But despite your repeated claims, there was no higher principle than slavery involved -- none.
Everything you keep repeating was actually irrelevant to historical leaders of the time.
And as I've often pointed out to you: slavery did not start Civil War, neither did declarations of secession nor did forming a new Confederacy, nor did tariffs & trade, or any such debate as you propose over a "right of secession" -- none of it.
All of those thing could have happened and still no Civil War between Union & Confederacy.
What provoked Civil War was dozens of Confederate seizures of major Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.
What started Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861.
What confirmed Civil War was the Confederates' formal declaration of war against the United States on May 6, 1861.
What made Civil War a "total war" was the Confederates' military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union states.
Again, the analogy is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor -- whatever theoretical or philosophical reasons motivated them, those did not start WWII for the US.
All such debates could have gone on forever without war, until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Then war began, and ended as the Civil War ended, with unconditional surrender.
DiogenesLamp: "Again, what happens to New York when 80% of that pile moves to Charleston and Savanna?"
But, as I have now explained, more than once on this thread, 80% of New York's trade could never move to Charleston, regardless of politics.
DiogenesLamp: "Imagine most of that trade represented by those tariffs being taken away from New York and given to Charleston.
Easily a financial hyper crises in New England.
Well worth starting a war to prevent."
Pure rubbish, words written by somebody who understands little of Lincoln or America at that time.
Stop being a fool. Lincoln and the North cynically used the slavery ploy to assert a post hoc justification for the bloodshed they created by fighting against the independence of the Southern states.
It was the only massageable bit of propaganda they had to work with to justify putting down Independence.
You can't seem to grasp the fact that they were going to sell you down the river for the first year and a half.
No, the higher principle involved is whether or not the Union was voluntary or coercive. We found out it is coercive, like a Mafia family.
What provoked Civil War was dozens of Confederate seizures of major Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. What started Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861. What confirmed Civil War was the Confederates' formal declaration of war against the United States on May 6, 1861. What made Civil War a "total war" was the Confederates' military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union states.
Bullsh*t. If that were true, Lincoln would not have offered Ft. Sumter in exchange for Virginia remaining in the Union. He would not have gone "all is forgiven, if Virginia doesn't secede." As the old joke goes, "We've already learned what kind of a girl you are, now we are just haggling over the price. "
No, the decision to go to war was entirely in Lincoln's hands, and he chose to do so.
And he did it with an "Executive order."