It's not "bribery." It's "horse trading." It's barter or rational exchange. How do you think running mates and cabinet secretaries were chosen - are chosen? They are the people who offer support to the winning candidate and there's usually a promise (implied or explicit) involved.
You've lost me here. When is it not about money? It's always about money.
My point was that it's always about money and materialistic or opportunistic motivations for you when it comes to Lincoln and the Republicans, but somehow it's more idealistic and pure when other political actors are involved.
I see oppression as something worse than taking money from well to do rich people. Exploitation seems a better word.
I said people rebelled when they felt oppressed. Southerners - plantation owners and slave owners - felt oppressed and revolted. The difference between oppression and exploitation is significant in other matters, but in this regard it's trivial.
Which implies the only correct course of action is to go to war. I'm not convinced that is true.
The correct course of action was not to cave in to sedition and subversion.
If one were interested enough to follow DegenerateLamps illogic (I don’t count myself among them) one could just as easily say, “You’ve lost me here. When is it not about ego? It’s always about ego.”
His claims are so detached from reality that, beyond a quick chuckle now and again, he isn’t worth the effort.