That is certainly an oversimplified version of our conversation. After the convention voted to secede militia units were mustered and federal facilities at Harper's Ferry and Norfolk seized. The rebellion had already begun in Virginia. The state government was behind it, and the referendum was only a confirmation of what had already become a fait accompli.
But to return to your original statement. Does anyone really think that if Lincoln had not extended the blockade to Virginia the referendum would have gone the other way? It's a cute debating point, but it doesn't stand up as a real hypothesis. Was secession the more justified because of the blockade? It doesn't matter so much, if the blockade was a justifiable response to the actions of the state government.
In what way? You stated that Lincoln issued the blockade after Virginia seceded. You did this in post 578. This was factually incorrect as I pointed out. Your response was not to recognize this fact, which was the matter our discussion, but to divert into the issue of arsenal seizures and the sort.
That latter issue is nice and all, but does not change my original point nor the fact that Lincoln installed a blockade against states that were not officially seceded.
Does anyone really think that if Lincoln had not extended the blockade to Virginia the referendum would have gone the other way?
Speculation on events that never happened is a poor way to debate events that did happen. My own suspicion is that it would have effected North Carolina fairly heavily, which was very closely divided on the secession issue a few months prior to their withdrawal from the union.
Was secession the more justified because of the blockade? It doesn't matter so much, if the blockade was a justifiable response to the actions of the state government.
Sure it does, as a blockade on foreign commerce isn't exactly responsive to a militia siezure of an arsenal hundreds of miles inland, or even a fort or two on the coast.