(Submitter Note: Last two remarks from them)
Slavery again. Why didn't the "freedom-loving north" end slavery when the south left? Instead, the raised the tariff on imported goods as high as 50 per cent. After that, they heard that the south had imposed a 10% tariff and they lost their S**T. "Grass will grow on Wall Street and silt will fill New York harbor" warned a newspaper editor.
"If anything, the South was the one that arrogantly assume they can leave and anyone else had to follow their rules."
EVERYONE believed that at the time. The Northeast states threatened to do so many times. I guess THEY'RE just a bunch of "perpetual rebels and traitors" as we have been called for a century and a half.
Look, whether or not secession was legal, or treason is really a moot question. What everyone SHOULD be asking is "why didn't Lincoln allow negotiations?" He had a disaster on his hands: seven states said they were an independent nation and were demanding that the United States army remove the solders from two forts (Sumter in South Carolina and Pickens in Florida) within their borders OR ELSE. Instead, he sent warships to Charleston, which was taken as an ACT OF WAR. It didn't matter if those ships were loaded with "bread for starving solders", or soldiers and marines with orders to take the harbor, or love letters to the local "boy band", this was taken as an act of war! If I were to swing my fist at your face, I doubt that you'll believe me later when I say I was trying to swat a mosquito.
Lincoln didn't talk. He insisted that the southern states were part of the United States but would not reason with them. He preferred WAR. The fault is his. Over six hundred thousand dead the richest region crushed economically, and generations unborn hated.
And people like you are offended when we object.