One of the reasons the first states seceded from the Union was the election of Abraham Lincoln. This was not, however, because they thought there was anything unusually irregular about his election (minus a few firebrand opportunists who used whatever lies were expedient). Rather, their cited concern was twofold: that the election was unrepresentative of their section (which was true), and that the Republicans would end slavery (which was false, at that time).
The Southern politicians were concerned that the US was growing to a size within which their own special concerns would not be able to dominate the conversation anymore. They were also concerned that, as the US grew and added more States, the number of slaveholding states would drop, again weakening their influence in the Federal government. Those who had the wit to see farther than the next election realized also that, as the US expanded and the influence of their section withered, slavery would gradually die out, which was a conviction shared by many intellectuals at the time. This, they regarded as an undesireable eventuality. If the section were to split and create its own nation, however, then their particular needs would always be attended to in their national government.
Slavery was not the only concern of the Southerners, but it was by far the primary one, since their whole social and economic life rested on the institution. But they were also angry at tariffs and what we would now call infrastructure programs (ie, railroads, canals, levees, etc), the Federal funding of which greatly benefitted the North and especially the Midwest at the expense of the South (in their view). They particularly disliked the Federal land grants which allowed people to purchase cheap land along the lines of prospective railroads, because the Southern section had, proportionally, less land in the public domain to be granted, and less free capital to invest in railroads. (One of the problems with slavery is that capital value is largely fixed; slaves are not a particularly liquid asset) Again, a Federal program which slighted the South and benefitted the Midwest, in the eyes of Southern politicians. Heretofore, it had been the practice to admit Free and Slave states in a strict 1:1 proportion, but the nation was running out of land suitable for slave cultivation, while still holding many territories that would be admitted as Free soil. Hence, the Southerners wanted to annex Mexico and take Cuba from the Spanish, so that the Slave states could increase along with the free, but the Federal government and the Republicans were not in favor of such costly adventures. If the Southern states were a separate nation, though, they could conquer whomever they damn well pleased.
In sum, the South seceded because they believed the US government was no longer fulfilling their needs, and would be less so in the future, and it is difficult to say they were wrong, from their perspective. One should note that there were any number of Northern politicians and pundits who openly wanted to reduce the (disproportionate) power of the South in the Federal government. Many in the North and Midwest were scandalized that a minority section dominated Federal policy, and willfully held up progress on needed legislation. Now, where have we heard that before?
The election of Mr Lincoln was the final straw. The South, at the time, was largely Democratic, but the Democrats had split over just the kind of sectional problems described above. The Southern states went for John Breckinridge, who was nominated by the Southern Democratic party (which had already more-or-less seceded from the Democratic party). Mr Lincoln was elected by a plurality of votes (less than all those of his three opponents, be it noted), and received not a single electoral vote from any Southern state. This was enough to convince the South that the only way they could continue to run things their own way was to leave the Union.
-- Mal
= new reply since forum marked as read
