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.