The issue in 1860 was not about getting their way. There was a large bloc in the new party, which openly assailed the South and its people; which wanted to repudiate the bases of the original Federation.
Let us reverse issues and times. For, an example, what if Hillary Clinton were to actually be elected President in 2008, with a overwhelmingly, Secular Humanist Congress, and she were to avow an intention to change the religious orientation of rural and small town America, in the interests of diversity; and to punish for perpetrating "Hate Crimes," any prelate or minister, who dared suggest that there was such a thing as a True Religion; vowing to show the same contempt for what the First Amendment actually says--as opposed to the ACLU nonsense--as those who were later known as the "Reconstructionists" vowed to show to Article IV, Section 2.
Since the suppression of religion cuts across State lines, the reaction would more likely be revolution than succession. But the outrage, that might bring it about, is clear.
William Flax
Sorry. I obviously meant secession in the last sentence of my Reply #69.
Changing the context doesn't really help. Regardless of how many motives the South had to succeed, slavery was central, and the Confederacy should therefore not have been allowed to exist. While racisism was prevalent in the North as well, it was one of the guiding ideologies of Southern society and in particular, its economy. And thank God that it was so short lived. Our country is better than that.