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