and according to the Decleration of Independance and the US Constitution the South was legally and morally correct to move for secession. For several years I run a class project in which the students take the War of Secession off the battle field and into the Supreme Court. And everytime the students after several weeks of gathering evidence , learning case law and holding arguements they discover that it was a violation of the Constitution's 10th Amendment for the federal governemnt to deny the request for secession.
Most students also find the South was wrong for using agression first AND they find the likelihood salvery would have come to an end of its own accord with in the same time frame due to the advancing technology and a request to rejoin the union would have happened through treaty much like the one which joined Texas to the Union.
Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?
Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
2012/06/05 16:40:31
|
|
|||||
|
50 votes
|
|
68% | |||
|
23 votes
|
|
32% | |||
Top Opinion
-
cynsity 2012/06/05 20:48:19No























The Declaration of Independence specifically stated "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." which is what the South did.
This was nothing less than a war of conquest by an arrogant and power hungry president against a group of states seeking to go peacefully away from a central government that collected most of its revenue from them and spent most of it in other regions.
A lot of death and suffering in that war. No other country had a civil war to end slavery, it could have ended without the civil war.
...... Weaklings.
The South fought the war for fundamentally the same reason that our American colonies fought the Revolutionary War. The main complaint of the American colonies in the 18th century was the unjustified taxes imposed on them by Britain. After the enactment which was referred to as “Tariff of Abomination" in 1828 that the tax on imports ranged between 20-30%. Then Lincoln came along in 1861 and signed the Morrill Tarriff into law which was far more burdensome than the one forced on the American colonies by Britain in the 18th century!
The main source of tax revenue for the federal government before the Civil War was a tariff on imports. There was no income tax, except for one declared unconstitutional after its enactment during the Civil War. Tariffs imposed by the federal government not only accounted for most of the federal budget, they also raised the price of imported goods to a level where the less-efficient manufacturers of the northeast could be competitive. T...
The South fought the war for fundamentally the same reason that our American colonies fought the Revolutionary War. The main complaint of the American colonies in the 18th century was the unjustified taxes imposed on them by Britain. After the enactment which was referred to as “Tariff of Abomination" in 1828 that the tax on imports ranged between 20-30%. Then Lincoln came along in 1861 and signed the Morrill Tarriff into law which was far more burdensome than the one forced on the American colonies by Britain in the 18th century!
The main source of tax revenue for the federal government before the Civil War was a tariff on imports. There was no income tax, except for one declared unconstitutional after its enactment during the Civil War. Tariffs imposed by the federal government not only accounted for most of the federal budget, they also raised the price of imported goods to a level where the less-efficient manufacturers of the northeast could be competitive. The manufacturers of the northeast were lagging behind the times and flat out refused to spend the money to modernize.
The North had enacted a system of revenue and disbursements in which a disproportionate burden of taxation had been imposed upon the South, and a disproportionate percentage of its proceeds appropriated to the North. The South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, in reality paid massively more than their due proportion of the revenue. Rightly so, the South felt this was a rubbish idea so as our country was set up to be a VOLUNTARY union of separate and sovereign states, the 13 Southern states were simply exercising their legal right to leave that union.
The North, afraid of losing its “cash cow” and fearing the serious financial difficulties the Union would face if the Southern states were a separate republic engaging in free trade with Britain, in the name of “Preserving the Union” resorted to using military force to coerce the 13 states back into the Union. After about a year and a half of war things weren’t going so well for the North. Thousands and thousands of men were losing their lives and the people were losing their appetite for war. Then and only then did Lincoln drag out his propaganda machine which turned this war into a “Humanitarian Effort” and signed The Emancipation Proclamation, which Lincoln himself described as was a "war measure." Which if you read it, states: “Rebel states that rejoined the Union and sent elected representatives to Congress before January 1, 1863 could KEEP THEIR SLAVES“. Additionally if you read The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article I, Section 9 to be precise, you would see that the Confederates prohibited the importation of slaves. That along with other factors it would have soon made the institution of slavery unsustainable and the practice would have died a natural death without waging war.
And FYI, during our Civil War people in the North owned slaves, but refused to free them until after the War. People in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and even Washington, D.C., owned slaves; these states never seceded and were under the control of the United States throughout the entire War. However, they were not required to free their slaves by the U.S. government. The U.S. Congress in 1862 actually refused to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, when the only Senators and Representatives in Congress were from the North as by then all Southerners had left Congress to form their own nation.
And two men who are hailed as the Champions for freeing the slaves are quoted as saying:
President Lincoln stated in his inaugural address of March 4, 1861, U.S., "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Ulysses S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side."
Furthermore after The Confederate States of America passed laws prohibiting the importation of slaves they made an offer to President Lincoln to free all Southern slaves in return for their independence but President Lincoln flatly refused their offer.
The South was fighting over the right of the local people to govern themselves versus a centralist government by the few, the rich, and the powerful. The South wanted less government, less taxes, independence, and decisions made at the local level where the people have control.
The North wanted more taxes, more government, and centralism, with a compulsory as opposed to a voluntary union and decisions made in Washington D.C. rather than by the local people. And believed that government should be ruled by an intellectual aristocracy rather than the common people.
Uh, no.
The South seceded before Lincoln could sign any law. They just didn't like the results of the election, and couldn't bear the thought of him being in power.
So they bolted.
Exactly like the Revolution!
And Lincoln had already declared his intent to hold the Sout in the Union by force of arms (war of conquest) if necessary.
Pretty much like we have now.
From a purily legal point, I don't believe so. Jefferson Davis, in his book of that century titled The Rise and Fall of The Confedeacy, outlined all the Constitutional arguments leading to and from that horrible war. Others have argued that the use of the Government to enforce moral issues is an abomination before any Court, (unless one is yelling "Keep your morality off MY body").
Personaly, I believe the issue would have been decided by simple economics without blood shed in the next few decades.
And yes, I realize that would be little comfort to those caught in the institution of slavery. But that isn't the question here.
But this time the losers got a lot of their side of the story preserved as well.