The Civil War involved two issues that are legally and logically separate, but are generally conflated by most in an effort to cloud the issue. One of these is the issue of slavery. Nobody would argue today about the legal or moral legitimacy of this issue; slavery was wrong, no doubt or qualifications needed. It was tolerated because the economy of one section of the country was totally dependent on it, and the economy of the other was at least partially and indirectly dependent on it (Northern textile manufacturers relied on the supply of Southern cotton, for instance).
The other issue is less clear cut, namely whether or not states had the right to secede. The legality and morality of this issue is really in doubt, unless you think SCOTUS decisions are the final word on all issues in perpetuity. If you do, then to be consistent you must believe that abortion is legally and morally okay since Roe v Wade said it is. History is written by the victors. The North won the war, so secession is illegal as a practical matter. That does not change the fact that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to force a state to remain in the Union. It does state that all powers not specifically granted to the FedGov are reserved to the states or to the people.
The Civil War fundamentally changed The US. The US was never really intended to be a true nation. The true nations were Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. Today there’s a good analogy to help understand the original formulation that did not exist a half century ago, namely the European Union. The EU is a group of sovereign nations that willingly gave up some of their powers for mutual benefit. The analogy with the US is exact — that was precisely what our founders had in mind. Thirteen small, relatively powerless nations quibbling amongst each other would have been easy prey for British or French domination or conquest. A Union of all cooperating for the survival of all had a chance. Think of the recent Brexit vote. That was completely analogous to the SC secession vote. Would anyone today really argue that France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, et al., would be justified in a military response to prevent the UK from seceding? If you lived in Britain, how would you react if Germany or France sent troops to your country and started seizing and destroying your property?
That’s why we still question the legality and morality of secession. The South did it to preserve slavery. That gives secession a bad rap. Think Brexit rather than the Confederacy and the issue looks quite different.
You are missing the mark. It was "tolerated" in the 19th century because it was almost universally understood that the black race could not survive on their own. They were deemed incapable of succeeding in a capitalist society, they could not be educated. Sorry, that's the ugly truth. They were thought of as children. Who would want to emancipate a child with the abilities of a 10 Y.O.?
Slavery was not 'tolerated' in the South. It was embraced whole-heartedly and was the pillar on which their society as well as their economy rested.
The other issue is less clear cut, namely whether or not states had the right to secede. The legality and morality of this issue is really in doubt, unless you think SCOTUS decisions are the final word on all issues in perpetuity. If you do, then to be consistent you must believe that abortion is legally and morally okay since Roe v Wade said it is.
Supreme Court decisions are judgements on legality; morality is best saved for one's church. Like it or not, because of the Supreme Court abortion is legal and secession as practiced by the Southern states was not.
History is written by the victors.
And myths are written by the losers. If nothing else these Civil War threads have firmly established that.
The North won the war, so secession is illegal as a practical matter.
That is not correct. Secession itself need not be illegal. Unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states is. Winning the war had nothing to do with that decision.
That does not change the fact that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to force a state to remain in the Union.
It does give the Federal Government to power to enforce the laws and suppress rebellion.
It does state that all powers not specifically granted to the FedGov are reserved to the states or to the people.
All the states. Decisions that impact all the states should be decided by a majority of them and not just one or two.
The Civil War fundamentally changed The US. The US was never really intended to be a true nation. The true nations were Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. Today there’s a good analogy to help understand the original formulation that did not exist a half century ago, namely the European Union. The EU is a group of sovereign nations that willingly gave up some of their powers for mutual benefit. The analogy with the US is exact — that was precisely what our founders had in mind. Thirteen small, relatively powerless nations quibbling amongst each other would have been easy prey for British or French domination or conquest. A Union of all cooperating for the survival of all had a chance. Think of the recent Brexit vote. That was completely analogous to the SC secession vote. Would anyone today really argue that France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, et al., would be justified in a military response to prevent the UK from seceding? If you lived in Britain, how would you react if Germany or France sent troops to your country and started seizing and destroying your property?
I've heard that claim made in various forms for years and with all due respect to your opinions I still find it ridiculous.
SCOTUS decisions are the final word, until a constitutional amendment is passed negating the ruling, or the supreme court reverses it’s ruling in another case. That is how are system works.
Most certainly the United States was meant to be a nation and has been a nation since July 4th 1776. George Washington himself told us in his farewell address that “The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”
In other words we should think of ourselves as Americans first before anything else.
“Think of the recent Brexit vote.”
Poor analogy.
The EU treaty’s paragraph 50, lays out the procedures for formal and legal withdrawal from the European Union by a member state.. Great Britain is following the required procedures.
Did South Carolina follow the procedures laid out in the Consitution for withdrawing from the United States?
You were doing so well up to this point. In what way was secession intended to "preserve" slavery? Was it not legal in the United States at the time? Did not Lincoln urge the passage of an amendment to keep slavery legal so long as any state wanted it?
The point here is that "slavery" did not need to be preserved, it was already preserved. It was not under threat of any sort. (Other than Antifa like lunatics such as John Brown, deliberately staging attacks.)
So did the South secede to "preserve" that which did not need preserving, or did the secede for some other reason?
(Such as getting back the 60% of their export value that currently went to New York City and Washington DC.)