So if the south are traitors during the civil war...

[Wakie77]

This is a very stretched what if.  The nearest anyone in the north came to secession was New York City wherein some wanted to have a "free city".

[Wakie77]

The north did not secede so that point is moot.

All I'm saying is if had been the north that caused the civil war the history books would praise the north besides you all realize that Abe Lincoln could care less about slaves right heck his whole plan was to free them and send them back to Africa or South America Lincoln even said a whole bunch that the war was not about slavery you want to know where I'm getting my info from
The ken burns civil war series he made.

You are being very selective in your usage of the Burns material.  Yes, Lincoln did advocate the "back to Africa" movement.  And yes, there are some historians in the documentary who are very critical of him.  But you are forgetting the numerous individuals throughout who point out that Lincoln was a master politician operating within the limitations of his time.  Lincoln's writings and speeches leading up to his election clearly indicate he was anti-slavery but he had no intention of ending it, just preventing its spread.

Yes, history is written by the victor, but in the case of the Civil War the South did rebel.  Their leadership did so because they were afraid of losing financial and political power which the institution of slavery afforded them.  The lower classes in the South did it because, quite honestly, the upper classes told them the North was trying to destroy their way of life.  In short, advancing technology and social attitudes scared them so they wanted to make the South "great again".

You may have an argument that the South had a legal right to secede, but morality was not on their side.