By doing what? The south engaged in a bloody and protracted rebellion that killed hundreds of thousands of people. And once they surrendered they attempted to keep the same people who led the rebellion in power and enacted laws meant to keep the newly freed slaves in a position as closely resembling slavery as possible. And you think that there shouldn't have been any repercussions?
Nope. I don’t think there should have been repercussions. Sorry about that. I’m an American and love my history. I love the Yanks and the Rebs - the whole enchilada. I’d rather spend my time hating the vicious regimes of China, Stalinist Russia and the world of the imams than spend time stewing in bitterness of Fort Sumter.
It was only bloody and protracted because the North wouldn't let them be. Had they the decency of George III and realize that these states no longer wanted to be part of their government, they could have stopped sending men into the meat grinder at any time.
The war was bloody? Well what do you expect when you invade someone's home?
And once they surrendered they attempted to keep the same people who led the rebellion in power and enacted laws meant to keep the newly freed slaves in a position as closely resembling slavery as possible.
And yet no criticism for the fact that the Union would have kept them in ACTUAL SLAVERY had the South just stopped fighting earlier?
You need to put your moral contempt on those people who thought the issue was negotiable. That Union was going to leave slavery intact. They didn't care about slavery, they cared about stopping Independence, and nothing else.