Replies

lentulusgracchus: "I'm convinced Lincoln and his inner circle... came to office with a secret war policy, which was presented back-to-front as opposition to the extension of slavery, but was instead a determination to destroy the moneyed classes of the South economically and politically... "

Nothing in the 1860 Republican platform or other documentary evidence remotely supports your opinion.
In actual history, Deep South secessionists -- aka "Fire Eaters" -- pushed and lead every step of the way from peace in 1860 to formally declaring war on May 6, 1861.

Both outgoing "Dough-Faced" Democrat President Buchanan and incoming "Black Republican" President Lincoln did nothing more than respond to the Confederacy's increasingly aggressive acts of rebellion or war against the United States.

Indeed, Lincoln's First Inaugural Address directly spoke to secessionists, telling them they could not have a war, unless they themselves started it.
So they very soon did.

lentulusgracchus: "The Republican Party's real platform was to attack and totally destroy the South, take the Government into receivership, and seize control, total control, of the country's fortunes, turning the federal republic of enumerated powers into an autocratic, centralized and illimitable one: Hamilton's old ideal of "Empire without the King"."

Actually, the real 1860 Republican platform can be found here.
If you study it carefully, you'll find it calls for nothing you've claimed, but does support the right of territories to restrict slavery from areas where it wasn't wanted.

For examples, items 7 & 8 say:

"SEVENTH. That the new dogma that the constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

EIGHTH. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States."

lentulusgracchus: "Or do you think it all happened by accident, as a series of extemporaneous responses to unforeseen events: that the Republic "lurched uncontrollably"... into a centralized nation-state run by a delimited "Who's Who" of elite politicians and businessmen, into whose phalanx-like Gilded-Age ranks nobody managed to break until Grover Cleveland won the White House?"

First of all, Southern Democrat President Andrew Johnson served from 1865 to 1869, and while his record is mixed, it was generally favorable to the South.
Eight years later -- 1876 -- the election between Hayes and Tilden was so close, political deals were made which further reduced restrictions on the South -- eliminating "Black Republican" elected officials.
In 1880 another very close vote went to Republican Garfield, because he carried New York.
Finally in 1884, Democrats nominated the Governor of New York, which gave them enough electors to win the election.

In Congress, Democrats first won the House of Representatives in 1874 and by 1878 controlled both House and Senate.
And just as before the Civil War, the majority of Democrats were Southerners.
After 1874 there were very few years when Democrats did not control one or both Houses of Congress.

So all your language about "Republic "lurched uncontrollably"... into a centralized nation-state run by a delimited "Who's Who" of elite politicians," is more hyperbole than any serious analysis.

lentulusgracchus: "It wasn't about abolition.
It was about what Yankees thought about Southerners, which they demonstrated beyond recall... when John Brown was executed in 1859, and Massachusetts Gov. Nathaniel Banks responded..."

Of course, John Brown was all about abolition, nothing else.
And before the Civil War, many Northern states often voted for Southern Dominated Democrats, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and New Jersey, so Northerners were far from hostile towards the South.
What Northerners feared and didn't want was Southern slavery imposed by Federal laws on Northern territories or states.
But that is exactly what the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scot decision implied.

lentulusgracchus: "It was never a political issue before Northern apologists for the Tariff of Abominations (1828) started reaching around for clubs with which to beat the South and divide the West from the South..."

No, slavery was an issue in both the Continental Congress' Declaration of Independence (see Jefferson's deleted words on that) and in the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
In the earliest Congresses slavery was seldom mentioned, because the South imposed a "gag rule" to forbid that.
But the interests of Slave and Free States clashed most importantly in admitting new states -- one slave for every free state.

lentulusgracchus: "...reaching around for clubs with which to beat the South and divide the West from the South, the better to isolate the South and subdue it..."

In real history, as opposed to Neo-Confederate myth-making, Democrats dominated all three branches of the Federal government from the Founding of the Republic in 1788 until Secession in 1861.
And Democrats were always dominated by Southerners.