Why wasn't the south justified when they left the Union?

[xa]

History records the English colonists as brave and standing up for their rights when they broke away. Forever will they be remembered as heroes fighting for freedom.

The primary reasons they left were:
No representatives in Parliament
Taxes
Oppression(Quartering Act, Townshend[sp?] Acts, Trade restricted)
Enlightenment(provided many ideas of freedom and such to the colonists)
Political powerlessness.

History(in most places) records the south as greedy and evil. Of course some still remember the south as heroes too but many do not share this view. On the record they are traitors.

The primary reasons they left were:
Little say in government(North had higher population, could outvote)
States rights
Tariffs
Sectionalism(North industrial, South agricultural)
and the exaggerated reason, Slavery.

So, I think that the south was not justified in there rebellion.
Why?
Because, the south did have say in the government. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was not even on the ballots in some states.

Slavery is simply wrong, and really should not have been supported.

The tariffs were wrong, but someone was going to be weakened. Either the north or south, and the north was bigger so it is more logical to protect as many people as possible.

States rights, ah states rights. Some issues I must agree upon, but I believe that the federal government should have more power than the states. Also, the states were and are too small to be an effective counterbalance to the government. On states rights, my opinion is simply that population should be irrelevant and that it should be more like the Senate(2 per state) than the House of Representatives(population based) which is my entire thing against the electoral college, but that is for later and for another ID.

[Big Red 11]

The south was not justified in that it did so to protect a horrible practice, but the fact that it did so has done more good than harm. If the south had never triggered the war, America might still experience the extreme sectionalist hate and tensions present in those times, and we might even still have slavery.

[GreyHelm]

Originally Posted by Big Red 11

The south was not justified in that it did so to protect a horrible practice, but the fact that it did so has done more good than harm. If the south had never triggered the war, America might still experience the extreme sectionalist hate and tensions present in those times, and we might even still have slavery.

Agreed, the results of the war were what ultimately helped to rid the U.S. of those problems.

[Sidewinder]

The south should have never left the Union. All that resulted from it was a whole lot of unnecessary death. If the south claimed that they had less say in the government, by no means would the north have anything to do with that. The northern states were where the colonists first settled and where cities had more time to build up.

Tariffs isn't a good reason, either. Most countries and states had tariffs in place. It wasn't just the south that had to pay them.

Sectionalism is just how the colonies came to be. The south had a longer growing season, and the colonists put it to use. The environment was great for growing cash crops along with food crops, so they used their resources wisely. Sectionalism is not anyone's fault and is definitely not a reason to go to war. That would be like the town I live in (West Pittston, a residential area) going to war with the Boonies (Harding, spread out and rural). There would be no point.

Slavery is just wrong. The nation was built on the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In no way, shape, or from can a slave achieve these freedoms.
"All men are created equal"
Not with slavery. Slavery was just wrong. If the south really wanted things to get done, they should have just either paid their slaves or got off their lazy asses.

The Civil War didn't have to happen. They should have just explored their options and made a more intelligent decision.

[Go Pre]

If you have ever read the philosopher James Rachel's theory of Cultural Relativisim, a theory which states that different cultures hold different moral values, you would know that the south felt as though they were justified. They did not see it as a cultural wrong, but they saw it as just another part of their life.

[xa]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

The south should have never left the Union. All that resulted from it was a whole lot of unnecessary death. If the south claimed that they had less say in the government, by no means would the north have anything to do with that. The northern states were where the colonists first settled and where cities had more time to build up.

Yes and no(to quote the bipolar). In one sense the South didn't have much say as most of it was based on population, instead of statehood(so the northern states easily outweighed the south.) so they felt ignored by the government.

Tariffs isn't a good reason, either. Most countries and states had tariffs in place. It wasn't just the south that had to pay them.

The tariffs actually barely touched the North. The tariffs made foreign mechanical products that the North could make very expensive(meaning the South had to buy from the North.

Sectionalism is just how the colonies came to be. The south had a longer growing season, and the colonists put it to use. The environment was great for growing cash crops along with food crops, so they used their resources wisely. Sectionalism is not anyone's fault and is definitely not a reason to go to war. That would be like the town I live in (West Pittston, a residential area) going to war with the Boonies (Harding, spread out and rural). There would be no point.

Sectionalism wasn't a reason so much as a cause. The South built up a different industry and it became problematic as it was different from the North.

Slavery is just wrong. The nation was built on the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In no way, shape, or from can a slave achieve these freedoms.
"All men are created equal"
Not with slavery. Slavery was just wrong. If the south really wanted things to get done, they should have just either paid their slaves or got off their lazy asses.

But as you know, they never intended that phrase to refer to blacks. It was obvious, in their minds, that they meant white people.
Also, the only reason the North wanted no slavery is because the slaves would take the immigrants' labor jobs.

Of course, the North needed the South, as without the South starvation equals very yes.
Unfortunately I have to write an in class test essay on this tommorrow. Just thought it was an interesting subject to share(and free help is good)

[WARLOCK]

slavery was inded only a small part of the reasoning behind us leaving the union but i'd also like to point out to all those who are saying "slavery isn't a good reason because it's just wrong", you're thinking by todays standards and mindset, during that era it was perfectly acceptable here in the south. the north had quite a few slaves also, don't forget that.

[TEKNIC]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

The nation was built on the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Actually, it was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of money," but they later changed the idiom to not sound so greedy.

Also, black people equal 3/5 of a normal person. Everybody knows that.

[DeBOG]

Originally Posted by TEKNIC

Actually, it was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of money," but they later changed the idiom to not sound so greedy.

Also, black people equal 3/5 of a normal person. Everybody knows that.

Umm aint that a bit racist?

[Tiger]

Debog, thats how congressional representatives from the south were chosen. I didnt word that right though, but for every slave in the population, they got 3/5s a person. So by having 100,000 slaves you get 60,000 people for your population, thus giving you more representatives in congress.


Tek, your sig is too big.