Anti-secessionists: come at me, bros!

[mjk45]

badgenome said:

mjk45 said:
Where do you draw the line if at all , if a state as the right to secede does it go further down to local level, and what constitutes a mandate more than 50% ? .
Another question from an Australian so forgive me if I've got it wrong , what would have happened if the attack on Ft Sumter hadn't occurred , would the north just have waited till something similar happened or would they have in the unlikely case that no attacks occurred , manufactured one?

Just like the country itself, individual states are just arbitrary places on the map, so by rights it should go right down to the local level as it's still about self-determination.

If the first battle of Fort Sumter had not happened, it was still only a matter of time until tensions spilled over into violence elsewhere since Lincoln steadfastly refused to negotiate with a bunch of rogue states whose government he didn't recognize. I doubt the North would have started it, though, however determined Lincoln was to preserve the union. They hoped for cooler heads to prevail and figured that time was on their side, which it was. Neither side wanted to be seen as the aggressor for fear of losing support from the border states, but again, Lincoln's refusal to negotiate pretty much forced the issue. There was no way to defuse the situation, and the South had to act or it would lose face and appear weak. That would have been far more detrimental to its cause than merely appearing belligerent. As it was, the hostilities caused four more states to secede and join them within the next couple of months. So aside from that whole getting their ass kicked in the war that followed thing, it actually worked out pretty well for them!

Thanks for the reply it was quite edifyng , I would really like to see a  civil war thread.