own) that America's plantation system was a carryover from England's feudal system.
Certainly, the USA didn't start slavery. It didn't even enslave any free people, it simply bought already enslaved people from Africa.
And yes, let's remember the idea of chattel, ownership of living beings, whether they be people or livestock. Chattel also included children and wives. No wonder, the contention between the 'North' and the 'South'. Two very different outlooks on life.
Lincoln was a lawyer. Apart from whatever his motives ere, he took every action based on law and the constitution. He could not legally or constitutionally ban slavery within states that were still loyal to the Union. It was constitutionally debatable whether states had a right to secede from the Union. But it was unquestionably an act of war for southern forces to fire on Ft Sumpter. So that is what Lincoln acted against.
It seems apparent that neither side had a clear vision of the future. How could they? Do we have a clear vision of the future of the Mideast or of Ukraine? Wars are as much a battle of wills as of the military. Neither side knew what Ft Sumpter would lead to. But slavery was a primary, perhaps THE primary issue from the beginning of the Constitution. We can't seriously suggest it wasn't an essential issue that resulted in civil war.
Um...study the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the aftermath.
The cultural baggage that enabled the institution of slavery in the Americas came from Britain.
While slavery, as in the ownership of people, wasn't an issue in Britain, the extent of government power was. That rhetoric was mirrored in 1850s America. I submit that the same attitudes came from Britain, and though resolved—sort of--in Britain, it wasn't in British society as exported to America.
It was that baggage that made, in the Southern mind, firing on Ft Sumter acceptable. It was that baggage that was the actual issue that had to be expunged, or at least overcome. Chattel slavery just came along for the ride..
You seem to think we have a disagreement. I've always maintained (based on other's observations more than my own) that America's plantation system was a carryover from England's feudal system.
Certainly, the USA didn't start slavery. It didn't even enslave any free people, it simply bought already enslaved people from Africa.
And yes, let's remember the idea of chattel, ownership of living beings, whether they be people or livestock. Chattel also included children and wives. No wonder, the contention between the 'North' and the 'South'. Two very different outlooks on life.