1. Slavery is inherently wrong...
No disagreement here. The South did have slavery, which was inherited from the English colonial system. Most of the slaves in America (or their progenitors) entered the country through ports in New England, carried on ships owned by New England Merchants, and were purchased from black African Kings. Yep. It was all the fault of the ignorant bumpkin Southrons.
Ironically, chattel slavery was legitimized in America when a black slaveholder sued to keep from releasing his african servants. He won the case and changed the status of african servants from indentured servants to slaves.
2. The South initiated force against the US Government
After secession, the CSA reached an agreement with Lincoln to allow the foreign US government to maintain possesion of the customs houses in the Southern ports, as long as they were not militarily reinforced. Lincoln was being pressured by representatives of New York and other Northern Port states to put down succession because the tarrif free Southern ports would put them out of business. Several Northern states threatened secession if the "Insurrection" was not put down. Knowing that he could not get away with an outright invasion of the South, Lincoln sent military reinforcements to Fort Sumter, which he had explicitly agreed to NOT do, thus provoking the CSA attack.
3. The Confederate government's member states did not consult their people as to whether they wanted to forfeit their US citizenship
The Southrons were not US citizens. They were citizens of their respective States, which were members of the united States. The legally elected representatives in the State governments did their jobs and voted for that which best helped their citizens. The scalawags were free to move north if they didn't like it, unlike the Southern States, who were compelled to remain in the union by force of arms
PC revisionist history does not change the fact that the primary cause of the war was taxation. At the time of secession tariffs levied on Southern trade accounted for 87% of Federal revenues. Most of the money was spent on "Public Works" in support of Northern industry.
In essence the Federals were developing the North for the benefit of the rich industrialists, and doing so with money taken from the South. If the secession was allowed to stand the Federal government would either have to go bankrupt, cut back on "Public works", or tax those who were benefitting from the "Public works".
Lincoln took a 4th choice and started an illegal war which cost the lives of 600,000 Americans, and launched the Federal Juggernaut that we've come to know and love so much.
The US Government, like the state governments, derives its legitimacy from the people. It is not a government of the states, by the states and for the people. It is just as legitimate as any state government. For a state to break away without the expressed will of its people is like a county trying to break away from a state in many respects.
PC revisionist history does not change the fact that the primary cause of the war was taxation. At the time of secession tariffs levied on Southern trade accounted for 87% of Federal revenues. Most of the money was spent on "Public Works" in support of Northern industry.
Which is any worse than a South which in its confederate constitution gave the right of "property in negro" to every one of its constituents that could own property? Wealth redistribution is no worse than slavery, however I would call it the lesser of the two evils in some respects. At least it does not fully enslave one to another and use military force to maintain the status. It can be abolished anytime peacefully by the people getting off their asses and voting in constitutionalists. Slavery required a much more fundamental paradigm shift to eliminate.
What many pro-confederates fail to realize about the war is that the DoI, a document much reviled by the South during that time, did not legitimize southern secession because there was a peaceful way of fixing the problem while staying in the Union. The South had representatives in Congress, had strong influence in presidential elections and many sympathizers on the US Supreme Court. It was not being taxed without representation and it had a great deal of influence re the US Government's policies. It could have proposed alternatives to a high tariff that would have helped and it could have probably gotten some more people in the judiciary sympahetic to free trade. The DoI did not acknowledge a right of revolution. Revolution is only legitimate if the system is so fundamentally corrupt or one-sided that peaceful change is impossible and then the revolutionary regime must be a liberal one. It cannot fight against tyranny then establish tyranny in the form of a slaverowner rights in its constitution. According to classical liberal theory, such a body is a criminal conspiracy, not a legitimate government.