Nice bit of confirmation bias you have there. Are we to conclude this to be evidence of your “objectivity”?
Confirmation bias? This isn't my theory, and in fact differs significantly from what I have articulated before. I had always held that these references to slavery in the three or four secession statements, and the cornerstone speech, etc were all the consequence of a strategy to distract the public from the real underlying aspect which was money.
An effort to keep the public focused on the one hand, while they grabbed the money with the other hand.
I had never previously considered that this might be a legal strategy to justify separation on the basis that the Northern states had broken the compact by violating Article IV, section 2. My arguing position is that they had a right to secession with or without any sort of justification, and so therefore justifying their secession was irrelevant.
You can see confirmation bias if you wish, but I don't see it.