If so, you're laughably easy to please. What has Doris done? She's strung together belligerent quotes from Northern politicians purporting to prove that the war was about tariffs. Blood-hungry quotes from Southern politicians aren't hard to find either, but in and of themselves they don't prove that the war was or wasn't about tariffs or slavery or state's rights or anything else. You need more evidence than "up and at 'em" rhetoric to prove a case about what caused a war.
Then she goes on to take Lincoln's concern for maintaining the procedures of the federal government -- the mails, the tariffs, forts, and the courts -- as evidence of some narrow obsession with the tariff alone. Anybody who knows the history will see through her posturing pretty easily. You can find quotes from 1941 or 1942 saying that oil and bases were important to the US government, but they don't prove that the Second World War, was about oil or bases, any more than the Civil War was about tariffs.
I'll grant that the early Confederate Navy wasn't much of a fighting force in early 1861, but Doris ignores that the rebel army, militias, and agents constituted the biggest threat to the US in fifty years or more. Thus, much of the panic in the free states was understandable.
______
The "interlinear" style of analysis doesn't do much for discussion. Any yokel can convince herself that she's a genius by this simple method:
Cut and paste whatever you want to "refute" and put it in quotes or italics.
Then type out something loosely related to it, and assume that you've disproved whatever you want to. Then you can cackle about you clever you are.
Somebody or other is bound to be taken in.