I see this type of argument alot. Fine, ask then... Would this Great Republic have survived leaving well enough alone and allowing the southern states to secede? Would the greatest stain on our history remained, or would the Confederacy eventually have decided that "Wow, these blacks really are people and not property."
OK, Lincoln was a tyrant, blah, blah, blah. and yet the greatest tyranny this country ever saw was for years sactioned by the government on every plantation in the southern states.
A needless war my a**. Slavery would have persisted, and all who argue otherwise are fools.
If we cannot honor Lincoln, then we can't honor any of the presidents who came after him--including Reagan. If Lincoln was unjustified in bringing the South, back into the Union, then the United States as it exists today is illegitimate. Reagan cannot be given credit for all he did to defend America because he defended an America which incorporates the South--which according to you should be an independent nation.
Ah yes, the War of Northern Aggression! ;-)
Their actions were illegal, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.
The federals would not leave Sumpter which was in a separate and soverign Nation, the Confederate States of America.
Even had the southern acts of secession been legal, Sumter was the property of the United States and South Carolina had no legal claim to it.
The Southern forces justifiably fired upon the fort to end the occupation of their territory.
Why was their acts justified? Cuba has demanded that the U.S leave Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. refuses. Would you support Cuba's bombarding the base into surrender?