Lincoln Rode into Office on the Arms of Slavery
On March 2, 1861, the Lincoln controlled congress passed the following amendment.
“ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Meaning, the federal government could not overturn slavery, ever. It is as simple as this. If the southern states really left the union merely because of slavery, all that they had to do was to return to the union and ratify this amendment. It is interesting that the only state to ratify this amendment before war broke out was Illinois, the home state of Lincoln. Lincoln was clearly a supporter of this amendment and of the institution of slavery in general. Simply look at his inauguration speech.
” Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
‘ I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.’”
Clearly, the succession of the southern states was not about slavery. If was far more about the destruction of the southern economy by the protectionist tariffs instituted by the federal government. Many condemn those that would even discuss succession as racist and hate mongers. Those people are idiots. To think that one succession would have anything to do with another succession is moronic. The revolutionary war (our succession from Britain) had different origins than the southern states succeeding from the United States (Not to mention the 11 states that succeed from North Carolina and Rhode Island when they ratified the U.S. Constitution while those two states where still under the Articles of Confederation.) There is nothing hateful or racist when talking about succession. In fact, I would contend that it is those who prevent that discussion are the hateful ones since they would retain control through any means possible.
