[hirn_man]

Lincoln was only the aggressor if the states had the right to seceede. That right was and is very much in dispute.

Andrew Jackson (no yankee by the way) pretty much summed it up with his Proclamation to South Carolina. Secession is treason and will be met with force. Revisionist neo-confederates pretend like the south had no idea their actions could lead to bloodshed.

The idea that secession was universally supported before Lincoln came along is either dishonest or ignorant.

The South engaged in the election of 1860. They refused to abide by that election.

Maybe you can tell me what is the use of a republican form of government if noone is bound to ever abide by the terms of that government?

And just how can people(not necessarily you) go on an on how we are not a democracy, but see nothing wrong with mob rule at the state level (50% + 1) taking ALL of the citizens of a state out of that republican form of government.

And there were attrocities committed on both sides. The hypocracy drips off both sides.

[aristeides]

You are correct in saying that in 1860-1 it was a disputed legal point whether states had the right to secede. But do you go to war to prevent somebody from doing something that is doubtfully legal?

[exmarine]

Regarding secession, I think a good case can be made that secession is illegal, as you pointed out. You may be right. Honestly, I need to do more research before I take any further stands on this issue. I have no ax to grind for pro-secession.