Did the eleven southern states have the right to seceed? The war was fought over states rights.?

Question

It was fought over difference of interpertation of repersentation, the right to expand southern institutions into western territories, the unfair tariffs leveled at the southern states(uniform but nonetheless unfair), Federal denial of nullification doctorine, the leaders of the southern states believed that central government was created to serve the states not vice-versa. Our founding fathers 80 years earlier had just fought a war of secession against the British crown, because of an overbearing allpowerfull central government. That is why they had the forsight for checks and balances, electorial collge, and concurrent powers. Raymond hartmann.

Answer 1

In the end, no.

The idea was that they did have the right. But at the end of the war, the winner got to choose the answer to that constitutional ambiguity. And the answer was that states don't have the right to secede absent approval from Congress.

And you're right about some of the other reasons, namely the balance between the federal and state governments, and how large and domineering the federal government can become. In the almost century and a half since the Civil War, we've seen their worst fears confirmed.

I still don't think it was right for them to secede. The solution to a government power imbalance is to fix the problem, not run away from it. The political experiment that was this country is a precious thing, a foray into uncharted depths of liberty and personal freedom, cooperation and civil liberties. That should be preserved.

As we enter a new era, and a new round of red versus blue states, partisan hatred, and ideological rifts large enough to drive a continnental divide through, we need to remember this lesson. We need to remember that this is a nation of laws, governed by a Constitution, and if we don't like it or what is being done in its name, we have the power to change things. And we owe it to not only the Founders of this country, but everyone who has fought to preserve it, not to abandon that legacy.

{EDIT: Response to Email asking about the differences between the Civil War and the Revolutionary War}

The right to secede was ambigous in the Constitution. Article IV Sections 3-4 dealt with forms of government and how states came into the Union, but not whether states should leave.

The 13 colonies did not secede from a union of equal provinces (states). They were effectively one big colony, on a different continent, that broke away from the control of the mother country. And there were no comparable Constitutional provisions to consider.

As I said, in the end, the winner gets to decide how the laws get interpreted. The colonies won the revolutionary war, so go to write new rules. The North (Union) won the Civil War, so got to say that can't happen again.

There are similarities and differences in both situations. But the bottom line difference is that the revolution was fought because the colonies didn't have equal representation. The confederate states did, under the Constitution. And if they didn't like the way things were going, they had the ability to change the laws. The colonies didn't, so war was the only option.

Answer 2

individually, i think of the actual motivation for secession replaced into the protection of the business enterprise of slavery. There are countless statements from state secession conventions and the accomplice shape to help this declare. regardless of the certainty that, even however i discover the accomplice reason to have been morally repulsive, i'm not sure on the superb suited to secession. The question replaced into "settled" with the aid of stress of hands, and later with the aid of a stacked superb courtroom. nonetheless, i don't settle for armed forces victory as a valid philosophical argument. on the only hand, i think of the human beings have an excellent suited to self-determination, which might help the superb suited to secession (regardless of if completed for reasons I disagree with.) on the different hand, starting to be a member of the Union could have been a meaningless gesture had it been understood that club ought to be withdrawn arbitrarily. So i actually will not be able to ascertain. i'm able to assert that i'm happy that some good got here of the conflict, specifically the 14th replace. Tyranny with the aid of the states is in simple terms as undesirable as Federal tyranny, in my opinion.