Comment: The former did not exercise political responsibility

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I see a difference between (see in situ)

The former did not exercise political responsibility

He excercised tryanny by employing the military against it's own citizens. Plain and simple.
His actions costed more lives than all other wars combined - you simply cannot justify that by any means.
By your standards - Stalin and Hitler could claim the same use of political responsibility. Hell, if Obama wanted to confiscate the guns he could claim the same moral responsibility.

The minute someone is using coersion and force in the name of morallity you can pretty much bet the farm morallity has nothing to do with it. And if the war really was about slavery and making black men equal - then he should be looked upon as a double failure. Black people were no longer called slaves - they were called convicts - and unlike slaves who have an inherent value in the fact that they are assets to a farm - convicts are liabilities to the state - and as such the treatment of slaves paled in comparison to the treatment of convicts. So instead of being a slave to a plantation - they were slaves to the government. Read a little history - as slaves - I mean free black men convicted of crimes by all white courts - now called criminals - were horreduoulsy treated by the prison system - sold out to private companies who literally would work them to death - only to make sure the police kept a steady supply of fresh slaves(damnit - I keep doing that - I mean free black men convicted or crimes).
Where was the moral outrage, where is the moral outrage? Hell - this STILL goes on.
Exactly - there is none. Lincoln got his Ferderalism and the south still had slavery. It was just now taken from the hands of the plantation owner and put in the hands of well conncected contractors.

The reality is that the South would have fell rather quickly if the North had let them secede and granted freedom to any black person in a northern state. The North could have froze southern assets and banned trade with them. Britian would have followed the North and banned trade as well. The North then could have used the Navy to intercept slave ships in international waters(they would have had the help of the British in this endevour as well).
The point is there were MANY other options to consider that would have made more sense politically - so the use political morallity is just plain silly.