And why should that upset you? After all, even if all this were true, under your view some states are more equal than others and the constitution is a club for some states to smack other states around with.
Um, which side offered to negotiate over obligations including a division of the national debt and the value of forts, etc.? Which side refused to do so?
Back to that old 'the south was going to pay for everything, really!' story? Well let me ask you this. Suppose for a moment the South didn't offer to pay for property stolen and debt repudiated. Would that have made their acts of secession illegal?
The Constitution and the Founders did not create a prison from which states could not escape.
Nor did they create a scenario where some states could pillage the others and create a situation guaranteed to lead to bad feelings. A separation requires that all areas of possible disagreement be settled ahead of time and that the interests of both sides are protected.
Southern states left with the rights that they had when they joined the Union.
And denied protections to those remaining.
By default they also had things (forts, etc.) that the remaining states (or more exactly, Lincoln) wouldn't negotiate a fair exchange for.
Correction. They took those without even trying to negotiate. Whatever negotioations or payment you claim would have occured, would have occured long after the South had illegally appropriated the property and repudiated their responsibilities.
All of them did. Your victimhood is obscuring your logic.
None of them did.
LOL. Among other reasons, the Southern states left because they were not treated equally. Remember my post 163 above from a January 10, 1861, speech by Jefferson Davis?
Is there a Senator on the other side who to-day will agree that we shall have equal enjoyment of the Territories of the United States? Is there one who will deny that we have equally paid in their purchases, and equally bled in their acquisition in war? Then, is this the observance of your compact? Whose fault is it if the Union be dissolved? Do you say there is one of you who controverts either of these positions? Then I ask you, do you give us justice; do we enjoy equality? If we are not equals, this is not the Union to which we were pledged; this is not the Constitution you have sworn to maintain, nor this the Government we are bound to support.
... and the constitution is a club for some states to smack other states around with.
Yeah, well, I guess it was too much for the South to have expected the North to obey the Constitution with respect to returning fugitive slaves. If holding Northern states to what they agreed to in the Constitution was "smacking" them around with it, so be it.
Suppose for a moment the South didn't offer to pay for property stolen and debt repudiated.
Two can play the game of posing something that didn't happen that way. Now for the suppose question to you ... Suppose for a moment that Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution ... Would the North have had freedom of speech during the war?
Nor did they create a scenario where some states could pillage the others and create a situation guaranteed to lead to bad feelings.
Not intentionally.
A separation requires that all areas of possible disagreement be settled ahead of time and that the interests of both sides are protected.
Where is that requirement written? Not in the Constitution.
And denied protections to those remaining.
Protections for those that had long denied equal protection to the states that left?
Correction. They took those without even trying to negotiate.
Some kept a strict account of what they took and gave receipts, facilitating future negotiated compensation should that take place. For example:
HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF TEXAS,
San Antonio, February 28, 1861.
Commanding officers of posts and others will, when the troops take up the line of march for the coast, turn over the public property in their charge (reserving such especially enumerated in General Orders, No. 5, of February 18, 1861, from these, headquarters) to the authorized agents of the State of Texas, who will be duly commissioned by the commissioners on the part of the State to give due and proper receipts for the same.
By order of Col. C. A. Waite:
W. A. NICHOLS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
To not take the forts would have left the South occupied by a fortified foreign army.