They did? Based on what? And there's no such thing as 'right'. You have a right to do whatever you can enforce. Such matters are settled by arms, and not by legal niceties.
Lincoln is the guy who took the concept of a federal government based upon an amalgamation of states, and ran a fucking bayonet through it.
And if he hadn't, you'd have cursed him for weakening your country by allowing half of it to depart, and creating a Ukraine on your doorsteps which European powers would gladly have used to keep your country in check and weaken it.
on the subject of secession, any agreement that you cannot back out of is no agreement. if you try to back out and are held at gunpoint, you are not a participant but a hostage.
The south was getting shafted by the North, morally they had every right to break up the agreements and no longer be subject to the oppressive majority in the north. Lincoln didn't like this, so he shot them until they surrendered.
on the subject of secession, any agreement that you cannot back out of is no agreement
What? Literally none of the arguments that you make, you can back out of. You think that if you make an agreement to pay a house, you can back out of it with impunity?
if you try to back out and are held at gunpoint
They weren't though. But they then pushed their luck by attacking Fort Sumter, which was a mistake.
The south was getting shafted by the North
How? Dominate presidential elections, Congress and the SCOTUS for decades. Lose one election and suddenly you're "shafted".
morally they had every right to break up the agreements and no longer be subject to the oppressive majority in the north.
How were they being 'oppressed' by the politicians they themselves elected?
No one said backing out would be without consequence. A reasonable consequence would be losing any protection and funding from the north. An unreasonable consequence would be getting blockaded from outside trade until you relented. This is what the north did that necessitated the south's invasion.
Fort Sumter
Was a fort deep in southern territory that the north refused to vacate. In fact, according to OP, the north fortified it. Imagine the US kicking out the British, but the british insists on holding a fort in Massachusetts. It's the same situation.
shafted/oppressed
Did you watch OP? The south was getting taxed/tariffed disproportionately for their exports, which the north was leeching off of. The north also kept expanding to build a senate majority. At the time the south seceded, they had no representation with teeth at all. A familiar story.
The confederate states had every right to leave, Lincoln forced them back at the muzzle of a fucking Springfield.
Lincoln is the guy who took the concept of a federal government based upon an amalgamation of states, and ran a fucking bayonet through it.
They did? Based on what? And there's no such thing as 'right'. You have a right to do whatever you can enforce. Such matters are settled by arms, and not by legal niceties.
And if he hadn't, you'd have cursed him for weakening your country by allowing half of it to depart, and creating a Ukraine on your doorsteps which European powers would gladly have used to keep your country in check and weaken it.
on the subject of secession, any agreement that you cannot back out of is no agreement. if you try to back out and are held at gunpoint, you are not a participant but a hostage.
The south was getting shafted by the North, morally they had every right to break up the agreements and no longer be subject to the oppressive majority in the north. Lincoln didn't like this, so he shot them until they surrendered.
What? Literally none of the arguments that you make, you can back out of. You think that if you make an agreement to pay a house, you can back out of it with impunity?
They weren't though. But they then pushed their luck by attacking Fort Sumter, which was a mistake.
How? Dominate presidential elections, Congress and the SCOTUS for decades. Lose one election and suddenly you're "shafted".
How were they being 'oppressed' by the politicians they themselves elected?
No one said backing out would be without consequence. A reasonable consequence would be losing any protection and funding from the north. An unreasonable consequence would be getting blockaded from outside trade until you relented. This is what the north did that necessitated the south's invasion.
Was a fort deep in southern territory that the north refused to vacate. In fact, according to OP, the north fortified it. Imagine the US kicking out the British, but the british insists on holding a fort in Massachusetts. It's the same situation.
Did you watch OP? The south was getting taxed/tariffed disproportionately for their exports, which the north was leeching off of. The north also kept expanding to build a senate majority. At the time the south seceded, they had no representation with teeth at all. A familiar story.