I'm fully aware of the reasons for secession, thanks.
-----
The blame for that, ma'am, belongs with those who started the ball rolling in the first place.
As a VOLUNTARY Union can be left at will, the only 'blame' to be doled out is to those who would breach a perfectly legal contract for the sole purpose of consolidating an unconstitutional power.
-----
And ... you seem to use the term "moral issues of slavery" as a way of suggesting that it should not have been addressed by making a clean end of it. How ... convenient.
It has nothing to do with convenience and everything to do with fact. You do have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between a legal issue and a moral one, do you not?
-----
You also forget that the secession convention of your own state, among others, said outright that maintaining the institution of slavery was the reason they seceeded. You can defend that if you wish.
Facts need no defense. Before you jump down from your moral high-horse, let's take a few 'facts' into consideration....
Slavery was legal as the colonies were being established.
Slavery was legal when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Slavery was legal when the Revolutionary War was fought.
Slavery was legal when the Constitutional Convention was called.
Slavery was legal when the Constitution was ratified.
This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the states.
James Madison Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
Slavery was legal and slaves were property. Despite the clear legal aspects of the institution, Lincoln used the liberal tactic of pure emotionalism to release the general government from it's bindings, and the Republic died.
The truly ironic thing is that so few people will ever connect Lincoln's actions with todays contemporary government that now tells us how much of our own property we can keep and how much we must tithe to Uncle Sam.
Now, now... let's not get into comparisons of "intellectual capacity," ma'am. You don't want to be squandering your obviously limited resources on the propagation of further silliness.
Your comment suggests that the enslavement of other human beings was a merely "legal" issue. Are we to suppose that you believe that there are or should be no legal consequences when people practice and defend a true moral abomination?
The Confederates' response to the near certainty of a legal prohibition of slavery was to seceed. They were willing to risk all ... but their primary reason for doing so was repugnant. And contradictory as well: to preserve their freedom to hold other men in bondage.