Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rockrr
Serious question. Why were people in the north so upset over seven slave states leaving the Union? Certainly they didn't like the South and they certainly didn't want any blacks coming to the north. Why were these states presence in the union so important. Why was peaceful separation so enraging. It would seem like a good solution to the issue. Certainly the scope and level of violence in the WBTS was not worth retaining these states in the union. The frequent answer one gets is that other states might do the same. So what? I am sure New England could have functioned well as an independent country and California as well. Claiming that no state or group of states can ever leave the union sounds more like the former Soviet Union than the union of free and independent states that formed the constitutional union.
248 posted on 01/13/2019 11:30:56 AM PST by robowombat (Orthodox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]


To: robowombat
All good questions and all worthy of answer. Let's see what I can unpack here.

Why were people in the north so upset over seven slave states leaving the Union? Why was peaceful separation so enraging.

I'm going to couple these two because they are conjoined anyway. It is my opinion that much of the reaction of the north wasn't due to the act of secession but of the tactics of secession. It was anything but peaceful. The rebels initiated their "peaceful secession" by raiding (at gunpoint) federal treasuries and mints, armories, and stock houses in a frenzy of theft. The rebels didn't negotiate their way out of the union - they chose to fight their way out.

It (secession) would seem like a good solution to the issue.

Possibly, but not probably. For 400 years the new continent had been subjected to constant struggles for acquisition and dominance. There is no reason to believe that those struggles would not continue - or increase now that one half of the nation had taken up an adversarial position to the other half. Lincoln, like his predecessor Buchanan, believed that he did not have constitutional authority to interfere with secession. He favored negotiation in the hope that cooler heads would prevail and the secessionists would abandon their foolhardy plan. The south's actions at Sumter ended any hope of that.

The likelihood is that what we knew as The United States would cease to exist with nations like Great Britain devouring us - starting with the confederacy. "We must hang together or we will certainly hang separately"

Claiming that no state or group of states can ever leave the union sounds more like the former Soviet Union than the union of free and independent states that formed the constitutional union.

I don't know anyone other than lost causers who make that claim. I certainly do not believe it to be accurate. But secession as practiced by the would-be confederates was certainly illegal and dishonorable.

254 posted on 01/13/2019 12:36:14 PM PST by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson