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.
As far as I know, they did absolutely nothing until Fort Sumter. Did the US even have a navy to blockade the South? That would have been an act of war, whether you think it is justified or not.
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.
That's exactly what happened, until you physically kicked them out.
The south was getting taxed/tariffed disproportionately for their exports
That's BS. Most of national politics was in the hands of the South.
he north also kept expanding to build a senate majority. At the time the south seceded, they had no representation with teeth at all.
What are you talking about? For the past few decades, they'd had the Senate, the presidency, the SCOTUS and most of the time the House as well.
The blockade was ordered almost immediately after the battle of Fort Sumter. The blockade was a retaliation. Had the north respected the south's secession, the south would not have invaded. but the north didn't respect the secession, and instead insisted on occupying Southern territory with military force. That can absolutely be construed as an invasion.
national politics was in the hands of the south
To that I call BS. The North kept expanding west creating new states, which created new senators, and eventually created a majority that could silence the South. Even if the South once held The power in DC, The North's rising influence caused the South's influence to fade and it was going to create a one-sided government where they would have no power. they saw the writing on the wall and tried to back out while they could.
The blockade was ordered almost immediately after the battle of Fort Sumter. The blockade was a retaliation.
So after the Confederates started hostilities, so did the Union? And that's supposed to be aggression?
Had the north respected the south's secession, the south would not have invaded. but the north didn't respect the secession, and instead insisted on occupying Southern territory with military force. That can absolutely be construed as an invasion.
You can 'construe' anything you want as an invasion. Fact is, the North didn't do squat until it was attacked at Fort Sumter, which was a grievous mistake.
The North kept expanding west creating new states, which created new senators, and eventually created a majority that could silence the South.
Never happened. It was the South that was engaging in shenanigans to have people choose between slavery and slavery, like with the Lecompton Constitution. And by forcing slavery on the territories with the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
The North's rising influence caused the South's influence to fade and it was going to create a one-sided government where they would have no power. they saw the writing on the wall and tried to back out while they could.
So it was all well and good when the South held the power, and the North should shut up about that, but they wouldn't allow others to take power? Sounds like the Democrats of 1860 were very much like today's Democrats.
as has been stated multiple times in this thread, the union started hostilities by occupying Southern territory with military force. Furthermore, the entire point of the blockade was to bring the South back to heal through what could be described as siege tactics. Occupying foreign soil with military force against the wishes of said foreign soil is an act of aggression no matter how many ways you try to twist it.
power
I would not argue that it was not all well and good when the South held all the power of the North didn't. The fact that the North and the South contended with each other so much was just proof that the United States was getting too big for its britches. Had the South created their own nation like they intended to, we would likely not have this horribly broken political system today where nobody is happy because everything is at the whims of a top-down government that keeps changing.
if you ask me, the most optimal outcome of the civil war is for the South to have remained an independent nation, but for the south to also have been blockaded until they abolished slavery. given the true intentions of the Northern government and foreign powers, that was never going to happen though.
As far as I know, they did absolutely nothing until Fort Sumter. Did the US even have a navy to blockade the South? That would have been an act of war, whether you think it is justified or not.
That's exactly what happened, until you physically kicked them out.
That's BS. Most of national politics was in the hands of the South.
What are you talking about? For the past few decades, they'd had the Senate, the presidency, the SCOTUS and most of the time the House as well.
The blockade was ordered almost immediately after the battle of Fort Sumter. The blockade was a retaliation. Had the north respected the south's secession, the south would not have invaded. but the north didn't respect the secession, and instead insisted on occupying Southern territory with military force. That can absolutely be construed as an invasion.
To that I call BS. The North kept expanding west creating new states, which created new senators, and eventually created a majority that could silence the South. Even if the South once held The power in DC, The North's rising influence caused the South's influence to fade and it was going to create a one-sided government where they would have no power. they saw the writing on the wall and tried to back out while they could.
So after the Confederates started hostilities, so did the Union? And that's supposed to be aggression?
You can 'construe' anything you want as an invasion. Fact is, the North didn't do squat until it was attacked at Fort Sumter, which was a grievous mistake.
Never happened. It was the South that was engaging in shenanigans to have people choose between slavery and slavery, like with the Lecompton Constitution. And by forcing slavery on the territories with the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
So it was all well and good when the South held the power, and the North should shut up about that, but they wouldn't allow others to take power? Sounds like the Democrats of 1860 were very much like today's Democrats.
as has been stated multiple times in this thread, the union started hostilities by occupying Southern territory with military force. Furthermore, the entire point of the blockade was to bring the South back to heal through what could be described as siege tactics. Occupying foreign soil with military force against the wishes of said foreign soil is an act of aggression no matter how many ways you try to twist it.
I would not argue that it was not all well and good when the South held all the power of the North didn't. The fact that the North and the South contended with each other so much was just proof that the United States was getting too big for its britches. Had the South created their own nation like they intended to, we would likely not have this horribly broken political system today where nobody is happy because everything is at the whims of a top-down government that keeps changing.
if you ask me, the most optimal outcome of the civil war is for the South to have remained an independent nation, but for the south to also have been blockaded until they abolished slavery. given the true intentions of the Northern government and foreign powers, that was never going to happen though.