The south shouldnt have seceded from the union because?

Answer 1

Of course, neither North nor South expected the damage of the war, nor that slavery would, ironically, come to an through this conflict. So it's not quite fair to argue "they shouldn't have done it because it ended up costing so much" (since no one knew it WOULD cost so much!)

Rather we should go by what they COULD know, as well as whether they were actually JUSTIFIED in seceding.

Actually, one of the best concise arguments against secession is that found in Lincoln's First Inagural Address. He not only presents an argument for why secession IN PRINCIPLE was not consistent with the nature of the Union, he goes on to specifically argue that

1) There is in the present case no real CAUSE for seceding. Sure there were disagreements about how to apply the Constitution, but those will always happen, and the government is set up to work that out as best it can (even if imperfectly). He even lists things the Constitution did not explicitly address (esp, HOW the fugitive slave provision should be carried out and whether the federal government could restrict slavery not in the states but in its TERRITORIES), pointing out that NEITHER side in the debate could insist its position was THE Constitutional one.

But more important than all that --and this is key -- the government had not taken ANY steps, not had he or his party at any point stated that they WOULD take steps, to violate the prerogatives of the states. On the contrary, they had repeatedly, expressly promised that they would NOT, e.g., seek to abolish slavery throughout the Union.

His point is well taken -- no one had done, nor even advocated doing anything vs. slavery in the South. Thus the Southern states were, in fact, seceding BECAUSE a plurality had, perfectly consistent with the Constitution, elected as President a candidate other than the one they wanted! (The reason, of course, was their FEAR that at some point the Republicans WOULD try to abolish slavery, etc.)


2) it will have very negative consequences, laying a precedent for a minority seceding whenever the majority will not acquiesce to their demands. That's especially poignant given the fact that the ONLY thing the Republicans had done was to win a national election. So what happens if you make it a rule that every time the minority is unhappy about the choice of the majority it breaks off?! Thus the principle at the heart of the Confederacy's founding carried within it the seeds of its own destruction.

3) finally, he argues that there is no need to RUSH the matter and much damage to be done by haste... AND for that matter, Lincoln himself is limited, under the wise provision of the Constitution, in his powers... including the fact that he is only been elected to a four-year term -- there is no way, in that time that he could do the things they fear even if he DID plan to (which, he has already pointed out, he did not).


For the full argument, read the text of this address, at:
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

(See also, the chapter on the secession argument in Daniel Farber's book "Lincoln's Constitution".)

Answer 2

By secession came war and by war came death. Largest number of american casualties came at this time. A peaceful resolution would have been preferrable and many a brother, a father, and son would not have died. The South could have used the North's industry to further there agricultural goods. The divide over states' rights ran deep however.

Answer 3

the final questioning looks to have been that they had each and every suited to secede. before some New England states had considered secession, and to date there became little or no political theory that a state did no longer have the authority to realize this. Had they forseen the devastation of the conflict, I think of they could no longer have, however the consensus looks to have been that that they had be allowed secession.

Answer 4

Slavery is wrong.