So what you’re saying is that those other States and Territories didn’t have the right to decide for themselves which path to follow? Am I understanding you correctly?
What, then, did the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution mean then? Rights are rights, whether they’re popular or not. Those States and Territories had the right under the US Constitution to decide for themselves which path they would choose, even if one path was morally bankrupt.
After all, if what you say is true, and the States do not have a right to determine their own future, then which is worse; the States determining that chattal slavery was acceptable or the Federal Government determining that Infanticide was acceptable? Both have, at their heart, the debate of what is considered human life and what role the Federal and State Governments have in protecting or destroying that life.
So I guess the part in the 10th Amendment where it delegates powers to the United States means nothing to you? Any mere majority in a state could just usurp those powers?
That is ridiculous. You only want to see the part of the 10th that talks of States rights and ignore the powers delegated to the United States. You want to use the 10th Amendment in order to destroy the 10th Amendment.
Unilateral secession is not a right.
It was already decided by the framers not to be expanded and importations of slaves phased out. It would have eventually died out in its own, but the slave states did not want to abide by the Constitution, nor wait till the next election with new states being formed in the west without the ability to maintain people in a state of perpetual bondage.
So the slaveocracy collectively threw a hissy fit without any action being taken against them, chose the path of treason, and fired the first shots that cost over 500,000 lives.