A goofball's comedy video that claims to be "Debunking the Lost Cause myths that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, that nobody in the North cared about slavery or abolitionism, and that the warmongering Union invaded the South without provocation or just cause during the Civil War."

He was a tyrant according to any reasonable interpretation.
There is a laundry list of incredible abuses.

I didn't make the claim that nobody in the north cared about slavery, but rather that slavery was not the only thing secession and the civil war were about, contrary to your claims.

How about defending your own statements and addressing mine?

This is the part where I roll my eyes at your blatant disregarding of reality. Meanwhile statues are still coming down, Confederates went all-in on slavery and lost and still cry tyranny though they committed treason, and Lincoln is still regarded as one of the greatest presidents in American history, if not the greatest.

Next.

I'll take the genetic fallacy for 500 alex

Arguments about the legality of secession are bunk. There was no prohibition in the constitution, nor were states bound by some vague interpretation of democracy. Secession was never a legal question, it was a military one. The law was whatever the winner declared it was, might making right. The north didn't win a grand argument by pointing to some words written in a book by dead men. You can harp all you want about lost causes or tyranny of the majority or despotism, but the fact is the north had the mechanization and industrial base to subjugate the south, and felt they had the moral imperative to do so.

Aptly responding to a child's take on major historical events and asking you to actually defend and address points is not a "blatant disregard of history".

Roll your eyes and evade the discussion all you want.

Appealing to popular feelings of Lincoln is immature and irrelevant.

You realize you are ignorant and incapable and seek to deflect and run.

Arguments of legality among sovereigns always falls to military authority after all

What specifically did you delude yourself into believing was a genetic fallacy there?

Can call it genetic fallacy, or ad hom, or whatever. I'm tired.

Point is, you're dismissing something without looking at its merit based on its outward appearance. It's especially ironic since posting dumb videos or links to ridiculous books is one of your hallmarks.

Here is the OG, Lysander Spooner:

"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle — but only in degree — between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”

Yankee pride my son.