He couldn't have. It's good to have Presidential support, but amending the Constitution doesn't require the presidents signature. It does require ratification by 3/4 of the States. Which made the Emancipation proclamation null and void. Correct? But it didn't matter as the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slave anyway.
If it didn't matter, then why do you keep bringing it up? We are still debating the South's motivation to go to war, the Emancipation proclamation doesn't have anything to do with either.
Lincoln was concerned with the Union, not slaves. Yes. That is what I have been telling you. It wasn't about slavery. It was about the Union and it's preservation.
For Lincoln, yes. But Lincoln did not lead the Confederacy, and Lincoln did not secede from the Union in order to preserve slavery. Lincoln also did not order the bombardment of Fort Sumter, despite your counterfactual claims to the contrary.
The North was interested in preserving the union only when the South seceded. And that was based upon money. Not for any freedom of the blacks.
I'm taking an educated guess here that you won't be supporting that claim with any evidence, right?
Prior to that, yes the North wanted to destroy slavery in the South as it would affect the South's economy. It would destroy it. The North made the mistake of pushing the South too far not believing they would ever secede. But, they were wrong.
That argument makes absolutely no sense. It is also refuted by the evidence you presented, which shows that Unionist Northerners were willing to bend over backwards to protect Southern slavery, just to keep the slaveholders in the Union.
The North made the "mistake" of electing Lincoln, a known abolitionist and a Republican. For the Southern slaveholders, that was the incident inciting them to secede: A US President who publically opposed slavery.
Again, you project your ignorance concerning Sumter. Sumter was property of S. Carolina when S. Carolina seceded.
No it was not. We've been over this already. I've presented evidence for my case, and you did not.
If you want me to recognize your claim as valid, present supporting evidence for your case.
If you can't, then I don't see why I should accept your claims when they contradict the sources available to me.
And it was in fact S. Carolina's property earlier as the Federal govt. did not fulfill it's three year obligation in completing it's purpose for it.
There was no "three year obligation" as a condition, and Fort Sumter did not revert back to South Carolina after three years, either. Present evidence for your case, or leave it.
Sumter involved secession, not slavery. Lincoln and the North came down to force the Southern States back into the Union. Not to free slaves.
The firing on Forth Sumter was instigated by Lincoln and the North. Not the South.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Neither Lincoln nor "the North" controlled the artillery that opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12th 1861.
The South declared secession in order to protect slavery. You have not been able to present any argument that would refute this.