Your second sentence contradicts your first, FRiend.
If the Confederacy were truly "no threat", then Lincoln would have no need to "trample" anything.
In actual fact, in early 1861 the Confederacy posed an existential threat to the United States, not only in the Deep South which declared secession over slavery alone.
But also in the Upper South, which at first refused to secede over slavery alone, but loudly threatened to secede if the Union attempted any "oppression" of the Deep South.
So, when push came to shove, the Upper South, beginning with Virginia, declared Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter an act of "oppression" and so declared its own secession, plus joined the Confederacy's declared war on the United States.
But even then, the Upper South did not secede unanimously, with huge areas of each state remaining loyal Unionists -- western Virginia (17% Union troops), eastern Tennessee (27% Union troops), western North Carolina (7% Union), north-western Arkansas (19% Union).
These areas contributed significant support and soldiers to the Union army, as did notably Louisiana.
But in Lincoln mind, the Union would be won or lost in the Border States -- Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland.
All were majority Unionists, but with powerful pro-Confederate minorities, including the governors of Missouri and Kentucky.
They were also assaulted militarily by Confederates, Missouri beginning in early 1861, making the Confederacy an existential threat to states which were majority Unionists.
Further, the Confederacy in 1861 immediately invaded Union territories of Oklahoma and New Mexico / Arizona.
And over the course of the war, Confederate forces invaded every Union state & territory within their reach, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico / Arizona, threatening Illinois and Colorado.
Confederate guerillas also attacked targets in New Hampshire, Colorado and California.
And in most cases of Confederate forces in Union states, they behaved in ways that even General Sherman did not emulate.
So any suggestion that the Confederacy was "no threat" is just ridiculous.
From Day One the Confederacy was an existential threat to the United States, a fact well demonstrated by the four years it took to defeat them.
Chambersburg? Chambersburg was such an oddity that is was well publicized for being out of the norm behavior for Confederate forces who were known for good behavior.
OTH the Union strategy was to conquer and occupy the South.
“If the Confederacy were truly “no threat”, then Lincoln would have no need to “trample” anything.”
If Poland were truly “no threat” to the Soviet Union, then Stalin would have no need to “trample” anything in 1939.
See if you can find a fallacy in this kind of thinking.
Well that's just bad logic. That Lincoln trampled constitutional principles, and most especially trampled the Declaration of Independence which was the foundational principle of this nation, does not establish the confederacy as a threat one way or the other.
Someone with the mindset of a dictator does not need good reasons for their abuses. They are just of a mind to force people to bend to their will whether a threat they pose or not.
In actual fact, in early 1861 the Confederacy posed an existential threat to the United States, not only in the Deep South which declared secession over slavery alone.
Every time I see someone bringing up "Slavery" as the South's reason for leaving, I think "Liar wants to change the subject." If something is a "right" then they don't have to have reasons of which you approve to exercise that right. The main point here is "Do they have a right?" If they do, then their "reasons" don't matter. They are entitled to do it anyway.
What you are trying to do is dismiss their right by focusing on their reasons which are objectionable, and thereby deceive people regarding the fact of their rights.
And of course we find out from Abraham Lincoln and General Sherman that it is an utter lie that the Union fought because of slavery. The Union fought ONLY to subjugate the South, and not because they gave a whit about the peculiar institution.
Again, Here's the words of General Sherman which I quoted in a previous message.
" Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late."
The General simply admits the obvious. "Stop fighting and you can keep your slaves. Stop resisting control from Washington D.C. and you can keep your slaves. "
So why are you talking about Slavery when that is not the Moral reason for why the Union invaded and destroyed the South? "DECEIT" is the only reason that comes to mind. You want the evil which was done by the Union atoned for by the after the fact good that was done by the Union, and you want to completely ignore the fact that the Union never had any intention of doing this "good thing" and when they finally did it, they didn't do it because it was the right thing to do, they did it for reasons of "Military/Tactical Advantage," and "REVENGE" and "PUNISHMENT."
You just want to believe that your team was the "good guy" and it really bothers you when the correct and proper truth is pointed out to you.
No, your side was not the good guy in this story. Your side was the most evil of all participants. When it finally did do something good, it didn't do it because it was good, it did it just to be a little bit more evil.