That's not Lincoln.
That's some stupid tagline somebody came up with a few years back.
Peaceful secession by mutual consent was a possibility, but that's not the path the Confederates took.
The idea that states were obligated to remain permanently attached to people whom they wished to be rid of, was debated at the time. Many believed a Union voluntarily joined could be voluntarily left. Others believed that independence, once surrendered, was permanently forfeit.
That is a false dichotomy. What you're ignoring is the secessionists refusal to work for their goals within the existing system. Many places in the world today work for independence by mutual consent. Why was that so hard for the secessionists to do?
You keep putting this on the Confederates who did not attack for three months until someone sent a fleet of warships with orders to use force to keep the unwanted guests in their home. (and to make sure they continued paying the duties ordered by Washington DC.)
Had that fleet of warships not been sent, they would have had no need to attack at all.
And while we are on the subject, I find it immensely curious that I have only learned of this war fleet in the last few years. I consider it to be quite relevant to the events there, yet I had heard no word of it until relatively recently. I think discussion of it has been actively discouraged by most of the history book writers because it confuses the issue of who started the war.
All most people have ever heard is that the confederates fired on Ft. Sumter. Nobody ever tells them that Lincoln sent a belligerent fleet of warships against them, and this is what triggered it. It's as if they want this little detail covered up, because it's harder to sell the "we were attacked for no apparent reason" claim when you find out about the warships.
Even my friend who first put me on to this line of thinking, never mentioned there was a bunch of warships sent. I doubt he even knows about it.
But getting back to the point, getting "permission" to leave an organization is a form of slavery in and of itself. It means you don't control your own destiny. Others control it for you.
That is a false dichotomy. What you're ignoring is the secessionists refusal to work for their goals within the existing system.
In a democracy consisting of 4 wolves and a sheep, the goal is to have the sheep for dinner. There is no methodology whereby the sheep was going to get relief within the existing system.
Many places in the world today work for independence by mutual consent. Why was that so hard for the secessionists to do?
I'll bite. Tell me your plan for allowing the Southerners to get out of the laws and taxes imposed on them? What concessions would they have had to make to get the independence they wanted?
I will tell you that I believe there never could have been any such plan, because the entire reason Lincoln wanted them to remain under his control is precisely to insure the revenue they produced would continue flowing through New York and into Washington DC.
No plan that didn't keep the money flowing would be accepted. Money was the entire point of suppressing their independence. Read Lincoln's speech about "and to collect the duties and imposts..."
I think you might want to retreat from this thought, because if you go down this road and try to find some plan that would allow the south to leave by mutual consent, you will see the reality of it. Once seen, it cannot be unseen. You will start to notice that everything converges on this point of money.