Make a case why the north was right in the Civil War.?

Question

i have to write a paper on why i believe the north was right during the civil war

can anyone give me some ideas or facts

Answer 1

I wouldn't say that they were entirely right. They may have forced the South to free slaves, but they didn't do it because they felt that the Africans were equal, they did it for financial and political gains. They knew that by freeing slaves, they could essentially cripple the South's bustling economy (which still has not fully recovered nearly 150 years later), and to make the industry and production in the North more profitable. That is one reason that the poorest states in the country are all in the south. They also knew that by making it a moral issue, they could increase their manpower and easily overwhelm the Confederate troops (a number of whom were Black, and were granted freedom in exchange for fighting for the Confederacy).

So, basically the only reason that they were right is because their actions led to the acceleration of the eventually inevitable realization that Blacks truly WERE equal (well, most people realize that anyway). Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of Southerners never even owned slaves. The import of Slaves had been banned much earlier, and the number of slaves was on a gradual decline, so it's reasonable to assume that the practice would have eventually disappeared, regardless of whether or not the war happened.

Answer 2

It replace into the two. The South initially enjoyed the greater beneficial smart secure practices rigidity, particularly with calvary, and lots greater beneficial smart administration. yet because of the reality the conflict went on, the North tailored and found out, at the same time as attrition wore down the Confederates. So the north beat the south militarily, in part with sheer numbers, yet as nicely by capacity of matching the south in intense high quality of troops and administration. The south lost the conflict for particularly some reasons. a loss of a adequate military meant the Union blockade choked southern commerce. bigger advertisement potential meant the north would desire to produce greater beneficial products and armaments, and grant them greater beneficial effectively than the south would desire to. the fewer centralized government of the Confederacy made it greater beneficial good to coordinate, and made desertion much less annoying indoors the south than indoors the north. The failure of Lee's invasion indoors the north replace into the South's very final actually threat to win foreign places acceptance. And at the same time as Lee replace into waiting to hold on indoors the east, the western campaigns have been often a sequence of mess united statesfor the south. With the administration of the Mississippi in Union palms, the Confederacy replace into decrease in 0.5, installation Sheridan's march by utilising Georgia.

Answer 3

Any answer you get still won't make sense. If you really want to make the grade make a case why the north was wrong. Why should someone use mind control through assignments to change views of people and make one side look good when making one side look good is political incorrect to make someone else feel better? You might want to add that many blacks in the south were also slave owners and fought against the North. This might start a new topic. :-)

Answer 4

reason one: Slavery is bad. duh. While Lincoln didn't necessarily go to war over slavery, it was a big part of the war. lincoln went to war b/c slavery was tearing apart the nation and he wanted to keep the US together, rather than splitting into 2 countries. TONS of info on the negative effects of slavery etc... on the net.
Reason 2: The South had a much less diverse economy than the north at that time and it was better for the people in the South (OTHER than rich white slave owners) to be connected to the North.

BUt really, the end of slavery is the best reason for the civil war. and the easiest to research.

Answer 5

For about 100 years the north threatened to seceed whenever things didnt go their way. Then when the south seceeded thinking that the Union was something you went into voluntarily they refused to accept it. Have fun justifying it. There is a reason it was a wildly unpopuar war, especially before the Emancipation Proclamation.

Answer 6

There is a book The Creature from Jekyll Island by Griffin that has a great chapter on the Civil War.

Myself, I can not find any proof of anything good.

Answer 7

The only thing they were right about is that slavery is wrong.

Fact: Texas ISN'T part of "the south". Texas is where the west begins. The only reason Texas was involved in the Civil War is because they didn't want to be part of the United States.

Answer 8

If the paper is supposed to be what you beleive, then you should not be asking others what they think.

Answer 9

First, you need to be clear on what your question is (and isn't).

It is basically whether the REASON for the North's going to war was appropriate -- were they justified in fighting?

Note that the question is NOT about whether slavery was wrong (as some here seem to think) or whether the North was right or wrong to end up opposing it. Actually, though I believe the case that slavery was the ultimate CAUSE of the war (the thing the South most urgently felt the need to 'protect'), that does not mean that the North went to war "in order to end slavery". (In fact, under the Constitution THAT would have been illegal!)

Rather, as Lincoln very clearly stated, the North was acting to oppose the SECESSION of the Southern states so as to PRESERVE (or restore) the Union. (That does not mean there was anything wrong with Lincoln's later move to end slavery -- as a war measure to weaken the enemy AND as a war AIM, that is, to remove what caused the problem in the first place. But it was not, and could not be, the Union's reason for entering the fight in the first place.)

So the question is whether the North's actions in opposition to secession can be justified, or was their only choice to acquiesce? (Outgoing President Buchanan, for instance, believed secession was wrong, but also that there was no legal/Constitutional action the North could take against it.)

---------------------

Now you cannot ask this question without considering the question, 'Was the secession of the Southern states justifiable?' If they were wrong in their claim of the 'right to secede' -- that is, if seceding (at least unilaterally) was simply unconstitutional-- OR if their SPECIFIC act of secession (assuming that there MAY be a right to secede) was unjustified in the circumstances, then the North's acting to oppose this act, including by force, might be justified.

For an example of the latter, consider that the REASON for the first seven states' seceding was the election of Lincoln to the Presidency, though there was no evidence or any claims of that election's being anything but fully legal and Constitutional. The SOLE reason was that the Southern Democratic party was afraid of what the Republicans would/might do. They were NOT responding to anything they had yet done or said they would do.

But notice that IS possible to argue that the South had some sort of 'right to secede', but that at the very same time, the North had the right to OPPOSE them! In other words, the North's right to act is not entirely dependent on what rights the South had to act (in this case, to secede).

---------------------

The approach *I* would suggest, esp. if you believe the North's actions WERE justified, is to look at a few key speeches made in the midst of the crisis. Specifically, Lincoln's inaugural address, and his first address to Congress (July 4, 1861) after the war had begun, and the remarks of Alexander Stephens of Georgia (later Vice President of the Confederacy) when urging the Georgia legislature not to act too quickly.

First, Lincoln's (first) inaugural address --after seven states had seceded but before the war began-- includes clear arguments
a) for why secession is NOT a Constitutional right
b) for why secesssion was certainly not justified by anything he or his party had said or done
c) for the government's right, and HIS Constitutional responsibility!!, to oppose the breaking up of the Union

Note that even if you find (a) or (b) inadequate, point (c) would still justify his taking strong action.

Here's a clip on point (c) -- you will find the other arguments in the following sections (check the link)
"to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/lincoln1.htm

For more on this speech, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_First_Inaugural


Lincoln continued his argument in his Message to Congress in Special Session - July 4, 1861
"...the question whether a constitutional republic or democracy -- a Government of the people, by the same people -- can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their Government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: "Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness?" "Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"

"So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government; and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation."

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/lincoln.htm

For more on Lincoln's arguments against secession, see Daniel Farbers' book *Lincoln's Constitution*

For another article examining Lincoln's arguments about secession (though you'd have to pay or find it in print to see the whole), see here:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2719251_ITM

And then, there is the argument of Alexander Stephens of Georgia. He states his conviction that nothing in Lincoln's election, or any acts he had yet performed justify secession (though he will go on to say that it's up to the people of Georgia to decide this question). Here are a few key clips:

"The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States. My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. . . . To make a point of resistance to the government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution. . . . If all our hopes are to be blasted, if the Republic is to go down, let us be found to the last moment standing on the deck with the Constitution of the United States waving over our head. . . . We went into the election with this people. The result was different from what we wished; but the election has been constitutionally held. . . .

"But it is said Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are against the Constitution, and that, if he carries them out, it will be destructive of our rights. Let us not anticipate a threatened evil. If he violates the Constitution, then will come our time to act. . . .

"[What is] the course which this state should pursue toward those northern states which . . . have attempted to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law? . . . Before making reprisals, we should exhaust every means of bringing about a peaceful settlement of the controversy. . . . At least, let these offending and derelict states know what your grievances are, and if they refuse, as I said, to give us our rights under the Constitution, I should be willing, as a last resort, to sever the ties of the Union with them."

see the whole - http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/steph2.html

Answer 10

not a big history buff. but they believed in equality and that slavery was wrong. and screw the british cause there accents are annoying.