Replies

DiogenesLamp: "...Yes, let's focus on that trivia instead of the larger question of why the Union refused to let the South leave."

But I have already answered that question numerous times -- in depth and in summary -- on many threads, including most recently directly to you on post #196 above.

In brief, the answer is:

No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to prevent Slave-Power Fire-Eaters from declaring their secessions in December 1860 and January 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to prevent secessionists from meeting & forming a new Confederacy on February 4, 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to stop Confederates from writing and approving a new constitution for the CSA, beginning February 8, 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to prevent Confederate delegates from electing Jefferson Davis as their President, on February 10, 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to stop Confederates from seizing dozens of major Federal properties, i.e., forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to stop Confederacy from calling up 100,000 troops on March 6, 1861, or making their own currency on March 9, 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to stop Confederates from fortifying Charleston harbor and preparing a military assault on Fort Sumter.
Even after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri (April 23, 1861), formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861), called up an additional 400,000 troops, now 500,000 total (May 9), and ordered military supplies from abroad (May 10), still the Union armies did not invade a single Confederate state, and did not kill a single Confederate soldier.

The first battle resulting in one Confederate soldier killed, Private Henry L. Wyatt of the 1st North Carolina Volunteers, was Big Bethel on June 10,1861.
By that time dozens of Union troops had been killed, over 100 wounded and hundreds more captured and held POW in Texas.

And that's why there was a Civil War.
All the rest is just talk.

DiogenesLamp: "Why the Union was fine with Slavery, so long as it was under their control.
How about you address that point?"

Of course, slavery was the South's "peculiar institution" and was never "under Union control".
But more generically, your question is yet another I've answered numerous times.

Slavery is not only recognized in the US Constitution, it was in 1787 a precondition for Union.
In other words, had slavery not been incorporated into, and used to boost Southern representation in the new Constitution, there could have been no Union.
At least some Southern states would not have joined, so there would be no single United States.
In 1787, only Vermont and Massachusetts had no slaves, while slavery was still entirely legal in New York and New Jersey.
All other Northern states were in process of gradually abolishing slavery.
Point is: slavery in 1787 was not the anathema in the North that it later became.
From the time of Adams & Jefferson (1800) US politics was divided between a dominant Southern party and an opposition Northern party.
The Southern party was dominant for two reason:
- The Constitution's 3/5 rule gave the South disproportionate representation in Congress and electoral college.
- Many Northerners, especially big city immigrants, joined in voting for the dominant Southern political party.
So the political alliance of Southern Slave-Power with Northern big-city immigrants dominated US politics throughout the period from 1800 through the election of 1860.
Naturally, Northern Democrats very seldom voted against the interests of their Southern slave-holding allies.
Even the Northern political opposition parties -- first Federalists and then Whigs -- were far from anti-slavery.
Indeed, the two elected Whig presidents (Harrison & Taylor) were both Southern slave-holders, so there was in no major sense an anti-slavery movement in Washington.
Yes, there were a few abolitionists, but they lacked political clout, and their main focus was in preventing slavery's expansion into northern territories.
But what happened in the 1850s was Slave-Power dominance in Washington lead to new laws which required Northern states to enforce slavery in their own borders, and this destroyed the old Whigs and ignited the new Republican revolution.

That's what elected "Black Republican" Lincoln president in 1860 leading to Slave-Power declarations of secession, Confederacy and war on the United States.