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

O wait the south wasnt so just as that.

It’s not just “dah rich pepol” of the south, it’s the north simply getting their way due to having more people and, in turn, more congressmen and senators than the South.

Also you dont need consent from everyone to ratify something

I dont see a problem

Tariffs of 1857, written by a Virginia senator, gave them lower tariffs than they'd seen in half a century

The south has become marginalized and almost entirely forgotten just as “flyover country” is almost always forgotten in politics.

There were no planes

Democrats controlled Congress until losing the House in 1859

And the south marginalized itself

63% of federal revenues were from tariffs in New York alone

Its production power and sophistication was far lower than the north

New York had what a population of 2-3 million?

Ehen the next biggest had 100k?

It’s because of population and the massive differences in what was considered desirable for them that resulted in conflict. The South was agrarian and relied on the major cash crops in order to make a suitable profit, since, unlike the North, there were fewer industries because of a lack of investment in the region.

Except slavery wasnt desirable

It was only for the rich