[Ditto]

Which of course, begs the question as to, “what was the purpose of secession?”
As we see today, the concept of an overarching federal government and history has shown a mostly untrammeled expansion of federal power.

As opposed to the "untrammeled expansion of slavery which is what the South demanded and the North rejected?

No one in the Federal government or in Northern states demanded a damn thing from the South. But the South continued to demand the 'untrammeled' expansion of slavery to wherever the hell they pleased, including Northern states where it had long ago been eliminated. They did not care about the rights of the other states. They did not care about long established Federal prerogatives. Expansion was their priority.

Push met shove.

But please stop pretending that secession was not about slavery. It was --- 100% about slavery.

The South had their justifications which I acknowledge on both economic and social grounds, but both of those were entirely due to their total reliance on slavery. It was entirely rational to them at that time.

[JCBreckenridge]

“untrammeled expansion of slavery which is what the South demanded and the North rejected?”

I’d love to see evidence that the South wanted to expand slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line. This is false.

“But please stop pretending that secession was not about slavery. It was -— 100% about slavery.”

Which is why the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves in the north? No. It was about secession.