So, let’s be very clear about this. The United States did not fight the Civil War to end slavery. If I was unclear on this point, I apologize. Abraham Lincoln was very clear on this point. The United States was fighting to maintain the Union. They continued to allow slavery in those states that had it. This point is not in contention at all. The United States was not hypocritical about this as the issue of slavery was not the main reason they fought at all.
The real question is, why did the South secede? Your statement is “Their reasons for leaving are irrelevant to their right to do so. Did they have the right to leave as espoused by the Declaration of Independence? Did they have that right?” It appears that you’re implying that the ruling elite in the South just woke up one day and decided to secede, just because they thought they had the right to do so, with no reason at all.
Regardless of whether they had the right to secede or not, I do think the reason that they chose to exercise that right, and get 600,000 some Americans killed in the process is important. Why did they decide to do it, Why? Why? Why? What a mystery. Fortunately, it’s not a mystery. The seceding States listed their reasons in the various Articles of Secession that each state wrote. If you read these Articles, the reason is not mysterious at all. The main, and virtually, only reason given is the defense of slavery. They do dress it up a little by talking about their right to secede, but the reason they chose to exercise this right is not unclear at all.
So, if the people that actually seceded stated, very clearly and publicly, that the reason to secede was the defense of slavery, how can you say that it was something else?
What does that matter if they have a right to do so? Even if you assume their primary reason is to protect slavery, was slavery not legal at the time?
Applying an ex post facto morality to a previous zeitgeist is bad cricket.
The main, and virtually, only reason given is the defense of slavery.
As was pointed out by ought-six , "In those eleven Articles of Secession, only four specifically mentioned slavery as a cause..." and "So, of thirteen Articles of Secession; only four expressly mentioned slavery as a reason. But they ALL cited self-determination as a reason."
So, if the people that actually seceded stated, very clearly and publicly, that the reason to secede was the defense of slavery, how can you say that it was something else?
Because Most of them did not say such a thing. The other seven states did not mention slavery, but they all mentioned "Self Determination."
Apart from that, I will once more point out that slavery was legal in the Union at the time, so how do you make something the Union considered legal an issue for why people wanted to leave? Had they stayed, slavery would have remained legal anyway.
This idea that you are going to justify an invasion on the basis of an Abolition that hadn't even been suggested yet is simply dishonest. You are trying to justify what the Union did in invading by what they did 2 years later.
This is Ex Post Facto.