I thought it was the Southern war for independence?

[littlecanoe]

I would then say that his refusal to remove federal troops from the territory of a sovereign state justified the state in it's action in a legal sense.
One could argue that more wisdom could have been used and more patience.
However, the very fact that those states felt that they need resort to violence to maintain their freedom bears heavy consideration.
They must have felt that they had no other option left.

Lincoln did not perform the highest function of the federal government.  Securing freedom and liberty for the states.

lc

[williamlayton]

Both sides considered themselves to be correct and rightous---thereby are wars concieved.
Blessings

[BAGTIC]

The southern states wanted to preserve and expand slavery.
When they felt they were losing that goal, as evidenced by Kansas not being admitted as a slave state, and Lincoln being elected President on an anti slavery platform, the south engaged in armed revolt and attacked a federal fort.
How is that legal?
The Constitution provides for adding new states, but not for secession.   WRONG. The Constitution says all powers not delegated to the federal government are tetained by the States. The USA is a federation of sovereign states. It is a voluntary alliance from which any member can withdraw. During the War of 1812 many of the New England states threatened to secede.
The revolutionary war was about no taxation without representation.
The south had representation, but tried to refute a federal presidential election (in which they had participated) by armed revolt.
How is that legal?

Read the reasons the southern states gave for seceding at this link.
.http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
 
Their main concern was slavery