Regarding tariffs...Yes Lincoln was the first republican president and the republican party had not actually passed any tariff laws yet. But they were big supporters of higher tariffs. Just look at the republican platform. Lincoln even campaigned on the tariff issue in Pennsylvania, which stood to benefit from the protectionist nature of the tariffs. And one of the first things they did when Lincoln was elected was pass tariff laws.
Don't cite the Constitution as a reason for Lincoln to go to war. The Southern states were doing the same thing that the American colonies did. They seceded and formed their own new government, just like the Declaration of Independence declares is a right of mankind. Constitutionally, Lincoln could do nothing about it. After all, it was the States that created the Constitution and the Union. In creating it they were all parties to the compact. The Federal government was not a party to this compact, being created by it. In cases regarding compact where there is no common judge the parties are all free to judge for themselves whether the compact is being held to and whether such union remains beneficial tot hem or not. And regards your claim that the Southern states did not leave in a constitutional way, it is clear that you do not understand the constitutional ratification process. The Constitution and the Union created by it was ratified by the various legislatures of the various states at various times over the course of a few years. The State legislatures, having brought their states into the Union in this manner, were free to leave it in the exact same manner, which is what they did.
Your ignorance of history is showing. The attack on fort Sumter was the result of broken promises by Lincoln. Lincoln had promised to relieve the garrison and turn over the fort to South Carolina by a certain time. South Carolina took him at his word and kept the men in the fort supplied with fresh food. Lincoln meanwhile kept saying he would relieve the fort by a certain time and then failing to do so. This made South Carolina annoyed. And when finally they heard that Lincoln was at last sending ships to the fort, but not with the intention of relieving the fort but rather with men and arms to resupply it, the bubble burst and they fired on the fort and took it before the ships could arrive. The patience they showed in this case before attacking the fort shows they were hardly war-mongering like you suggest. In fact many southern generals at the time of hearing of the attack wished that more time had been given Lincoln to keep his promises (which "Honest" Abe had clearly no intention of keeping however).
Founding Fathers created and wrote the Constitution specifically to make the Federal government the supreme law of the land with respect to those limited enumerated powers delegated by the state governments and by individual U.S. Citizens to the Federal Government.
They did no such thing! Make the Federal Government supreme in the land?!?! BS! They made the Constitution the supreme law of the land, and if you actually read the constitution, you will see that the rights delegated by the states to the federal government are actually very few, in comparison to those reserved by the states (which are practically unlimited). The States, having created the Federal government and delegated rights to it, are superior to it. You don't delegate rights to your superiors, only to your inferiors. But the Civil War made the Federal government superior to the states, and showed what big government with no respect for limited self government looks like.
By the way, if the Republican party is so conservative like you are trying to paint it, then please explain to me why so many socialists were members of it? Why did nearly all the refugees from the socialist revolutions of 1848 that came to American join the Republican party (one of whom started a newspaper called the Red Republican? Why did Horace Greely (a republican and good friend of Lincoln) have Karl Marx writing articles for his paper the New York Tribune? Why did Lincoln have many socialists in his armies, including one general who published the first American version of the Communist Manifesto? Why did Engels say the civil war provided the preliminaries for a communist revolution? Why did Karl Marx write Lincoln congratulatory letters upon his election? Seriously, if the communists ere for it, it is NOT conservative.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "In reference to Kansas, I was just pointing out that you can't exactly act like one side had all the blame and the other was clean as the driven snow.
You were trying to use it to blame one side, when it can be used to blame both."
The blame is totally clear when you remember the fact that in 1858, legitimate Kansas voters rejected the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution by a margin of six to one.
Real citizens of Kansas did not want slavery, no how, no way, regardless of how many Border Ruffians came up from the South.
In 1859 Kansas voters approved the anti-slavery Wyandotte Constitution by a margin of two-to-one.
So, by law and by rights, Kansas was a free state, and pro-slavery thugs had no business trying to intimidate voters there.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln was the first republican president and the republican party had not actually passed any tariff laws yet.
But they were big supporters of higher tariffs.
Just look at the republican platform."
By 1860 US tariffs had fallen from the 1830 high of 35% under Southern President Jackson and Vice President Calhoun to just 15%, the same rate as in 1792, under President Washington.
The original Morrill Tariff raised them back to 25%, or roughly the levels of 1845.
It was generally supported by Republicans, opposed by Democrats, but some Republicans voted "no", and some Democrats voted "yes", including a good number from the Border States.
Neither the Morrill Tariff, nor any other tax, is mentioned in any Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Don't cite the Constitution as a reason for Lincoln to go to war.
The Southern states were doing the same thing that the American colonies did."
But there is no legitimate comparison -- zero, zip, nada -- between our Founders' Declaration of Independence and the Slave-Powers' declarations of secession.
For starters, the Declaration of Independence came only after the British king formally declared the colonies to be in rebellion -- a formal declaration of war on Americans.
By stark contrast the Slave-Power first declared it's secession, then provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States, then sent military aid to Confederate forces fighting in Union states.
So all your complicated logical "justification" is just rubbish, because it makes no difference.
When the Confederacy started and declared war on the United States, it sealed its own destruction, period.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Your ignorance of history is showing."
No, it's your mis-information about history that's showing.
Regardless of what excuse you concoct, the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter was an act of war, just as certainly as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
And just like Pearl Harbor with the Japanese, Fort Sumter was the attack which ultimately destroyed the Confederacy, and the slavery it fought to the last to preserve.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...the Civil War made the Federal government superior to the states, and showed what big government with no respect for limited self government looks like."
But 100% of the blame for every change brought by the Civil War lies with the Slave-Power which first provoked, then started, then formally declared war on the United States, while sending military forces to invade Union states.
That made the Confederacy an existential threat to the United States, which could only be defeated, unconditionally.