Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we can agree that imminent (during the next administration) abolition was not something most confederate politicians considered likely? That's the only thing I had when I wrote the word "believe". > Why then should the South believe any statement made by Lincoln? Because it was politically infeasible to actually abolish slavery in the next 4 years and because Lincoln is still accountable to his northern voters (ov…
> I'm not sure treachery is the right word. You are rejecting the literal words they used to describe the Republican party, which I quoted. Those are by definition the right words for describing their viewpoints because that is what they wrote. You also reject the reasons they wrote to justify secession, because you think it did not make sense. Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African rac…
No, I never said that.
> Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free
How is this relevant? I never defended slavery or claimed that the southern states did not rebel to protect slavery.
> if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you.
I'm not doing that either.
Did you read the quote you posted?
> "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations
Could you explain how exactly am I misinterpreting it?
If you reading that quote as "we believe that the abolition of slavery is imminent and will happen in the next years" that's a pretty obvious misinterpretation.