You complain that you were oh so frustrated with me, yet that doesn't stop you from popping up here again. Clearer now?
So what was it about those three posts you found so insightful?
No need. You've seen many such and there's little point. (and btw you did respond to 1073 though I disagree with your judgement)
Rather let me try to delineate our differences:
You and I differ in this: you say secession cannot occur without consent of the rest; I say it can. My reason, which we've rehashed many times, is that states with equal authority cannot be judges of their own case and that any state can leave if the contract has been violated. You say it is unfair for one state on its own to leave without the consent of the others because all agreed together and because of the harmful consequences.
Moreover, we disagree in our estimation of Lincoln whom I think sought Union before freedom, and empire before Republic, and regardless of whatever aggressive or seemingly aggressive actions taken by the South, he consciously and knowingly made the decision to prosecute war. Even had the South acted in bad spirit or from bad motive, Lincoln still made a decision to go to war, the reasons and consequences of which do not justify his decision. There also we disagree. (I don't know entirely your opinion, as it's not a point I wish to contend nor likely one from which I'll be dissuaded since it is concluded from other studies of remoter times and from a very different perspective of our history than yours.) In short, regardless of the South's imperfect motive, the Civil War as initiated by Lincoln was unjust in my opinion, based upon my understanding of just war. You'll be happy to know I suspect every war since the Revolutionary as such, not only these but almost all wars in history. You may see now how far apart we are.
The question of whether states have the right to secede or not has long been debated. The opinions on one side and the other are easily segregated into those who regard true liberty as higher than safety and those who prefer safety and empire to real self-government, such self-government as de Tocqueville observed.
This contemporary (from Idabilly in post 376 above) well states my opinion on Lincoln's decision:
Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon March 2, 1861:
My residence is in the North, but I have never seen the day, and I never shall, when I will refuse justice as readily to the South as to the North. . . .
Sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession, then, whenever a State exercises that right, this Government has no laws in that State to execute, nor has it any property in any such state that can be protected by the power of this Government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases “executing the laws” and “protecting public property” for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession: that is, that this Government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences. No, sir; the policy is to inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the designs in smooth and ambiguous terms.