Greg and Bee, I see your point(s). Indeed I do recognize myself in the description of opinionated people -- we all have and defend our own opinions -- but I am the kind of cynical person who questions everything, even my own blatherings! Therefore I have been known to change my opinions on various matters! So of course I question the sources of the various people who've posted to this thread, not just Azizi. Thing is, some of the other people here have cited their sources, and Azizi did not cite her source for her statement about hatred of northerners and carpetbaggers, and often (but not always) fails to cite sources elsewhere. But then, that's just my observation, and my opinion. Beyond that, I don't see a need to continue to veer from the topic of this thread.

As to Greg's statement about the anti-slavery Republican party, it would seem that opinions about that are mixed as well. For starters I refer you to a quote on this page of the The University of Rochester Frederick Douglass Project website, under "Frederick Douglass and the Republican Party", which states:

"Since its establishment in 1854, the Republican Party had become somewhat of 'an alliance of antislavery forces…[it] would only limit the expansion of slavery within the existing United States, believing that slavery would gradually die out.'[Wu Jin-Ping. Frederick Douglass and the Black Liberation Movement, Garland Publishing , Inc, New York NY,2000, pg 66.] He [Douglass] believed that the Republican Party, with at least a basis of antislavery sentiments, had the best chance of winning an election over the smaller (yet more dedicated) parties, [Parties like the Liberty Party, Radical Abolitionists, Whig Party and the Free Soiler Party] and he hoped to build upon this basis when it was put into place, which he and hundreds of black Americans helped by casting their votes. Lincoln was not an Abolitionist president - at best, moderately antislavery - however this option was better than having a Democratic candidate in office, one who would do nothing but hurt the abolitionist cause.

It was at this point that Douglass and fellow politically minded abolitionists started to really put their faith in to the Republican Party. It had become an 'umbrella' party for antislavery groups, no matter what their reasoning was, for in some cases the reasoning varied when 'different elements within the society perceived the problem of slavery in radically different ways and proposed sometimes contradictory solutions.' ["Antislavery", American History, 1996, pg 50.] This interwoven web was, of course, in part due to the persuasion and appeal of people like Douglass."

So the author of that essay acknowledges that Lincoln was no gung-ho Abolitionist (and where did I say he was?), but concurs with my opinion that his party -- not just the movers-and-shakers but the voters who supported them -- was against slavery for whatever reasons. Even though "Lincoln personally throughout his political career repeatedly stated that he believed Congress had NO constitutional authority to interfere with slavery where it already existed", he was not in favor of the institution, was he?