Yes, he strengthened the role of the Federal government and restrained the right of the states to revolt and dismember the Union itself.
King George did not have such a right. Why should Lincoln have such a right?
And thank god he did so, or we'd either be living in a world dominated by German-Japanese victory...as the isolated states of the US could never have opposed these forces in union...or the ensuing Soviet menace would have consumed the planet. While a stronger central government is not without problems, a string of isolated states would have left each to "hang separately" in the face of the threats of the 20th century.
So your argument to justify the deaths of nearly 3 million people and the destruction of the original compact of our government was because 80 years in the future the Germans and the Japanese
might conquer us?
Ignoring the probability that had we stayed out of World War I, (thanks Wilson) there never would have been a third Reich or probably even an Imperialistic Japan, how can you justify past atrocities on the basis of future possibilities?
This is partially true. He was willing to tolerate slavery in the South if it facilitated maintaining the Union, but he clearly opposed it as an institution. Once the rebellion started, he made clear in private that he would end this ignoble institution in the South as soon as it was feasible...but he wanted a clear military victory before moving forward.
Well that's one theory, but there is another one that makes more sense. Had Lincoln simply stopped the South's lawful Independence and kept everything else as it was, the economic and electoral power of the South would thereafter be permanently turned against him, his government, his backers, and all the other states that sent armies to subdue them.
They wouldn't use New York shippers, they wouldn't use New York banks, New York Insurance, or anything else. They would bite the bullet and start concentrating their economic power within their own sphere. Since they produced the bulk of all International trade in 1860, this would bite the North East right in the pocket book.
How to solve this problem? Bankrupt them. Destroy their economics. Give the former slaves the right to vote, and deny it to the conquered people in the South. Tell everyone you did it for moral reasons.
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!
3 million people died because southern states rose in rebellion against the Union...and in advocacy for their economic-social interests AND for the continuance of the horrific institution of human slavery.
When the Colonists rebelled against King George it was a rebellion. English law had no precedent which allowed people to throw off the rule of the King.
Once the founders established the principle that any state who wishes to be independent has a natural law right to do so, the paradigm was changed. States becoming independent was consistent with our own founding Principle, because we had declared it to be so.
Therefore the person who "rebelled" against the Nation was those who would deny this fundamental right to others. Those who exercised the right to independence were in fact true to the nation's principles.
Also you ignore the fact that "the horrific institution of human slavery" was going to continue indefinitely in the USA. It would have remained and persisted as a UNION institution but for Lincoln breaking even more of the constitution to get his own way.
No, he in no way revoked the right of individuals to freedom...and nowhere in either the Declaration nor the Constitution, are individual states guaranteed "independence" from the Union.
The Declaration of Independence articulates a collective right of "the people" to be independent. It is the basis on which we claimed moral legitimacy to be independent of the United Kingdom, and if it was powerful enough to break a 1000 year old governance, it was certainly up to the task of breaking one that was only
"four score and seven years" old.
ALL of the states consented to the formation of the Union. Nowhere in the constitution, is there an "out" clause or a guarantee that states have a right to "independence".
There did not need to be. The Constitution was written 11 years after the Declaration of Independence, and the Declaration was absolute in it's claim that the right of independence is given by God.
No one of the time would have given credence to the argument that the Constitution can bind states together involuntarily. If it was entered into by consent, it could be left by the withdrawal of consent.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."