How to argue that the Election of 1860 did NOT justify southern secession?


What points can I use (based on Northern point of view) that the Election of 1860, in which Lincoln was elected, did NOT justify secession?

The Southern Point of View would be that, the election of Lincoln for sure meant that slavery was threatened because now that he was going to be in power, he had the power to abolish it. Furthermore, it split the wedge between the North and South.

Well no. He didn't have the power to abolish it. That took a Constitutional Amendment, one that could not have passed without the American civil war. However he was opposed to any new states coming in as anything other than free states, and that he was elected with such a platform even though no southern state's electors voted for him was something they found alarming. It suggested that at some point in the future slave states would be so outnumbered that such an Amendment could pass. Even so, that wasn't so much their justification as their motivation. Their justification was simply that any state had the right to withdraw from the Union if the state government wanted to. As a nation created by successful secession (from Britain) and originally consolidated by a union of distinct states, they felt that those states could withdraw from their agreement to be part of that union. As for the North (at least those who opposed secession), they argued that the union in question was intended to be perpetual, there were procedures set forth for inducting new states, but none for leaving, and that acceptance of this idea of a right to secede peacefully would take a great nation and fragment it into in-consequentiality. While their nation had been formed by an original secession, that secession was against a government that did not accord representation to the seceding colonies, and of course it was paid for in blood. If the South wanted to repeat that, they had to pay the same price, and they had to win.