[Aurelius]

"Is it any less evil to resort to force in order to break that federation up?"

That is a problem which should not arise. A party wishing to withdraw from the federation would have no need for the use of force unless aggressive force were used against them to prevent their withdrawal. If that happens, they are certainly within their rights to use force in self-defense. We have been through this before too.

[Non-Sequitur]

A party wishing to withdraw from the federation would have no need for the use of force unless aggressive force were used against them to prevent their withdrawal. If that happens, they are certainly within their rights to use force in self-defense.

Lincoln's attempt at resupplying Sumter with food only should not have started a war and would not have started the war except Davis wanted the war. Had Lincoln landed supplies then the status quo would have continued. Had Lincoln landed weapons then the status quo could also have continued since that would not have placed the confederacy in any danger. Instead Davis chose to use force to sieze a piece of property that the confederacy had absolutely no legal claim to. The aggression was on the part of Davis. Toombs recognized it and warned Davis to no avail. If Toombs could recognize that firing on Sumter would place the confederacy in the wrong then why couldn't Davis? Why can't you?

[x]

That is a problem which should not arise. A party wishing to withdraw from the federation would have no need for the use of force unless aggressive force were used against them to prevent their withdrawal.

That's an example of the overly rationalistic arguments of today's Confederate apologists. By "rationalistic" I mean arguing from abstract premises to logical conclusions without giving actual historical experience much weight.

The real world experience of secession all too often involves the desire of the seceeding group to get as much territory as they can, either by outright conquest or by provoking other secessions and rebellions. Of course it's possible that a country could peacefully split in two or states could peacefully negotiate their withdrawal, but that wasn't what happened in 1860/1.

When the secessionists moved to unite their states in a confederated national government of their own, war between the two powers was probably inevitable. And the secessionists recognized that, early war fervor being stronger in the South than in the North. Webster, Clay, and other statesmen of the previous generation predicted that secession would most likely mean war. Given the passions of the day, the country wasn't going to be neatly and evenly divided.