So at this point do you claim that Lincoln went to war to free the slaves as his motivation, or do you acknowledge what was being said by others here all along in this thread, that this was not his motivation?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And, he left enslaved those slaves that he had the power to immediately free.[/quote]
This is still false, as a matter of constitutional law, no matter how many times you repeat it.
You ever going to grow a pair and address the issue?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So at this point do you claim that Lincoln went to war to free the slaves as his motivation, or do you acknowledge what was being said by others here all along in this thread, that this was not his motivation?[/quote]
What I’m saying is that Lincoln, since well before the Civil War started, was against slavery morally, but that it was not until DURING the Civil War that he felt a political AND moral obligation to eradicate it entirely. The Civil War was fought due to the slavery issue, but not in LIncoln’s mind.
He felt that as President, his moral objection to slavery was separate from his duties as Commander in Chief when war broke out. He initially only wanted to unify the North and South and maintain the integrity of the Union. It was his obligation as President (since the Constitution states that “…the Union is perpetual, lest it be imperfect,”) to uphold the Constitution. He felt (however erroneously is immaterial) that secession was unconstitutional and he was obligated to unify the two sides. This is why he said he didn’t care whether or not slavery existed, as long as he could unify the Union. But when he said this, he was still morally opposed to slavery.
But as the war continued, he felt that slavery must be ended and for him, it became a political issue AND a moral issue. Slavery was always at the forefront of the issue, but in Lincoln’s mind ending it wasn’t the goal until around middle/late 1862. The southern states seceded over the slavery issue, but to Lincoln the only issue for him as President was bringing the South back into the Union. But as I have demonstrated, he changed and the abolishment of slavery became a political issue for him. This does not make Lincoln a hypocrite, it doesn’t make him a tyrant, an abuser of the Constitution or any of the other slanderous things people on this thread have called him.
In short, Lincoln as a person was opposed to slavery well before the start of war, but for him it was not a PRESIDENTIAL issue until his mind slowly changed, mainly due to the dragging on of the war. As much as he wanted to separate the slavery issue from his responsibility to maintain the Union, he could not deny that the central issue behind secession, and then the war, was slavery. When he realized this, he did everything he could (and then some) to eradicate it entirely, culminating in the ratification of the 13th Amendment. If the war was fought over slavery, and he abolished it entirely, to him this would hasten the end of the war.
If this is how you feel Bill, then why didn’t you say so instead of making the wild, provocative claim that Lincoln was simply seeking “tribute” from the South or whatever the hell it is you were saying at the beginning of this thread? What I stated above is what happened; it’s not some “schoolboy truth” and it’s not some revisionist theory. I’m afraid that the statements you’ve made up until now have ignored the context in which Lincoln served as President and they ignore the fact that, in essence, Lincoln changed his mind regarding his Presidency and its role involving the ending of slavery. But he always had stood against slavery as a person.
[quote]orion wrote:
No they did not.
He was just a hypocrite and perfectly typical politician.[/quote]
Nope, Lincoln was referring to the right to revolution as cited by the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing hypocritical about it - Southern secession wasn’t an invocation of revolution. A secession is, definitionally, not a revolution.
You’ve been whitesmoked on this topic more times than I can count. Why continue to repeat flawed contentions?
You seem to have avoided giving a direct answer, but it seems to me that you’re now acknowledging that Lincoln’s motivation was NOT to free the slaves.
So exactly what all your argument was against such statements, I have no idea, unless it was trolling.
It appears to me that Lincoln would have waged war against the Southern states for secession for ANY reason.
Now, what difference does the Federal government experience from secession? Besides not enjoying the company of Southern Senators and Representatives on Capitol Hill.
Nothing, except, no tax money, and no power over people over whom the Federal Government had been used to having power.
Exactly how it is that you can’t see that once we acknowledge (if you have done so: again, your above post seems more like waffling than acknowledging) that Lincoln’s motivation for waging war on the South was not slavery, then we have to find what it is that was missing under secession.
I don’t think it was the company of Southern Senators and Representatives that Abe was missing.
I see it as power being lost and tax revenue being lost. Can you specify why those do not make complete sense?
And can you give a clear answer instead of a lengthy what-does-it-mean multi-paragraph deal on whether Lincoln’s motivation for making war on the South was to free the slaves? Yes or no? It was, or it was not?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You seem to have avoided giving a direct answer, but it seems to me that you’re now acknowledging that Lincoln’s motivation was NOT to free the slaves.
So exactly what all your argument was against such statements, I have no idea, unless it was trolling.
It appears to me that Lincoln would have waged war against the Southern states for secession for ANY reason.
Now, what difference does the Federal government experience from secession? Besides not enjoying the company of Southern Senators and Representatives on Capitol Hill.
Nothing, except, no tax money, and no power over people over whom the Federal Government had been used to having power.
Exactly how it is that you can’t see that once we acknowledge (if you have done so: again, your above post seems more like waffling than acknowledging) that Lincoln’s motivation for waging war on the South was not slavery, then we have to find what it is that was missing under secession.
I don’t think it was the company of Southern Senators and Representatives that Abe was missing.
I see it as power being lost and tax revenue being lost. Can you specify why those do not make complete sense?
And can you give a clear answer instead of a lengthy what-does-it-mean multi-paragraph deal on whether Lincoln’s motivation for making war on the South was to free the slaves? Yes or no? It was, or it was not?
[/quote]
I believe that Lincoln initially fought the war to preserve the Union. Why he wanted to preserve the Union is where we differ. I don’t believe that Lincoln’s motivation was simply to maintain the flow of revenue from the South.
I believe that Lincoln felt an obligation to preserve the Union for no other reason than to ensure that the United States did not disintegrate, especially not on his watch. I feel this way because he stated as much in speeches and private letters all throughout the first 1-2 years of his Presidency. As far as I know, he never stated that a loss of revenue was his sole motivating factor or that it was a factor at all. I challenge you to provide me with concrete primary evidence that supports your assertion that Lincoln was nothing more than economically motivated. Concrete evidence, not your own theories. Remember, you yourself stated that what we suspect of others is usually true of ourselves. Perhaps this is the cause for your erroneous assertions.
While secession led to a loss of revenue, it also threatened the sanctity of the United States, and to Lincoln this was disastrous. We’ll never know what his real motives were, but based on his inaugural address and letters he wrote to Horace Greely and others, it is much more likely that he simply wanted to maintain the Union. It’s not glamorous, it’s not sexy, it isn’t even all that interesting, but it is the most likely scenario.
Don’t forget, the country was less than a hundred years old at the time and most of the Western world wanted to see the United States fail as a democracy. Lincoln felt that secession was a very real threat to this. I know it sounds idealistic on his part, but for him personally, the primary evidence available points to this being the main reason for him initially starting the war. I will concede that most Northern politicians probably were more concerned with a loss of revenue and military strength, but do not lump Lincoln into this crowd.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I believe that Lincoln initially fought the war to preserve the Union. Why he wanted to preserve the Union is where we differ. I don’t believe that Lincoln’s motivation was simply to maintain the flow of revenue from the South.[/quote]
This is exactly correct. Lincoln, like Jackson before him, believed that unlawful disunion amounted to treason and therefore rebellion. He even cites Old Hickory in his papers.
The “economic” argument that has taken on ever-changing shapes - “it was the revenue!”, “it was the tariffs!” - have been discredited over and over. Despite the desperate conspiracies advanced by the mushy headed neo-Birchers, the idea that secession required action on the part of the executive to preserve the Union predated Lincoln by well over 50 years. Lincoln crystallized its principles - and was forced to put them into practice - but he didn’t invent them. The predicate had been laid long before, the conspiracy bozos not withstanding.
The “revenue” argument is most bizarre, but I suppose is the next Hail Mary to think of some theory - any theory - rather than the actual history in front of Bill Roberts’ ever-lengthening nose.
OK, well, I’ll give up on asking for a direct yes or no on whether Lincoln’s motivation on making war on the Southern States was to free the slaves because at this point I have to figure you won’t give it.
As to whether he cared nothing or little for maintaining Federal power over persons that Washington had become accustomed to, or nothing or little for the tax revenue, but rather for a vision that states on joining the Union had no right ever to reverse that decision, can you point to some documents from the Founding Fathers or any predecessor of Lincoln that could cause us to agree that this was what America was about from the beginning?
Irrecovable binding together, at pain of war?
Can you provide evidence that a single signatory understood this to be the case?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
OK, well, I’ll give up on asking for a direct yes or no on whether Lincoln’s motivation on making war on the Southern States was to free the slaves because at this point I have to figure you won’t give it.
As to whether he cared nothing or little for maintaining Federal power over persons that Washington had become accustomed to, or nothing or little for the tax revenue, but rather for a vision that states on joining the Union had no right ever to reverse that decision, can you point to some documents from the Founding Fathers or any predecessor of Lincoln that could cause us to agree that this was what America was about from the beginning?
Irrecovable binding together, at pain of war?
Can you provide evidence that a single signatory understood this to be the case?[/quote]
In 1861, Lincoln’s motivation for making war was NOT to free the slaves, but it was also NOT to regain the lost revenue from the South. By 1863, the main goal was to a)end the war asap and b)end slavery. I disagree with you that he was economically motivated.
If Lincoln WAS economically motivated, then why would he try to severely undercut the revenue stream in the South by abolishing their source of free labor? If he was economically motivated, then are you also arguing by extension that somewhere between 1862 and Jan 1863 he did an aboutface, suddenly had zero economic interest in the South and went from someone who supported slavery anywhere and everywhere to someone who would bend the boundaries of the Constitution to eradicate it?
I’ll ask it again to emphasize this point: if Lincoln was motivated primarily by revenue streams, then why would he damage that revenue stream as severely as the EP did?
In regards to your comments about the Founding Fathers: whether or not the maintenance of the Union was what America was about according to the signatories of the DoI or Lincoln’s predecessors is immaterial.
Given your insistence on harping on the longwinded nature of my responses and your inclination toward Sophistry, I suspect that your fallacious argument is running out of steam. The only point on which we agree is that the war was not started by Lincoln to free the slaves. From there on we differ in opinion. I wasn’t succinct, but was I clear enough this time? And I’m still waiting for SOME sort of primary evidence to support your theory.
It seems to me that you have arrived at some warped, preconceived notions about Lincoln and have begun interpreting what you know about the Civil War to fit into this erroneous, revisionist mold of Lincoln that you’ve created for yourself.
There are a thousand good references for the idea that the Union was indestructible and not a rag-tag collection of states with the ratification of the Constitution, but don’t take the word of the pro-Union types, reflect on the lamentations of those opposed to Constitution precisely because it created a Union of the People, not a league of states:
Anti-Federalist “Cincinnatus”: “[s]uch is the anxiety manifested by the framers of the
proposed constitution, for the utter extinction of the state sovereignties, that
they were not content with taking from them every attribute of sovereignty,
but would not leave them even the name. Therefore, in the very
commencement they prescribe this remarkable declaration - We the People of
the United States.”
Anti-Federalist “Federal Farmer”: “when the people [of
each state] shall adopt the proposed . . . it will be adopted not by the people of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c., but by the people of the United States…”
Anti-Federalist “Brutus”: “if it is ratified, [it] will not be a compact entered
into by the States, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people
of the United States as one great body politic. . . . It is to be observed, it is not
a union of states or bodies corporate; had this been the case the existence of
the state governments might have been secured. But it is a union of the
people of the United States considered as one body, who are to ratify this
constitution, if it is adopted.”
Since it looks like Bill isn’t going to come up with any arguments supporting his theory that Lincoln was economically motivated, I’ll put forth a quote from Lincoln that contradicts Bill’s theory.
When the southern states began to secede, Wall Street naturally flipped out and many Northern newspaper editors and businessmen began to urge Lincoln to seek a compromise with the South in order to recoup the South’s lost revenue and restore confidence in Wall Street.
Lincoln’s response reveals that he was appalled that “…any Republican think, for a moment, in abandoning in the hour of victory, though in the face of danger, every point involved in the recent contest [the 1860 Presidential election].”
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Since it looks like Bill isn’t going to come up with any arguments supporting his theory that Lincoln was economically motivated, I’ll put forth a quote from Lincoln that contradicts Bill’s theory.
When the southern states began to secede, Wall Street naturally flipped out and many Northern newspaper editors and businessmen began to urge Lincoln to seek a compromise with the South in order to recoup the South’s lost revenue and restore confidence in Wall Street.
Lincoln’s response reveals that he was appalled that “…any Republican think, for a moment, in abandoning in the hour of victory, though in the face of danger, every point involved in the recent contest [the 1860 Presidential election].”[/quote]
That you think an argument or Lincoln quote is needed to support the thesis that the Federal Government is now and was then motivated to continue collecting large amounts of revenue is really striking, even stunning.
As for your claim that Lincoln’s quote shows that his motivation was not that of maintaining power over the Southern states including tax collection power, it does not begin to prove that.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There are a thousand good references for the idea that the Union was indestructible and not a rag-tag collection of states with the ratification of the Constitution, but don’t take the word of the pro-Union types, reflect on the lamentations of those opposed to Constitution precisely because it created a Union of the People, not a league of states:
Anti-Federalist “Cincinnatus”: “[s]uch is the anxiety manifested by the framers of the
proposed constitution, for the utter extinction of the state sovereignties, that
they were not content with taking from them every attribute of sovereignty,
but would not leave them even the name. Therefore, in the very
commencement they prescribe this remarkable declaration - We the People of
the United States.”
Anti-Federalist “Federal Farmer”: “when the people [of
each state] shall adopt the proposed . . . it will be adopted not by the people of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c., but by the people of the United States…”
Anti-Federalist “Brutus”: “if it is ratified, [it] will not be a compact entered
into by the States, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people
of the United States as one great body politic. . . . It is to be observed, it is not
a union of states or bodies corporate; had this been the case the existence of
the state governments might have been secured. But it is a union of the
people of the United States considered as one body, who are to ratify this
constitution, if it is adopted.”
[/quote]
You, tb, pointed out that there is a mechanism in the Constitution for breaking the Union: a constitutional convention, and of course, there is no Article Describing the Legal Mechanism of Secession. Madison and Morris, and the Founders, were not fools, and would have included it if it was to be part of the Constitution; I believe there was not even a discussion of secession in Constitutional Convention, or in the Federalist. (To those given to challenge, provide the citation.)
Bill asks for a Founding Father’s opinion. If Bill won’t be satisfied with the defining comments above from the Anti-Federalist, by Robert Yates and George Clinton (Alexander Hamilton’s notorious adversaries), perhaps a quick review of the opinions of Madison and Hamilton in Federalist 8-10, in support of Union, will serve. But eternal Union?..
Yes. It serves to remember that the first secessionist movement was by New England Federalists, who in 1804 considered secession as a remedy to the expansion of the Republican (Jeffersonian) slave empire into the Louisiana Purchase, itself considered of questionable constitutionality. (Thank you, Mr. Jefferson. In this, as in many cases, the Constitution was for him a document written on elastic: he later asked for the approval of Congress.)
When Hamilton, a noted early abolitionist, was confronted with this secessionist movement, he was nevertheless appalled. “The idea of disunion he could not here of without impatience, and expressed reprobation of it using strong terms.” (Adam Hoops)
And even Jefferson, who hated Hamilton but admired his sense of honor, commented (approvingly in this context) on “the known principle of General Hamilton never, under any views, to break the Union.”
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
OK, well, I’ll give up on asking for a direct yes or no on whether Lincoln’s motivation on making war on the Southern States was to free the slaves because at this point I have to figure you won’t give it.
As to whether he cared nothing or little for maintaining Federal power over persons that Washington had become accustomed to, or nothing or little for the tax revenue, but rather for a vision that states on joining the Union had no right ever to reverse that decision, can you point to some documents from the Founding Fathers or any predecessor of Lincoln that could cause us to agree that this was what America was about from the beginning?
Irrecovable binding together, at pain of war?
Can you provide evidence that a single signatory understood this to be the case?[/quote]
In 1861, Lincoln’s motivation for making war was NOT to free the slaves, but it was also NOT to regain the lost revenue from the South. [/quote]
You assert.
At least my statements that the Federal Government has long been motivated to collect tax revenue are factual: and it’s hardly a stretch that this motivation existed in Lincoln’s day as well.
Your assertion that the government had no motivation to continue collecting tax revenue has nothing behind it whatsoever, except delusion.
There have been any number of dictators who sought to increase their power over others, and did so, and in the process greatly damaged their economies, but so long as they were still collecting high percentages from their subjects they were pleased.
This would hardly be a first.
Secondly, it’s not clear that had slavery ended without the war that the South’s taxable revenues would have been markedly less anyway. I can think of no reason to think that amount of trade would have decreased markedly.
He needed to justify his war which I find quite implausible was due to his caring so much about freeing the slaves, but entirely plausible to be due to determination for the Federal Government to maintain power in perpetuity, and to continue collecting tax revenue from its subjects.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not affect the revenue stream of the Federal Government. That’s ridiculous.
So you agree that the entire question of what America was founded on, and what the peoples agreed to, was immaterial to Lincoln.
Very good. At last you are correct.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Since it looks like Bill isn’t going to come up with any arguments supporting his theory that Lincoln was economically motivated, I’ll put forth a quote from Lincoln that contradicts Bill’s theory.
When the southern states began to secede, Wall Street naturally flipped out and many Northern newspaper editors and businessmen began to urge Lincoln to seek a compromise with the South in order to recoup the South’s lost revenue and restore confidence in Wall Street.
Lincoln’s response reveals that he was appalled that “…any Republican think, for a moment, in abandoning in the hour of victory, though in the face of danger, every point involved in the recent contest [the 1860 Presidential election].”[/quote]
That you think an argument or Lincoln quote is needed to support the thesis that the Federal Government is now and was then motivated to continue collecting large amounts of revenue is really striking, even stunning.
As for your claim that Lincoln’s quote shows that his motivation was not that of maintaining power over the Southern states including tax collection power, it does not begin to prove that.[/quote]
My question still stands: if Lincoln was economically motivated, then why did he severely undercut the South’s economic base by issuing the EP? Or do you deny that the availability of free labor had a major impact on the South’s economy?
And also, I am STILL waiting for some sort of primary evidence, ANY sort of primary evidence, that supports your theory regarding Lincoln’s motivation for going to war. You asked me for some sort of evidence earlier regarding my theories and I obliged in the form of Lincoln’s response to the ratification of the 13th Amendment. I certainly hope you aren’t holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. So again, please provide even a tiny shred of primary evidence that supports your theory.
Okay, disregard my previous post; I didn’t see your responses above.
First of all, how can you assert that the abolishment of free labor did not, or would not have, damaged the Southern economy? Slave labor was essentially the foundation upon which the Southern economy rested. Europe began to buy cotton from Egypt and this damaged the Southern economy; what makes you think that having to find an alternate source of (paid) labor would not also have a negative impact? Not only would cotton exports likely have declined, they DID decline when Europe turned to Egypt rather than continue to buy cotton harvested on the backs of slaves. I’ll disregard your apparent comparison of a democratically-elected President to a dictator.
Secondly, I NEVER stated that the govt had no motivation to collect taxes. In fact, I openly admitted that this was the case for most Northern politicians, but it was NOT the case with Lincoln. There are numerous times in which Lincoln stated clearly that his main goal as President was to maintain the integrity of the Union simply to maintain the existence of the United States of America. I am not aware of any time whatsoever in which Lincoln stated that regaining lost revenue was a factor for him at all. If you were of aware of something to this effect, I assume you would have provided evidence of it by now.
Thirdly, your assertion that Lincoln’s motivation had less to do with freeing slaves and everything to do with economic factors flies in the face of virtually EVERYTHING Lincoln said in regards to secession. Read some of Lincoln’s debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, read his inaugural address, read ANYTHING that he wrote or said between 1858 and the outbreak of war and it will become painfully clear to you that maintaining the integrity of the Union in order to uphold the Constitution was his primary motivation and that economic factors had little to do with it.
As an aside, the fact that you find it highly implausible that Lincoln could ever be motivated by anything other than money speaks volumes about you; but please do not view Lincoln through your own lenses. And for the millionth time, I am waiting for some form of primary evidence to support your assertions.
I can say that because I see no reason for production or trade to have substantially decreased. It’s not as if the cotton farms could not still have been worked just as much.
There is no point in going back and forth with you further on this. You are full of nothing but assertions, evasions, and ad hominem attacks. I will address the latter only extremely briefly in pointing out that anyone who has read my posts will know that my preference is always towards America’s acts as having been noble. So your ad hominem assertions that supposedly I want to remove nobility from Lincoln’s actions is the purest bullshit and is simply nastiness or some other negative attribute on your part. Furthermore, I stated plainly that I would rather that the reason had been the noble one of ending slavery.
I will end with these quotes from Honest Abe:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Now what, to Lincoln, did the slave issue, pre-secession, have to do with saving the Union?
“We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. [Note: agitation about slavery.] Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.”
Okay, now that that’s clear that to Lincoln, maintaining the Federal Government’s sovereignty over all the states in the long term required going either all-slave or all-free:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”
So you are wrong to claim that Lincoln’s motivation was to end slavery, rather than as I said to maintain Federal power over all the states. That is to say, to keep all of the states under the Federal government rather than have any secede.
Anyone believing that Lincoln’s motivation for war was that he wanted to free the slaves and chose to pay a dear price to do it is simply brainwashed. The people who think Bush didn’t do enough about Katrina because he “didn’t care about black people” have their Presidents quite mixed up. Between the two, the President who didn’t care about black people, at all, was Lincoln. That’s just how it is. Unfortunately. Very unfortunately.
I wish that freeing the slaves had been his motivation. That would have been noble. If only I were ignorant of facts such as the above, or capable of deceiving myself by pretending they don’t mean what they say, as you pretend.
Perhaps you are blessed in this instance in being capable of operating with your eyes wide shut. But I suspect that overall it’s a disadvantageous trait.
Goodnight.
Again, you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that Lincoln was motivated primarily by economics. I am afraid that YOU, sir, are the one full of evasions. The above quote says nothing about economic motivation, nor does it contradict anything I have put forth thus far. In fact, it only reiterates my argument that Lincoln was motivated by saving the Union for more magnanimous reasons than simple monetary concerns.
I will state for the last time that I understand that Lincoln did not initially go to war to free slaves; you have continued to put these words in my mouth. It was during the war and not prior to it that Lincoln changed his mind about slavery.
Also, I highly doubt you have ever held any notion of nobility on the part of Lincoln since you insinuated earlier that he was comparable to a dictator.
Lastly, as I have stated previously, Lincoln technically had no power to free any slaves at all anywhere in the North or South, unless and only if he were to do so as a war measure. This eliminated the possibility that he could free slaves anywhere but in the areas that were directly at war with the North. Your arguments are fallacious, make incorrect assumptions about what I have said regarding this matter and you STILL have not provided one shred of evidence to support your wild claim that Lincoln was primarily motivated by a loss of revenue.
Goodnight to you, sir.