Unprovoked attack?

Hardly.

South Carolina, now no longer part of the United States, demanded the withdraw of Federal troops and offered them MONTHS to withdraw. Lincoln not only refused to withdraw the troops, but send SUPPLIES so the troops could hold out.

Let's see, from a pure justification of war perspective: foreign troops occupying sovereign state soil, diplomacy had been tried and failed, and the foreign troops were being resupplied. How is this an unjustified attack or unprovoked?

And once again, you paint with a broad brush that only know black and white. Many borders States accepted the results of the election and had voted AGAINST secession. Including Virginia. Virginia did not secede until they were told by Lincoln to "let us move and quarter troops in Virginia or we're treating you like you're in rebellion." Which, by the by, is a pretty blatant disregard of the 3rd Amendment, and Virginia went, "ok, sure, we're leaving." Yet it was Virginia that bore the brunt of the fighting, while it was the Confederacy that fired the first shots, things still could have been resolved peacefully at that point, but the Federal forces then invaded. The first violation of borders was done by the Federal forces, not the Confederate ones, and the bulk of the war was fought in the Commonwealth of Virginia and it was one of the many states that took a hundred years to recover.

Yes, Lincoln can be faulted for laying the ideological groundwork for FDR. He changed the USA from an equal partnership between the States and the Federal to that of a subservient relationship.

Further, you've yet to offer any evidence that the States did not have the right to secede. Further, the first act of aggression was precipitated by Lincoln, not by the South. South Carolina, upon secession, was within their rights to request all Federal troops leave the State. They gave them time to do so, but Lincoln not only REFUSED to withdraw Federal troops, but had them RESUPPLIED. A sure sign that he had no intention of acquiescing to South Carolina's demands. South Carolina was well within it's rights to fire on, what was to their mind, FOREIGN troops OCCUPYING their territory.

Lincoln followed up by demanding that the border States quarter troops as he moved soldiers through to deal with SC. Virginia, in specific, said no, it was an illegal request (as was their right under the 3rd Amendment. Lincoln basically said to Virginia "you let us quarter troops in your territory or we will consider you in rebellion as well." Virgina's reply was basically "ok, then, if you're gonna consider us like that, we might as well make it official." FURTHER Virginia was a State that joined the Constitution under the specific understanding that they could withdraw if they desired to. The next major act of aggression was purely on Lincoln, he marched a Federal Army to claim a strategic railway junction in Virginia, thereby initiating an INVASION of a State that had previously preformed no military action against the Federal government and that had only JUST joined the fledgling Confederacy and was in no way responsible for the South Carolinian attack. Virginia managed to rally troops to oppose the Federal invasion of Virginia at that time, at a battlefield that I know quite well, being a resident of Manassas, VA like I am.

The north made the war about Slavery, but in the South it wasn't the primary issue. The primary issue to southerns was self determination and protecting their homes from invasion. The war was about preventing the Southern states from leaving the union, and those in the north knew it, it was not until the Emancipation Proclamation that abolitionists truly got behind the war effort, before then the growing sentiment in the north was to let the south go. Also, what swelled the ranks of the Federal army was drafting, nothing more, nothing less, it was so bad and sentiments were so against it that it led to draft riots in places such as New York.

Yes, slavery was evil, but it's not those of us defending the south's right to secede and pointing out that Lincoln was no Constitutionalist who are practicing revisionist history.

I'd argue that no, America was not better off after Lincoln. First off, he changed the dynamic between the Federal and States to such an extent that he laid the ideological groundwork for FDR, Truman and Obama. Further, his war pushed vast regions of the country into such abject poverty that some of those regions did not fully recover until the 80s, the 1980s. Provided, that was less Lincoln's fault and more Congress'. Further, many people died in the war that would have otherwise been productive members of society creating wealth and improving life.

Yes, good things came from Lincoln, excellent things, but at best those things merely counterbalance all the problems caused by the War and Lincoln and then spin does the rest.

I have to point out, you're misunderstanding much of the philosophical and legal underpinnings to the US Constitution here. First off, the best way to understand the Constitution is that it is a Contract between two parties and creates and governs a third, which is also a signatory to it, in effect. Those three parties are the States, the People, and the one created is the Federal government.

This contract is very flexible, and includes methods by which to bring breakers of the contract beck into line with the contract, so long as the power created by the contract holds to it. However, like all contracts, if one party no longer holds to it, it becomes invalidated. Further, because of their nature as originators of the contract, the People and the States have the option to end the contract as they see fit, or rather, they did. However, this does not change the fact that like any contract, if the primary thing that is governed by it grossly steps outside of it's contractual bounds, the contract is NULL and VOID. In short, if the Federal government ceases to behave in a Constitutional manner, it becomes an invalid government and the People and the States are no longer bound by the Contract.

Even if you do not accept that the States had the right to leave the Contract and same way then entered into it, the prosecution of the War Between the States included some gross violations of the Constitution. If one is attempting to preserve a Constitutional government, it behooves those pursuing that course to act in a manner befitting. The Federal government did not, and no amount of repeating that "the south were the bad guys and deserved it," which is what pretty much all your arguments boil down to, does not change those facts.

I freely admitted slavery was an issue, a major one, and perhaps THE catalyst to southern secession. That does not change the fact there were other reasons for secession, which are constantly ignored in favor of demonizing the south. It also does not change the fact that you've offered no Constitutional or legal justification for saying the southern states did not have the Right to Secede. I am arguing that they did and the Federal government overstepped it's bounds by using force of arms to prevent them from exercising that Right. I am further saying that Lincoln was no great hero and that we who want limited Constitutional government should not hold as a hero a man who expanded Federal power and forever changed the dynamic between the Federal and State governments from one of equal partners, to that of master and servant.

Sorry for not getting back earlier, we're encountering a snowpacalpyse in my area and I lost power until just recently.

First off, I must again point out that the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed nobody. It was specifically directed at areas "in rebellion," and included caveats for all the areas that the north then occupied in the South. So in short, it was a decree that affected areas where the Federal government at the time had no power, and did nothing in the areas that it did have power.

Also, the question as to West Virginia was very different than that of Maine. First off, the real State government had not acquiesced to the formation, only the puppet "Pierpont government" that was recognized, not by the people or Constitution of Virginia, but by the Federal government. Yes, it was eventually decided by the Supreme Court (in Virginia v West Virginia, 1870) that West Virginia was allowed to secede and become it's own State, but by that logic, the southern States should have had the right to secede and become their own nation.

This brings up a further hypocracy of the Federal Government. According to the Federal Government, Virginia never seceded and had a standing government throughout the entire war. Why is it then that it was forced to change it's Constitution and be "readmitted" to the Union? You are so caught up in the Federalist narrative of the war, that it was a good vs evil war and that the South was basically the equivalent of 19th century Nazis, that you're oversimplifying and ignoring valid complaints and justifications for secessionist.

On that note, threatening to secede and then to defend their independence via force of arms is perfectly logical, because if you're not willing to fight for your self determination, threatening to secede is meaningless. Further, before the War Between the States secession was considered to be a valid option for the States, in fact, some States, including Virginia, had joined the US under the Constitution with the understanding that if things didn't work out they could leave.

Further, Lincoln made it abundantly clear during the debates what he thought on the matter, and the Republican party at the time was dominated by the branch called the "Radical Republicans" that called for the immediate and complete abolition of slavery with no recompense and no gradual emancipation. Sure they didn't wait to see how he would govern, they felt they didn't need to as they could see his ideological and party background.

Also, I never was saying the south was oppressed, I am saying they had reason and right to secede. Perhaps it wasn't a good reason, but you don't need a good reason to exercise a right, if you did, it's not a right. I am also pointing out that Lincoln expanded Federal power moreso than any President before and until F. Roosevelt and that those of us who believe in limited Federal government should not be holding him up as a hero anymore than we should hold up FDR.

Lincoln freed no one. The Emancipation proclamation was worth the paper it was written on, maybe less, since it only free slaves in regions that were not occupied by Federal forces. Anywhere under Federal occupation or that had never voted to secede was unaffected by the proclamation. It was strictly a political move to change the topic of the War and to keep England and France from becoming actively involved.

As I outline farther down, Lincoln was no Constitutionalist. He overstepped Presidential authority, suspended Rights that were outlined in the Constitution and used the power of the Federal government to trample State autonomy, and I'm not just talking about States that were in open rebellion, he locked up the Maryland legislator in a Federal fort to prevent them from voting on secession.

He might have been a Statesman, but he wasn't a Constitutionalist.

Welcome back Tio Chano, we missed you. ;) Like the machete.