Lincoln was not seeking anything other than preserving the Union.
wbull1 said he believed Davis and Stephens had said at the start of the war that the main reason for the war was the protection and expansion of slavery. I questioned the historical accuracy of that claim and then made the argument that it can't make any sense to say the main reason for the war was "the protection and expansion of slavery" unless it's true that concessions with regards to slavery could have averted/ended the war. As I suggested in that comment, given that I've never heard anyone even claim that any slavery-related concessions following secession (particularly not by any of the Confederate states) could have averted the war, then it must be nonsense to say the main reason for the war was the protection and expansion of slavery. Your latest comment, saying Lincoln was not seeking anything other than preserving the Union, certainly seems consistent with my earlier claim.
But then in your previous comment you seemed to think it was very important to modify my comment that the reason for the war was a dispute over whether the South could have independence to say the reason for the war was a dispute over whether the South could have independence "to practice, protect, and perpetuate the practice of slavery." But that that modification is unnecessary and misleading was precisely my original point. It wouldn't have mattered if the South had been willing to make any concessions with regards to slavery, i.e. whether the South was going to use its independence "to practice, protect, and perpetuate the the practice of slavery" or not; as you've suggested yourself, Lincoln's demands were effectively blind to any questions of slavery, and you can't have a war, the main reason for which is something to which one of the combatants is willfully blind. The main reason for the war can only have been something where concessions on that point would have mattered.
the passionate rationale various Senators and Representatives gave to justify their leaving Congress.
Reasons for secession aren't reasons for war unless it's true that peaceful tolerance of secession (as Thomas Jefferson advocated in his first inaugural address and as Alexander Stephens advocated in his 1864 speech before the Georgia legislature and as other countries have actually peacefully accepted/tolerated in history) is an impossibility and, as I just said above, that any concessions with regards to the alleged reasons for seceding would make a difference as to the demand for war.
Please remind me what I "quoted".
You already responded to that point in your next comment, quoting me where I repeated the same point, although I apparently wasn't clear enough that I was repeating that earlier point. Thank you!
The secessionists never challenged Lincoln's policies in the court's
But they did, as is currently being discussed in the thread about rebels in the borders states, and they won in court, but then Lincoln basically just vowed to defy the Supreme Court ruling. As the Georgia declaration of causes for secession states, "we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor."
instead the secessionists sought trial by combat.
I don't think it's reasonable to equate secession with combat, but even if I were to grant that false equivalency, if anyone is to blame for not submitting to judicial resolution of differences, doesn't that blame fall first of all on the Republican party? And of whom then can we more appropriately say they "had no choice but to respond in kind"?