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.
Most of the people were poor. They wouldn’t have been able to afford slaves. The rich landowners were the ones mostly who owned slaves. I don’t feel like looking back over this long long thread but I seem to recall that you, yourself, said that most of the southern people were opposed to slavery and that the politicians and landowners were forcing their views on everyone.
It would not be fair if that were the truth, but here you're lying. South Carolina and the CSA both attempted to remunerate the federal government for any debts, and to negotiate all outstanding issues.