Difference between revisions of "Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
This is a tough issue; any other time i'd say no without a second thought, but it seems hard to justify turning the other way and allowing slavery to continue in the south.  --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 01:16, 18 February 2007 (EST)
 
This is a tough issue; any other time i'd say no without a second thought, but it seems hard to justify turning the other way and allowing slavery to continue in the south.  --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 01:16, 18 February 2007 (EST)
  
 +
I don’t believe Lincoln or others had a right to prevent secession. The only reason some States finally decided to sign the agreement to form a Union was because of their right to secede.
 +
From what I understand, the initial problem was the treatment of Southern states by Northern businessmen who used laws and government to cheat the South of fair trade and apply unfair taxation. If those issues were resolved, I doubt the South would have pursued secession.
 +
This debate is thoroughly addressed in Thomas DiLorenzo’s book, “The Real Lincoln”. The author also contends that slavery would most likely have been resolved in time by other means.
 +
--[[User:Maxygolf|Maxygolf]] 11:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  
 
== Positive Opinions ==
 
== Positive Opinions ==

Revision as of 15:58, March 23, 2007

Negative Opinions

No, the South had the right to choose for themselves whether they should be American states or not. Yes, slavery was horrible but things were already changing and that was not the Union's choice to make. The goings on in Columbia, Nashville, Baton Rouge, and Austin were not the business of anyone in Washington, no matter if it's 1861 or 2007/ --Working for Him 20:48, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Excellent debate topic, and I see reasons to agree but on a different basis. Abraham Lincoln himself felt that the South could leave and the United States would inevitably reunite a few decades later (without slavery). Why push it and kill so many people just to avoid a few decades of separation? There are limits to what force can accomplish.--Aschlafly 21:01, 7 February 2007 (EST)

This is a tough issue; any other time i'd say no without a second thought, but it seems hard to justify turning the other way and allowing slavery to continue in the south. --BenjaminS 01:16, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I don’t believe Lincoln or others had a right to prevent secession. The only reason some States finally decided to sign the agreement to form a Union was because of their right to secede. From what I understand, the initial problem was the treatment of Southern states by Northern businessmen who used laws and government to cheat the South of fair trade and apply unfair taxation. If those issues were resolved, I doubt the South would have pursued secession. This debate is thoroughly addressed in Thomas DiLorenzo’s book, “The Real Lincoln”. The author also contends that slavery would most likely have been resolved in time by other means. --Maxygolf 11:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Positive Opinions

Yes, the North was justified in preventing the South from seceding from the Union. What is the point of having a government if any state can choose to leave whenever they feel like it? Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery may have been the main issue the South seceded for, but the North went to war solely to preserve the Union. That reason is as good as any to go to war. Sure, slavery as an agricultural and economic base was outdated and on the way out, but slavery as a social structure was as strong as ever, as evidenced by the formation of white-supremecist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. True, the Confederate States may have eventually rejoined the United States after slavery had run its course, but the Federal government can not afford to set the precedent of letting whoever wants to leave cease to be part of the Union.

It is informative to see what Abraham Lincoln did as the Southern States seceded. He declared that the Federal Government would keep federal Armories, Forts and property. The Southerners then attacked those Federal Forts (Like Fort. Sumner.) The states were too intertwined with the Federal Government to allow secession.