Well, at least why South Carolina broke away.

Virginia broke away because Lincoln wanted to get troops down there and they'd inevitably go through Virginia and essentially violate all of their rights in the process.

Lincoln's intial goal was to keep the nation together, period. The south broke away for slavery.

Doesn't mean the people actually fought for slavery

Just means the rich people lobbied for it

As we all know it is a rich man's war but a poor man's fight.

No, the south broke away because Lincoln wanted to transgress their rights to determine how slavery would be dealt with, which a number of politicians framed as a "direct attack" on slavery.

Lincoln only made the situation worse overall, which is why I generally suggest that, if someone like Andrew Jackson were President during the time, the war wouldn't have happened.

The south believed Lincoln would end slavery. They admit it themselves

Because, unlike Lincoln, Jackson would have gone to the negotiating table.

The north also refused to comply with fugitive slave laws

*Some* politicians did, others did not.

Jackson did in fact confront the south when they threatened to secede over taxes and tariffs. He threatened them, they backed down.

You can refer to Jefferson Davis as a good example of how it wasn't a clear cut-and-dry thing.

Ragnarok, he confronted the South *in order to get them to the negotiating table.*

Lincoln simply refused any form of negotiation.

Lincoln wanted to get his way as President and be the judge, jury, and executioner on the slavery debate, which was the problem. It isn't the right of the President to force their opinion as fact, regardless of the issue in question. The President is meant to be the executioner, not the Judge and Jury.

What negotiation does there need to be?

Hmm does that mean Trump should still enforce Obamacare?

Did you read anything I've said or are you just jumping to conclusions?

The President is the executioner. His job is to execute what Congress passes. He has the option to not execute plans, if need be, and can veto bills when they come across his desk. However, he doesn't have the power to make the laws.

Hence why Lincoln wanting to get his way on the slavery debate (i.e. halting the expansion of slavery) was seen as him overstepping is boundaries as President. Lincoln did not have the right nor the power to get his way on the issue. He was there to execute what Congress passes and enforce the laws, not the make them himself.

That is the fundamental problem.

Sounds an awful lot like a Democrat unhappy with the current president, and I know you're better than that

I will give you this though, the Battle Flag is awesome

It isnt that Lincoln would end slavery, the Republicans would and the Dems didnt get their guy in to veto it. It doesnt matter what percent of the vote Lincoln got, he won. Its really no different than what just happened with Trump.

Or, you know, people who had legitimate fears that Lincoln was going to act like a defacto tyrant only to have him act like a defacto tyrant...

Also, the problem here is that Lincoln won only the Northern States. The North had become more powerful than the South and, in turn, the South was being neglected as a region.

Like people have legitimate fears of Trump was going to act like a defacto tyrant accordig to their beliefs? It would be no different than if leftist states succeeded now and Trump took actions to stop them.

The best part is even though the south lost the war and subsequently had numerous legislative judicial and executive actions taken on them the south is stronger than it has ever been.

You may not like how it happened or the shit you take because of it, but it was for the best.

No because, unlike the irrationality of the left, southerners actually had a point to bring up because, unlike Trump, Lincoln openly said he wanted to have his way and his way alone, essentially throwing compromise out of the window on an issue that demanded it. Not only that, but their fears were vilified when Lincoln Unconstitutionally suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus in Maryland in 1862, which is considered an act of tyranny. Trump has done none of these things.

For any analogy to be correct, it would have to be more along the lines of someone, like Trump, essentially saying that he will illegalize Abortion outright without any consideration of the opposition’s opinions and not permitting them to have a say.

That is the problem and the South, having already been fed up with the North becoming too powerful, simply took matters into their own hands and seceded from the Union, continually trying to get Lincoln to reconsider his position the entire time.

Lincoln didnt even do anything until after they did so no it would be similar

Unless you want to show me where its constitutional to secede from the country. There is also the part where "other countries" arent protected by the constitution.

“Lincoln didn’t do nuffin’!”

Sounds like the Northern narrative to me.

Lincoln made some pretty bad decisions based on principle. Decisions that only led to the war and made it inevitable.

As did the southerners, first I might add.

Again please show where seceding is legal in the constitution.

Anything is legal unless specified otherwise, Ehzek. You don’t prove innocence, but rather guilt. Similarly, you don’t prove legality, but rather illegality. Secession was, and technically still is, legal under the Constitution. Also, the South made at least several offers to Lincoln to have him reconsider his position, but it was Lincoln who ignored them and dismissed them.

So murder is legal since the Constitution doesn't address it? Constitutional law applies to actions by the government

Now I'm not saying the rebels were all bad. I'm not here to disparage Lee and others like him. I don't want to rename schools or tear down statues

Lincoln wasn't even inaugurated when they seceded

But it doesn’t matter because Lincoln already expressed his desire to only have his way beforehand, which is the entire problem. It’d be the equivalent of a Democrat running for the complete abolition of the right of the states to manage their own education systems and saying you will not have it any other way. It’s a bad idea that will guarantee people will rebel against that.

Uh we're talking about slavery here

And the right of determination of the legality of slavery was a right of the state.

And Fort Sumter was held by the 1st US Artillery Regiment, Batteries E and H. Not by the 1st South Carolina Artillery Regiment. Not state troops.

Ok so basically you're arguing in favor of states deciding to have slaves

C'mon man you're better than that

And Fort Sumter was built on South Carolinian territory, meaning that the state of South Carolina had the right to request the fort back.

No, my argument is that Lincoln did *not* have the right to have his way on the issue.

Being a fort held by federal troops. Just like comparing Fort Benning GA (federal) to Camp Blanding FL (state)

Slavery’s bad, but getting rid of it in the dumbest way possible is far worse.

Sacrificing hundreds of thousands of men, economically destroying the south, and dividing the country forever was not worth ending the institution.

Who was the owner of the land prior to the US Army?

Hence why Lincoln is the incarnation of the saying “the Road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

South Carolina.

Not sure how it changed hands but eminent domain law exists and does allow the federal government to forcibly purchase land for public use. Military use is public use since the public benefits from it.

South Carolina owned the island and lended it to the Federal Government in 1830, which they used to build a fort on the island. When South Carolina seceded from the Union, they had the right to demand the island back.

So the title was held by the State of South Carolina, and not by a private person?

It’s similar to the issue of Hong Kong and other land grants in other countries. If the current government that loaned the land to the other power is disposed of and changed into a new government, they have the right to demand the land back if they so chose.

It depends on what the new government wants to do. Communist China recognized the former agreements with Hong Kong and allowed for Britain to maintain control until the contract ran out, since they didn’t want to instigate a war with a nuclear power.

The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

Sorry for the text wall but that is the exact text of the law passed by SC which ceded the land and any claim, to the feds

That was done when it was still a state. South Carolina seceded from the Union and, therefore, the contracts made while as a state are null-en-void.

Meaning that they have a right to demand the island back if and when they chose to do so.

No, they don't

First, there is no right to secede

Second, you cannot as a government entity make an agreement and then change your mind later even if secession is legal. Secession does nothing to alter the fact that South Carolina is a government entity.

The State of South Carolina as a government exists regardless of if it is part of the United States or the Confederate States

The same state militia, state laws, state officials, etc exist in perpetuity regardless of any association with the US

“First there is not right to secede.”

Again, anything and everything is legal unless specified otherwise.

Secession is legal.

So murder is legal since the Constitution doesn't address it

Straw man.

Secession is a Constitutional matter.

And the Constitution does not say anything against it and it can be inferred as a right of a state via the 10th Amendment clause.

(I.e. any powers not granted nor specified to be powers of the federal government are reserved for the states and the citizens of the United States.)

Ergo, secession is legal.

You know by your own argument then the Confederates didnt have a right to habeas corpus

The right to murder is not granted to the federal government. Thus it goes to the states or the people

The right to own slaves as well

Prior to the passing of relevant amendments

And as seccesion isnt covered in the constitution and the constitution binds the states to the federal government. It would be logical to require the government and state to determine the seccesion terms. You know like giving fort sumter to them legally.

You would have a better foundation by standing on the natural right of rebellion in the case of extreme oppression, which morally justified our own war of independence

The whole seccesion was impulsive childish and considerably less than legally acceptable way to do it. They literally rage quit the union on only their terms.

But we find no extreme oppression in the south to justify it. From your argument all we have are that the rich people of the south were scared the government was gonna free the slaves

I can agree with that actually

That's basically what he said

The ordinary citizen of the South did not own slaves. The ones who did were usually wealthy, some upper class people as well. Maybe a few middle upper might own some house servants

The South was a region that was underdeveloped and underpopulated starting in the 1820’s.

As early as the 1830’s, there were already major problems being observed between the north and south.

Major problems does not mean extreme oppression

The only oppression is that they refused to honor the terms of their contract to the government

They were trying to bully the north when they couldnt do so legally

And as noted in your tree stump argument most southerners didnt even have slaves

So why freeing slaved oppressed the entirety of the south is unexplainable

The nullification crisis of 1832 is a prime example of how things between the regions had soured massively, since the entire crisis came about as a result of a tariff that unfairly impacts southern port cities over northern port cities. This had been done with little to no consent from the Southern states because, by the 1830’s, the North had already gotten powerful enough to begin getting their way a good portion of the time when compared tot he South. As a result, many southern states nullified the bill in question, resulting in such a major crisis that Andrew Jackson had to get involved to mediate the entire renegotiation of the tariff and tax bills in order to ensure a fair compromise.

It pissed off the rich people, who then sent the poor people to fight and die for them

Then give up slaves to reverse the tariffs