The question is equally absurd to ask, “So, was the economic and ideological agenda of “preserving the Particular Institution” (the south’s self-declared motivation for invading the secession) then so morally superior as to justify 600,000 casualties?
Your analogy might be valid IF the South attacked the North in hopes of spreading slavery. Which they didn’t.
What does “invading the secession” mean?
Serious question: do you and K-State go to the same school?
I wonder how the original TEA Party participants would have answered your question...