Surrender is not an appropriate substitute for the concept of leaving people alone. So if you and your next door neighbor announced that you were now your own country, then started shooting at the local national guard armory because you claim that, too, the proper response of the government would be to leave you alone?
The North should have demanded reparations, but they shouldn't have sent an invasion force.
You can't invade your own country.
. I also would suggest that had the Confederates been trying to kill people, they most assuredly would have done so.
Confederate artillery not trying to kill people.
So if you and your next door neighbor announced that you were now your own country, then started shooting at the local national guard armory because you claim that, too, the proper response of the government would be to leave you alone? You are attempting to use a dishonest debate tactic in trying to equate "neighbors" with "States" as if we wouldn't notice.
Your metaphor would be ridiculous if applied to the 13 Colonies and it is just as ridiculous when you attempt to apply it to the Independence movement of the Southern States.
You can't invade your own country.
Tell that to the British. Our nation was founded on the principle that we could become independent from a nation to which we no longer wished to belong.
Confederate artillery not trying to kill people.
You are an unserious debater. I could draw cartoon stick figures showing bombs and explosions to support my position too, but the fact remains that nobody was killed.
Given that people were killed in every single subsequent conflict, I would take that as pretty good evidence that they weren't really trying. And why would they? They had no real animosity directed at those soldiers, they just wanted them to leave.