Nuff said.
Disagreements over tariff policy do not constitute oppression. The impossibility of a desire to take human "property" into the territories do not equal oppression. The election of a president you don't like does not constitute oppression.
Unfair, financially crippling tariffs constitute oppression. Denying property rights constitute oppression. The election of a tyrant constitutes oppression.
The secessionist merely wanted any Yankee corruption out of the way of their own corrupt political machine.
Southerners wanted separation from the yankees, whom they had never gotten along with and, as you well know, that same sentiment continues to this day.
The secession process was often a farce.
Like Lincoln's oath to uphold the Constitution?
What else could Lincoln do?
Lincoln could have met with the Southern peace envoy that was sent to DC.
Lincoln could have removed the troops from Ft. Sumter.
Lincoln could have sought a peaceful resolution.
Tyrannical dictators do not do any of the above.
He could not let a gang of usurping political crooks destroy the government of Washington.
The first part of the above statement is reprehensibly offensive. If it weren't for Southerners there never would have been an American Revolution and you yanks would still be paying homage to the Crown.
The second part of your statement from above is either ignorance on your part or a lame attempt to insinuate that the South intended to overthrow the US federal government (which, btw, would have been better for all in the long run if we had). It's a total misrepresentation of the historical facts.
Secession has a cultural as well as a political goal, the Neo Yankee can't grasp we want away from them. We have watched the cultural war rain down from above for too long. Take your Homo sexualized, baby killing, Affirmative Action, high tax socialism and pack sand Yank(and take the left coast with you.
The Southerners who contributed to winning the Revolution often had very little in common with the losers that led their states into rebellion.
None of that applied in 1860.
Southerners wanted separation from the yankees, whom they had never gotten along with and, as you well know, that same sentiment continues to this day.
ROTFLMAO!!!! Y'all didn't have a problem when y'all were running things.
Lincoln could have met with the Southern peace envoy that was sent to DC.
There was no such envoy.
Lincoln could have removed the troops from Ft. Sumter.
Why? It was their fort.
Lincoln could have sought a peaceful resolution.
None was desired by the rebel side.
The first part of the above statement is reprehensibly offensive.
The truth sometimes hurts.
If it weren't for Southerners there never would have been an American Revolution...
Absolute bullsh*t.
I realize that you refuse to acknowledge anything positive in Yankee history, but surely the words "Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill" mean something to you, don't they? "Boston Tea Party" maybe? New Englanders were in a shooting war with the British while southerners were still dithering and passing the occasional statement of sympathy. And the New Englanders didn't call it "secession," either. They called in what it was, a rebellion.