[Sherman Logan]

Okay, we seem to be having trouble communicating.

Your claim was that “states” were treated differently.

The Republican party platform said nothing about treating states differently, but rather about whether slavery would be allowed to expand into the territories, where the federal government, not the states, had authority.

Slavery had previously been outlawed, with minimal complaint, in some of the territories for decades until repealed at southern assistance. Yet the reinstitution (and possibly expansion) of this previous policy in your mind was somehow an example of treating states differently that justified secession and war?

Lincoln’s remarks about a house divided being unable to stand is actually a quote from the Bible. As he said at the time, if you wanted to argue the principle, you needed to take it up with a higher authority than him.

[phi11yguy19]

the federal government, not the states, had authority

...as a common guarantor of its constituent State's sovereignty. Passing laws that pitted half the states against the other, forever tipping a delicate balance of power to one group at the expense of the other was not what anyone signed up for.

Slavery had previously been outlawed, with minimal complaint, in some of the territories

Yes, as the cries for banning slavery from the territories grew from the north, the southern states did concede to split the territories on a north-south line all the way to the pacific - a means that would never tip the balance of power. Unfortunately that proved to not be enough...it had to be of the territories.

secession and war

Those did not go hand in hand, as witnessed under Buchanan. The "war" started when Lincoln violated his armistices with SC and FL as we've shown directly quoting the historical record of communications with his own Navy. If you insist on ignoring such facts, then you're choosing to believe a lie.