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