[phi11yguy19]

You declare war on other countries, not rebellious parts of your own. No declaration of war would have been appropriate.

And there you catch yourself in a fallacy. If it wasn't a war, then why is it now called the Civil War? (After all, Shay's Rebellion was a pretty big deal but we don't call that a war.) The South wasn't rebelling, they were LEAVING their voluntary compact with the other States (see "secession"). If they were never a separate country, why were they forced to be "re-admitted" to the union by re-swearing allegiance to D.C.? Since the 14th & 16th amendments were passed with differing Southern representation present in congress, then one or the other is unconstitutional since it either had invalid votes or didn't get the required votes. Yada, yada, yada.

As for the rest of your post, you're arguing a straw man. A poster asked for a quote to support that Lincoln didn't want blacks in Illinois (or any other "free-soil" state for that matter), and I provided it. Are you in agreement, or are you changing the discussion completely to make it seem like i didn't answer his question as simply as possibly?

Starting a philosophical discussion on a message board about good vs evil seems more than a little off topic and futile (even though it's always an interesting debate in person).

[K-Stater]

If it wasn't a war, then why is it now called the Civil War?

The original, and most accurate, name was "The War of the Rebellion". "Civil War" wasn't officially adopted by the government, who were responsible for the documentation of the conflict, until the early 20th century.

Yada, yada, yada.

Yada, yada, yada indeed. It's obvious that you and Durand are kindred spirits.