2007-02-26 14:50:02 · 8 answers · asked by Caleb J 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
They were within their rights as set forth in the Constitution. It also had to be tried before the US could be really defined as ONE nation and not just a collection of independent states.
As Shelby Foote put it, before the Civil War the United States was referred to in the plural (the United States are). After the Civil War, the United States became singular (the United States is). It isn't correct English until you get past the fact that the United States of America is a singular name and not a plural one.
2007-02-26 14:59:07 · answer #1 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. The South never seceeded. The Constitution doesn't give the states the power to seceed. They acted like a runaway child that leaves home and changes their name. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The South was ALWAYS a part of the United States.
End of story.
2007-02-26 16:20:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we need to sit back from the causese and consequences of secession...
Legally they were within their rights.
WHAT they should've done though is slowly withdraw. The main problem was that because of the lack of trust between north and south both sides mobilised armies and prepared to fight. BAD MOVE! The South should've attempted - probably more sternly then they did - to get support from France and Britain (both of which recognised the Confederacy).
A Peaceful secession would've been preferable - but i doubt that without foreign allies to ensure southern safety then the North would have attacked regardles..
Should they have seceeded? well personal feelings aside YES THEY SHOULDVE.. that is wat their citizens wanted and a state (be it a nation state or a state of a nation) needs to conduct itself in both the best interests of its people and how the people wish it to. in this case the leadership was following the feelings of the citizens.
They were right - from a legal, political and nationalistic POV
2007-02-26 15:23:41 · answer #3 · answered by max power 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Right or wrong, it was illegal.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation"
Article IV, Section 3--Congress can admit new states. Conversely, Congress would have to approve of states leaving.
And that's just for starters.
2007-02-26 15:50:14 · answer #4 · answered by Jay G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right or Wrong, We Lost.
Can't win a war with paper mills.
The North had all the steel.
130 years later, I moved North to New Jersey and am actually getting used to it. I guess it all worked out in the end.
2007-02-26 14:59:19 · answer #5 · answered by Action 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
possibly the worst strategic mistake in history next to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Born out of hubris, arrogance and a series of wildly mistaken assumptions about the US, and ended in disaster.
2007-02-26 14:55:05 · answer #6 · answered by blueprairie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
There's not much worse than starting an unnecessary war because of your own undiluted arrogance and raw stupidity, and then getting your *** handed to you on a plate.
2007-02-26 14:59:57 · answer #7 · answered by David C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Curiously the action wasn't illegal, I'm not sure whether secession was the right choice though.
2007-02-26 14:52:59 · answer #8 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋