[billbears]

No because the war had already ended!! And FWIW, South Carolina seceded BEFORE attacking Sumter. So they seceded legally, by state legislative vote. Much as the state of Massachusetts had a vote in their legislative house on whether or not to secede had done in the past. Once the state had seceded, it became sovereign territory of another nation. The north continuing to try to collect taxes within the CSA (another separate and equal nation) is just as ludicrous. But just as the newspapers of the day had pointed out, there would not have been war had lincoln not sent the troops in there. And don't give me the starving act either. Neither of us believe that line (at least I would hope not)

[Non-Sequitur]

Actually South Carolina seceeded by the vote of a convention appointed by the governor. If that qualifies as legal in your mind then so be it. However, the Supreme Court ruled that acts of secession like South Carolina's were not legal and their opinion's are the ones that matter. It was not an independent country, not in 1861 and not ever. It was not a 'separate and equal nation' just because you say it was. It was a section of the United States in rebellion.

But be that as it may, it only serves to highlight the fact that South Carolina WAS the first state to actually take the illegal action of unilateral secession. Had she tried it thirty years earlier, or had Massachussetts tried it or Connecticut tried it then the actions of the federal government should have been the same.