"The North might make an issue with power mongering on the side of the South and trying too hold the union hostage too their personal desires."
Huh? The South was "power mongering" and holding the Union hostage? And for whose "personal desires" was it done?
Your statement sort of presuposes that the North was innocent of any attemp to dominate the Union. That's not so. The South's position had not changed one iota from the days of signing the Decaration of Independance. The North's position had changed, very much, for years and for economic "power" reasons of it's own. They had started taking steps to negate the provisons that formed the Union at its beginning.
It became obvious to the most casual observer that the North was determined to change the conditions that had been hammered out at the formation of the Union and it was they who caused the problems. Southerners eventually had no choice but to quietly allow the North to rape the South's agriculteral base, for the enrichment of the North's rapidly growing industrialization, or say, "No thanks" and exit.
As it turned out, the South got raped anyway. But most would admit it was under strong objection and in the face of overpowering resorces and man power. Sorta like any of us here would, I hope, defend our family from any external agressors who are detemined to do them harm, even if we were out numbered and out gunned. Such resistance may not succeed but it does save the defender from the ignomy of groveling in cowardly submission to the greater force.
So, in the face of historical facts, perhaps you could reevaluate your statement of who did what, to whom?
