If you were objective you would admit that trying to murder those at Sumter was an act of war.
The Ugly reality is that the South had a right to leave, and the Union was completely in the wrong by forcing it back into the Union.
The ugly reality for the South is that they signed an agreement, the Constitution, and didn't follow it in their attempted secession, following Article IV, then stole federal property, then tried to murder American troops, then declared war on the northern states.
Adding the goal of stopping slavery two years after the war had started does not morally justify the evil part of what was done.
Preservation of the union was the goal after the illegal secession, then prohibiting slavery was a fringe benefit.
History and Reason do not condone the "selling of indulgences". You don't get absolution for doing evil, just because you later did good, and especially when you do good for the wrong reasons.
The south was doing evil. Slavery was evil.
In the 19th century abolitionists were considered terrorist and slavery was mainstream.
Oh, you figured that out. Who squealed? :)
I have pointed out in the past, if you fire scores of cannons at walls for hours, and don't kill anybody, it's not an accident.
Preservation of the union was the goal after the illegal secession, then prohibiting slavery was a fringe benefit.
Now here is where you are starting to sound rational. "Prohibiting slavery was a fringe benefit" is exactly right. It was just the icing on the cake, and that is all it ever was.
The real issue was "Preservation of the union", and that puts the ball right back in my court.
The Union didn't have a right to preserve the Union. The Southern states had a right to leave it. Again, it's in the Declaration of Independence. The Authority cited is "God."
"God Says it. I believe it. That settles it." :)