My point is, maybe the north should have taken that position. Just let the south secede and gave them Sumpter. If they could run things ok and become a good neighbor, fine. Slavery would have been abolished anyway. It was just to big a travesty to continue. The goodness in people would have eventually elected politicians who wound have abolished slavery. Actually, the vast majority of people in the south did not own slaves and were against it.
And my position is that the South wanted to walk away from obligations to debt and treaties, take whatever federal property they wanted without compensation of any kind, and leave the remaining states to shoulder the responsibility. How fair is that?
Slavery would have been abolished anyway. It was just to big a travesty to continue. The goodness in people would have eventually elected politicians who wound have abolished slavery.
But there is no evidence whatsoever that the good people of the 1861 South were interested in abolishing slavery. Even then, had slavery continued for 20 or 40 or 80 years it still would not have changed the underlying illegality of the manner in which the South chose to leave.
Actually, the vast majority of people in the south did not own slaves and were against it.
I challenge you to produce the slightest shred of evidence that supports such a ridiculous claim.