Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "TED-Ed" channel.

My suggestion would be to think a little more with your head rather than your heart. In doing so you'll realize that secession and the war were two different things with two different causes. The state's seceded primarily over slavery. However, Lincoln started the war to preserve the Union. Thus, it was ultimately fought over the states' right to leave. Had he simply removed the Union garrisons from forts in the seceded states and allowed the seceded states to go their own way, there would have been no war. His decision to reinforce and resupply rather than withdraw those garrisons would have been considered an overt act of war by any sovereign state/country then and now and would have been responded to accordingly. When informing his cabinet of his decision, he admitted that it would force the south to respond militarily (which they ultimately did at Fort Sumter) and thus start a war. You can't force someone to fight and then blame them for that conflict...not with a straight face anyway. Edit: Who cares about their intentions to expand? That had nothing to do with the war...and it's not like the USA's "manifest destiny" was any less morally repugnant. It simply screwed over people of another color.
7
@Uller1967 At the time (and to this day) there was/is nothing in the Constitution that addresses secession / states leaving in any way. It was left out because it was one of the few issues they couldn't get enough delegates to agree on originally. Over the 80+ years between the creation of the country and the civil war, every state threatened to secede over something at least once. Not once did anyone argue that it wasn't legal. It was assumed that, since there were no powers concerning the issue delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, the 10th amendment put the issue in the hands of the state governments. Also, though not often mentioned, before secession, Jefferson Davis was considered to be one of the foremost Constitutional law experts in Congress. If he didn't think secession was illegal, there's a strong chance that it wasn't. That is bolstered by the fact that once his treason case was about to go to SCOTUS, the federal government dropped all charges against him and other ex-Confederates out of concern that when Davis made his arguments, SCOTUS might be forced to agree with him. All in all, the argument that it was legal is much stronger than that claiming it wasn't. Currently, the only precedent concerning it is the later SCOTUS decision in Texas vs White which (indirectly) saw it as not being legal. However, the argument given there would not survive modern judicial review. The fact that the Chief Justice at the time had been the Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln's administration and at least two of the other justices had ties to said administration as well (and all justices were from northern states) doesn't exactly help it's legitimacy either. As for the Forts being federal property...A great deal of British property was seized and held with no recompense during and following the Revolutionary War because it was located in USA territory. That alone makes the "Union property" argument seem a bit...weak. However, if that really was a problem, Lincoln's administration and Congress could have simply offered to sell them to the states they were located in. Many, including Fort Sumter, were never actually completed prior to the war due to lack of funding. The Union dumping them off for whatever they could get would have gotten them off the books and lessened the tension which would have been mutually benefitial.
4
Secession and the war were two different things with two different causes. The states seceded primarily over slavery. However, Lincoln started the war to preserve the Union. Thus it was ultimately fought over the states' right to leave. To claim otherwise is just as disingenuous as the bulk of the "lost cause" version. If you're going to rewrite history, you could at least try to be more legitimate than the version you're seeking to replace... In anticipation of any "the south started the war" nonsense... Lincoln's decision to resupply and reinforce rather than withdraw the Union garrisons in the south would have been viewed as an overt act of war by any sovereign state/country then or now and would have been responded to accordingly. Even Lincoln admitted to his cabinet, when he informed them of his decision, that it would force the south to respond with military action (which they ultimately did at Fort Sumter) and thus start a war. Had he simply withdrawn the Union garrisons and allowed the south to go their own way, there would not have been a war. You don't get to force someone into a fight and then blame them for the conflict.
2