It is not "projection". The Assertion of "Projection" is usually the first move of someone who doesn't have a valid argument.
Now I will explain why it is not "projection". My Family was not here during the civil war. We didn't arrive in this country until the turn of the 20th century, some 35 years after it was all over. I do not live in a former confederate state. I have never lived in a former confederate state. I went to "Lincoln" grade school, and was taught to admire and revere Lincoln for most of my life. I remember making Silhouettes of Lincoln in grade school for "Lincoln" day.
I arrived at my current and objective opinions based on what I have subsequently learned of the conflict, and judging by the standards of that time period, The "North" was clearly in the wrong. The principles upon which the Southern states asserted their independence were exactly the same principles upon which the 13 colonies had previously asserted to win independence from Britain.
Now since I have put my "cards on the table" how about you let us know if you perhaps live in a Northern state or perhaps had ancestors who's conduct you feel in need of defending?
Of course it is projection. You are attributing your traits onto your opponents.
You start with a shotgun premise (”The problem for many such people is that they personalize it. If they come from a Northern state, or if they have ancestors who fought on the Union side during the war, they see the discussion as personal rather than abstract.”) as if only one side exhibits those attitudes.
You then extend that false premise with: “When it becomes personal they have to justify what happened, and the only fig leaf of justification they can find is “Well they were bad people, so they deserve what my ancestors/state did to them.””. Again, a simple review of the posts will show who is (and isn’t) exhibiting those “personalizing” of the topic.
When you became a Lost Causer interesting but secondary to the fact that you employed projection in order to minimize the posts of your opponents. You adhere to a line of rationalization and align your posts accordingly. You are no different than those you attempt to slander.
And the first shot of the war was fired by the South.
Lincoln had taken NO action against the South until that stupid incident. The South might have been able to peacefully separate but there were too many hot headed Southerners who wanted war because they thought the vaunted Confederate fighting spirit would save the day.
Stupid and losers at the same time.
It is totally irrelevant - unless you want to project again. But no, I don't live in a "northern state". My lineage is Scot/Welsh and both lines came to America through Canada. Both lines settled in southern states for several generations. One relocated to Montana and the other to Oregon and then Washington. I was raised in the south.
As I said, it is extraneous and irrelevant to the history of the period.
On that I will agree. There is a natural right of rebellion But that doesn't mean that the parties rebelled against are under some obligation to simply roll over and allow their nation to be dismembered. Rebellion is a roll of the dice, not some automatic victory.
Sorry, your opinions are anything but "objective", since they are based solely on Lost Causer mythology, almost entirely devoid of actual historical facts & reasons.
In fact, there were no "principles" for Declarations of Secession, beyond protecting their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
Deep South Fire Eaters could not tolerate the election of abolitionists and "Black Republicans" like Abraham Lincoln, and therefore declared secession.
But slavery did not cause Civil War, nor did secession & forming a new Confederacy.
All of those happened without war breaking out.
So what caused Civil War was the Confederacy's provoking, starting & formally declaring war on the United States, then sending its military support to Confederate forces in Union states.