In 1861 the Southern states one by one decided to
seceed from the United States of America. Although
some of their ideals and principles were in severe
question, I believe that they had every right to
seceed from the Union. This country was founded on
the principles of individual rights and states
rights being protected. Was the whole bloody mess
of a Civil War in America warranted? Couldn't
President Lincoln agree to disagree and shake
hands with President Davis and let the newly
Southern Confederacy be? Who and what defines a
tyrant and a system of tyranny?

States do not have the right to secede.

It is true that when the states likely saw each
other as amicable independent entities as they
fought the War of Independence. Indeed, the first
national contract--the Articles of
Confederation--embodied this relationship.

But the Articles of Confederation failed. They
provided no security; no economic growth; no
safety; no union. The United States Constitution
was a rejection of the Articles of Confederation,
a rejection of keeping 13 independent states. In
the stead of the Articles arose the United States
Constitution, which the Founding Fathers forged to
create a united nation with a central government
superior to the state governments in numerous
areas.

Everyone understood this; and people of the day
understood the implications. The Anti-Federalists
criticized the Constitution, for they thought the
Constitution left the states as symbolic yet
powerless vestiges. Despite this fear, all
thirteen states adopted the Constitution.
Including some who would secede.

You have two other arguments. One blames Lincoln
for the start of the war, but it was South
Carolina who besieged Fort Sumter when the U.S.
government refused to hand it over. Two things are
certain though. One, Fort Sumter was paid by the
United States government, making the fort U.S.
property. Two, the land on which the fort resided
was U.S. property too.

Your final argument questions who can define what
a tyrant is. This is a question of metaphysics and
appears to be wholly separate issue than whether
the South had the right to secede. Hence, I'll
ignore it.