Was the Union justified in attacking the confederacy?

Question

Of course we can look back and justify it by denouncing slavery and recognizing the United States role in world affairs would be much different (esp. our involvement in the European wars, WWI & WWII.) But at that time, why were our forefathers praised for shaking off the oppressive government of England and yet the south was merely trying to do the same thing (in their eyes) and it was considered treason. Lincoln wasn't a warmongerer, and he would not have challenged slavery if the south didn't secede. He, and many others, knew that eventually slavery would die out as it was doomed for failure economically. So why didn't they let the south secede, knowing that they would probably be back on their hands and knees to rejoin the union when their economy collapsed? I respect Lincoln a lot but was it really necessary to drag America through the 4 bloodiest years of its history? Would love anyone's thoughts, feel free to e-mail me as well [e-mail] to discuss.

Answer 1

No. Not justified at all.

Answer 2

The Confederates fired first on Fort Sumter which began the Civil War in the US. The North was therefore justified to fire back. Lincoln had the foresight that the South withdrawing from the Union would leave both the North and the South open to foreign take over. Remember, "United we stand; divided we fall." Smart man Lincoln.

Chow!!

Answer 3

there became no reason of Britain to attack the U.S., there have been substantial commerce kinfolk between the two international locations. The war if 1812 became in the previous. Diplomatic kinfolk have been very stable between the two international locations.