how and why is the civil war a second revolution?

Answer 1

~Wrong question. The real question is "Why is the Revolution mis-named and why was it a civil war and not a revolution?" Once you learn the definition of the terms, the rest is easy. However, if you consider the "Revolution" to be the first revolution, you still have a lot to learn about American history because it was not. Under no stretch of the misuse of language can the War Between the States be construed as a revolution. If your teacher is trying to sell you that bill of goods, he or she is simply wrong. If you have the guts to say so and the ambition to do the work to prove it, you've got yourself an "A", but I'm not about to let you cheat yourself into one. That thought is revolting.

Answer 2

It wasn't a second revolution, a revolution is something that is done to completely change the way government is carried out. The treasonous southern states were interested in changing the government, they wanted it to remain exactly as it was, in other words, they wanted the continuation of the southern dominance of the US govt. As long as the south got what they wanted and retained control over the government, then they were perfectly happy with It, but when they lost control unexpectedly, they tried to rebel, like an unruly second grader who is mad that he didn't get picked for a team and takes his ball and goes home crying.

The Civil War was a rebellion against the lawfully elected government in an effort to promote the continuance and expansion of human bondage.

In addition, the DoI was nothing like the secessionist attempts to justify illegal secession. The American colonists had actual legitimate grievances against the government that ruled them, the secessionist had no such legtimate grievances. If you read the secessionist claims, they are against northern states themselves for passing laws in there own states which were anti-slavery(hmm, states rights? you were not allowed to have states rights, unless you supported slavery), those states did not have any authority over the national govt and the national govt did EVERYTHING within their power to support slavery up until 1860(since southerners were in control of all 3 branches for most of the time between 1800-1860)

The secessionists grievances were all future tense, of what MIGHT occur, they attempted illegal secession before Lincoln was even inaugurated.

Finally, the tariff ruse is just that, a ruse by southern secessionist to stir up hatred and expanded by southern revisionists after the war to justify the so-called "glorious lost cause"(what is glorious about human bondage?)

It is a historical fact, that can NOT be debated by revisionists, that the tariff in place when the southern states attempted to secede were lower than they had been since 1816.

Furthermore, since at no time were southerners in the national government less than 40%, they could have halted any and all legislation regarding tariffs in the first place, but they didn't, they allowed the legislation to continue and voted for or against the tariff, so when the tariff went up or down, it was a result of consultation and consent of those to be taxed.

whale

Answer 3

The ideas expressed in the Meeting Street Declaration were quite similar to those contained in the Declaration of Independence. One of the grievances which brought the colonists into open rebellion against the British Crown was the taxing of those colonists by acts of a Parliament clear on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, without any consultation of those to be taxed. In similar fashion the Southern states viewed with misapprobation the tariff scheme passed in the Congress which restricted those states from purchasing durable goods from overseas, at a more favorable price than those obtained from manufacturers in New England.
The best similarity is that, in both the War for American Independence and the War Between the States, no call for overthrowing of a government was called for. In both cases the rallying cry was secession.

Answer 4

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that many states were exercising their right to leave the union when they felt the U.S. no longer was respecting individual states' rights. The result of the war was that once a state was part of the U.S.A., it did not ever have the right to leave. (Which is what we did when we separated from England.)

Do you see the major change?