Comment: Fighting to preserve the union had NOTHING to do with

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I see a difference between (see in situ)

Fighting to preserve the union had NOTHING to do with

slavery.

He didn't want to keep them in for that reason.

He wanted to keep them in because the Treasury needed the taxes generated by the South's agricultural activity.

He also wanted to prove the point that the D.C. government was supreme and there was no more State autonomy at all.

Lincoln not only signed a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have protected slavery in the South, he offered to back off that issue entirely if the Southern states would back off their secession rhetoric and stay put. They refused because they knew that wasn't the real issue they were ticked off about and that if they stayed, later down the road they would be helpless to resist any orders from D.C. on that count as well. Their only hope for maintaining their sovereignty was to defend it and exercise it.

The modern equivalent would be if States seceded again today over gun grabbing and a myriad of other issues, but Obama murdered 30 million of us in a war and later used "universal health care" as a rallying cry. The war wouldn't be over universal health care. The war would be about federal tyranny. But that wouldn't stop the historians from skewing the issues towards Obama's plan for 'social democracy' aka—communism.