Quantcast

Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?

Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru 2012/06/05 16:40:31
Related Topics: War
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • cynsity 2012/06/05 20:48:19
    No
    cynsity
    +7
    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.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Pat 2012/06/15 03:28:25
    No
    Pat
    It seems to me that the South has been a problem all my life from the KKK and the Civil Rights battles of the 60's to the present right wing evangelicals that the south has spawned. There's something wrong and I don't know what it is but we are really like two different countries. The division right now is pretty deep and I don't see any end to it any time soon.
  • Charles E 2012/06/11 07:43:41
    No
    Charles E
    Since nothing in the Constitution prohibited the Southern states from leaving the Union.

    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.
  • Iamfree 2012/06/10 05:35:14
    No
    Iamfree
    +1
    I don't think it constitutionally had the right, but I understand why it was done.
  • Katfish 2012/06/06 19:12:03
    No
    Katfish
    +1
    The Union should be voluntary.
    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.
  • avalanche 2012/06/06 19:05:34
    No
    avalanche
    +2
    There was more to the Civil War than slavery. The main agenda of Lincoln was to create an all powerful federal government, not to unite, but to control. Looking at the monster that is eating our freedoms a little at a time, I can only think that America lost the Civil War. dont tread on me
  • Charles E avalanche 2012/06/11 07:46:41
    Charles E
    +1
    Excellent and accurate description of today's president from Illinois and his 1860 predicessor.
  • avalanche Charles E 2012/06/18 05:13:02
    avalanche
    +1
    America's demise has been long in the planning.
  • Scout 2012/06/06 11:44:18
    No
    Scout
    +2
    The South had the constitutional right to secede. The war was the beginning of the long slide into federal despotism.
  • IronOx Scout 2012/06/06 13:17:01
    IronOx
    +2
    I agree with you for the most part, but still think the move by the North to try and prevent succession was right. Of course my opinion is based on hind sight.
  • Playerazzi 2012/06/06 10:12:11
    Yes
    Playerazzi
    You can argue against it, but in the end, it kept the U.S. together, and that was a good thing for everyone.
  • Charles E Playerazzi 2012/06/11 07:49:14
    Charles E
    Everyone includes the Southerners whose homes and farms were destroyed by a Union policy of "take whatever you want and destroy whatever is left".
  • Playerazzi Charles E 2012/06/11 10:40:14
    Playerazzi
    In the long run, yes.
  • beach bum 2012/06/06 10:11:27
    Yes
    beach bum
    yes
  • Darnel 2012/06/06 07:27:43
    Yes
    Darnel
    Meh.
  • Charles E Darnel 2012/06/11 07:50:01
    Charles E
    ? what is "Meh"?
  • Darnel Charles E 2012/09/04 03:57:14
    Darnel
    +1
    In this case "Meh" is the mild irritation of reading someone fishing for like-minded individuals,... probably as a start of an excuse to justify a state today leaving the union because they can't hack Obama.

    ...... Weaklings.
  • Charles E Darnel 2012/09/04 16:19:08
    Charles E
    +1
    Thank you.
  • Darnel Charles E 2012/09/20 23:30:03
    Darnel
    +1
    No problem.
  • mrdog 2012/06/06 05:55:06
    No
    mrdog
    +1
    War Between the States.... south had every right to leave the Union...bark
  • FanOreilly 2012/06/06 04:13:21
    Yes
    FanOreilly
    Yes
  • MrsJJS 2012/06/06 03:56:29
    No
    MrsJJS
    +2
    I'd like to say that I can't believe how many people answered this question commenting that the Civil War was justified because it was fought to free enslaved men, women and children, but considering the indoctrination we all had in school and the rhetoric they fill our heads with and still do to this day, I'm not.

    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...
















    I'd like to say that I can't believe how many people answered this question commenting that the Civil War was justified because it was fought to free enslaved men, women and children, but considering the indoctrination we all had in school and the rhetoric they fill our heads with and still do to this day, I'm not.

    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.
    (more)
  • Playerazzi MrsJJS 2012/06/06 10:14:27
    Playerazzi
    "The South fought the war for fundamentally the same reason that our American colonies fought the Revolutionary War."

    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.
  • Charles E Playerazzi 2012/06/11 07:55:31
    Charles E
    The South paid most of the taxes. The North reaped almost all of the benefits.
    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.
  • Tony 2012/06/06 03:01:39
    No
    Tony
    Honestly we should have just let them go. I think they would've come back crawling to us begging to rejoin the Union.
  • James 2012/06/06 02:29:47
    Yes
    James
    In that strictest state of the question yes. What ever differences we had could have been worked out in a court room rather than on the battlefield.
  • Joe Shwingding BN-ZERO 2012/06/06 02:18:06
    Yes
    Joe Shwingding BN-ZERO
    a nation divided will fail.

    Pretty much like we have now.
  • Dwight PWCM 2012/06/06 00:15:34
    Yes
    Dwight PWCM
    +2
    Another good question. From a moral point I think so.

    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.
  • dlsofsetx 2012/06/06 00:07:14
    No
    dlsofsetx
    +2
    Despite the mythology,that war was only to stop the Southern states from seceding,which no law forbade.
  • Charles E dlsofsetx 2012/06/11 07:58:07
    Charles E
    The victor writes the history.
    But this time the losers got a lot of their side of the story preserved as well.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/06 00:04:42
    Yes
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    Preserving the union was important, ending slavery was also important.
  • Charles E WhereIs... 2012/06/11 07:58:33
    Charles E
    But neither was Constitutional.
  • Gordon 2012/06/05 23:42:13
    No
    Gordon
    +1
    It was not unconstitional for a state to leave the Union. But, the Constitution seems to be little used in this day and age of Obama.
  • Charles E Gordon 2012/06/11 07:59:10
    Charles E
    +1
    He learned well from Lincoln.
  • Elephant Lord 2012/06/05 23:32:58
    Yes
    Elephant Lord
    For one thing, it was basically treason. For another... slavery
  • Charles E Elephan... 2012/06/11 07:59:47
    Charles E
    How was it treason?
  • Elephan... Charles E 2012/06/11 15:15:40
    Elephant Lord
    They fired cannons at a military fortress. You go ahead and do that and see how fast you get convicted of treason or terrorism or both.
  • Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥ 2012/06/05 23:30:08 (edited)
    Yes
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    Most likely we would no longer exist as a nation. European nations were licking their chops over a divided America.
  • JMCC 2012/06/05 23:02:20
    Yes
    JMCC
    How long would have slavery gone on had they not?
  • Gordon JMCC 2012/06/05 23:44:50
    Gordon
    +2
    Virginia had more free blacks than slaves. Some blacks owned slaves. Virginia was a Southern state. Now, we are slaves to welfare abusers and corporate America.
  • Charles E JMCC 2012/06/11 08:02:27
    Charles E
    Not forever as you seek to imply. And freedom would have come to the blacks without a half million deaths or the huge cost in treasure and lost rights of all citizens.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/07/31 21:57:30

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals