It may be true that they caused the election of Lincoln, but this is far removed from any culpability for the occurrence of war. It was not a fore ordained conclusion that the election of Lincoln would automatically cause a war. It was highly probable, but not a guaranteed consequence.
Also you lost causers seem so stuck on blaming Lincoln for this. None of the possible candidates from the Republican party (Chase, Seward, etc.) if they would have won the party’s presidential nomination, would have let the fire-eaters just set up their own government
Chase is on record saying that secession is not rebellion. He says that a trial of the Confederate leadership for Treason would have condemned the actions of the North.
It doesn't sound like he agrees with you on this point.
It would have destroyed this country by setting the precedent that if you don’t like the outcome of an election you can just take your toys and go home.
The Declaration of Independence does not set conditions on the right to independence. In the two statements of which I am aware that Lincoln had made on the subject, neither did he.
The Only requirement is that the people want independence.
The Declaration of Independence does not set conditions on the right to acquiring wealth. The Only requirement is that the people want money. So where is the nearest bank?
I have been trying to find a source for that quote and cannot. Perhaps you have one? Also the quote seems suspect considering that in the Texas vs White case he said that the acts of secession where illegal.
I also don’t know of any republicans that advocated letting the fire-eaters have their way. Hell, you would be abandoning a lot of US citizens who did not want to join the confederacy.
The only people in the north that supported just letting the southerners go were “copper-head” democrats, but even hey seemed to be a minority.
Here is what Chase wrote in the Texas decision; “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[7]