The island is technically South Carolina's territory and, if they wanted to, they could demand the island back.

Longest historical revisionism I've ever seen

That isn't "historical revisionism." Lincoln only won the Northern States and only got 39% of the national vote. Lincoln was the man in the position of power to prevent the war, but he only further instigated it by refusing any sort of compromise and further driving the nation to war.

Most importantly, Lincoln took the war extremely personally. To him, it was the war he brought about and all of the destruction caused by it was on his shoulders.

Lincoln was not the monster that southern revisionists make him out to be. Nor was the Confederacy some heroic dream of freedom for its people.

No doubt there were good and bad people on both sides.

And good men who did bad things. Bad men who did good things. As there is in every war.

Nor was Lincoln a virtuous saint who did no wrong nor was the Union army the great liberators.

Lincoln is the living incarnation of the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." He wanted to follow his principles and did so, but all that brought about was the absolute chaos of the war and the next century of social problems for the country.

Has any war ever been different?

No matter the motivation, innocent people die. Ordinary soldiers, and civilians

The difference here was that it was preventable.

Is any war unavoidable?

Nope.

Some aren't.

This one was and it all had to do with who was in charge.

Have you ever read SC's declaration of secession?

I have.

So you know why they broke away

Yes.

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.