Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Do you believe that the South had true reasons to be seceding from the Union?
What would be "true reasons" to justify secession?
We have some guidance concerning the natural right to revolution:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."
Im looking at this from a Union point of view and what they thought about the South leaving.
Obviously, from a Unionist point of view, they had no legitimate grounds, otherwise the Unionists wouldn't have resisted secession. From a confederate point of view they did have legitimate grounds, otherwise they wouldn't have seceded. So where does that get you?
Instead, why not view it from an objective point of view. Figure out what the criteria were and see if their situation met them.
Do you believe that the South had true reasons to be seceding from the Union?
In a word"NO!", the south secesion moment in truth was about the wealthy elite making a power grab to protect slavery. It was not about States Rights or any great noble cause only about power, money and slavery.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Leaving aside the question of the legality of secession, do I, sitting here 150 years later, think that the South had sufficient reasons to secede? No.
I think the inquiry begs the question, however. Clearly, the North did not believe at the time the South had sufficient reasons to secede. Otherwise, they would not have fought as long and as hard as they did for the idea of Union.
On the other hand, the South clearly believed their reasons were sufficient or they would not have fought as long and as hard as they did.
It is the age old problems of historians (and amateur historians like me) - we can judge the actions of our ancestors using our own 20th Century - sorry 21st Century bias, but we will never be able to completely understand our ancestors because we do not have a common frame of reference. Not to be too geeky about it, but it is like when Mr. Spock tells Doctor McCoy that he cannot discuss dying because there is no common frame of reference, to which McCoy replies; "You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?"
The ideas, mores, assumptions, etc. of that time are alien to us. No matter how much we claim to understand, we never truly can because we have not not lived as they lived.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
The difference, between the reasons for the American Revolution and the CW, was that the former was over the fact that the American Colonies had no direct representation, in a Government that claimed to govern them. While in the latter, the south was an integral part of the gov't that governed them (along with All the other states) .
Essentially, the gov't, of which the south was in full partnership with all the other states, did not satisfy the south, and in consequence they 'invented' an excuse to remove itself from the authority of a government and system, that they, themselves, helped build and uphold, in the first place.
In other words, they started to lose and they decided they could pick up their marbles and go home, without a backward glance.
If we take the premise that: a. Secession was to preserve slavery
then (b) was slavery actually threatened by the election of Lincoln?
Could/would have Lincoln acted to limit/restrict/interfere with slavery, not only by restricting it from the western territories, but where it existed in the southern states?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
South grounds to secede 
Linear Mode
