When does that happen in real world politics? Secession movement start out with a sense of grievance that can become ulcerous. You of all people ought to know that. And when feelings of grievance become intense enough, people don't "depart like gentlemen."
Sometimes, when nothing is at stake, one party may let the other go, as happened in the later days of the British Empire. But even that was accompanied by much rancor in the newly independent states. When things of value are at stake, things get even uglier.
Exploited, not necessarily oppressed. They were paying the bills, and getting mostly squat in return for the money they pumped into the Government.
1) Same difference. 2) Not true.
Me: Seward might not have won. He would have lost Illinois, Indiana, Oregon, and California.
Diogenes: Would have still likely avoided a war.
If he lost the election, he wouldn't have much say in what happened afterwards.
Me: And assuming that Seward did win, what would he have done differently from Lincoln?
What could he have done worse?
He could have fecklessly dithered like Buchanan and let his underlings ship weapons South to be used against US troops. He could have surrendered forts and territory to the enemy and let the slavers take over the capital. And malcontents today would scourge him for that.
We let the Philippines and Cuba go. Of course there was a little unpleasantness, but we eventually did.
When things of value are at stake, things get even uglier.
And there it is.
1) Same difference. 2) Not true.
I see oppression as something worse than taking money from well to do rich people. Exploitation seems a better word. And on your second point, the FedGov did spend some money in the South, but the bulk of it was spent in the North.
If he lost the election, he wouldn't have much say in what happened afterwards.
True, but the people to whom he would have lost, likely wouldn't have triggered secession.
He could have fecklessly dithered like Buchanan
Which implies the only correct course of action is to go to war. I'm not convinced that is true.
and let his underlings ship weapons South to be used against US troops.
Potentially used. At the time it was not certain that there would be a war. Perhaps with a formidable enough military capability in the South, that might have served to further render war less likely.
But yes, Buchanan should have put a stop to that.
He could have surrendered forts and territory to the enemy and let the slavers take over the capital.
Hadn't they already controlled it for most of "four score and seven years"?
And malcontents today would scourge him for that.
I think a lot of historians already regard Buchanan as one of the worst presidents.