Absolutely. I'm not trying to simplify or downgrade the issue of secession, because there are still debates to this day over the true causes of the Civil War.

If you can get a copy of Secession Debated by William Freehling, I highly recommend it. Inside, you can find a transcript of Alexander H. Stephen's Unionist Speech of November 14th, 1860. Though Stephens is against it, there are a plethora or Georgian representatives and politicos (one Robert Toombs, to name one glaring example) who were willing to secede simply because Lincoln was elected!

You're correct TIS. Lincoln was a Republican, the party that was resurrected from the ashes of Northern Whigs which dissolved over the slavery issue (among other things). By that same token, the Democrats imploded as well.

However, Patrick's claims are, as I've said time and time again, unsubstatiated. He cites Lincoln freeing the slaves as evidence that he is a "liberal." However, the term implies the modern usage of 2006, and is irrelevant in the consideration of 1860's politics (at least in this manner). Lincoln himself, while disagreeing with slavery, was powerless to stop it if he wanted to preserve the Union. Only after the states had ceded did Lincoln free the slaves (and only in states he didn't control, so border states that hadn't ceded weren't included, namely: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia).


I have no problem sticking with factual debate - I've been waiting for Patrick to do so for quite some time, but alas, my hopes have gone unrequited in exchange for "Jeff Jarrett" comments.