Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Secession of the southern states in 1860/1861
The secessionist movement
Analysis of declaration of independence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Secession of the southern states in 1860/1861
The South did not have had the right to secede because the souths legal justification is irrelevant because they have flaws in their ideology about how the states are taking away their freedom. I found in the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union that one of their justifications for leaving the union is that their slaves should be sent back which makes it another person's responsibility for your own “property” without substantial proof. Another flaw I found in their argument in the Ordinance of Secession of South Carolina is that it says that since the states are taking away their freedom to slaves, they can fight for it when in actuality it is the people who are helping slaves escape, adding even more so to this wrong idea of secession. One last Flaw I found is that they are complaining that their rights are being infringed upon while in actuality they are taking the rights away from African-American slaves making the whole argument hypocritical. In the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union …show more content…
They used the Declaration of Independence to justify their secession which is irrelevant because the declaration states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This statement from the Declaration of Independence completely debunks their argument and makes their ideology seem even less coherent and rational. Ultimately they use the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which speak of freedom to take the freedom of others and to leave the union because others are not complying with their beliefs about
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
On the question as to whether states’ rights was the cause of the Civil War, Dew references a speech made by Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, during his inaugural address as one that “remains a classic articulation of the Southern position that resistance to Northern tyranny and a defense of states’ rights were the sole reason for secession. Constitutional differences alone lay at the heart of the sectional controversy, he insisted. ‘Our present condition…illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established’”(13).
The South seceded in part out of growing awareness of its minority in the nation. The Union held twenty-three states, including four border slave states, while the Confederacy had eleven. Ignoring conflicts of allegiance within various states, which might roughly cancel each other out, the population count was about twenty-two million in the Union to about nine million in the Confederacy, and about four million of the latter were slaves. The Union therefore had an edge of about four to one in potential human resources.
All men were created by God with certain God-given rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the right of the people to eradicate this form of government when it becomes destructive to these rights. The Declaration then goes on to state many things that the king of England has done wrong or against America. He has not allowed Governors to pass laws that are of great importance. He has made judges dependent upon him for their salaries; they must do what he says is right in order to get paid. He has cut off their trade from other parts of the world. He has waged war against them. He has done numerous things that have not been taken care of after multiple petitions have been set out to be received by the king. They want to be enemies in times of war and friends in times of peace. It is the right of these colonies to be free and independent states, and they have freedom to do that of which all independent states have to do. They end with the statement that they have a firm belief that this is the Providence of God to be
During the time period of 1860 and 1877 many major changes occurred. From the beginning of the civil war to the fall of the reconstruction, the United States changed dramatically. Nearly one hundred years after the Declaration of Independence which declared all men equal, many social and constitutional alterations were necessary to protect the rights of all people, no matter their race. These social and constitutional developments that were made during 1860 to 1877 were so drastic it could be called a revolution.
The Northern states believed that we should remain as one under the union, while the southern states wanted to secede from the union. In document E John C. Calhoun claims that the states have the right to secede from the Union. The southern states believed that since they voluntarily joined the United States, they should be able to voluntarily leave. But at President Lincoln's “First Inaugural Address”, he claims that secession is illegal and unconstitutional, and that the union was perpetual (Document F). Lincoln also claimed that the constitution binds the states together and that the country cannot legally be broken up.
A controversial issue during 1860 to 1877 was state’s rights and federal power. The North and South were divided over this issue. The North composed of free states and an industrial economy while the South was made up of slave states and an agricultural economy. The South did not like federal authority over the issue of slavery; therefore, they supported the radical state rights’ ideology. South Carolina seceded from the Union because it believed that since states made up the Union, it could leave when it chooses to. The government argued against the South saying that they had no right to leave the Union because the Union was not made up of just states but people. However, the South counteracted this argument with the case that the 10th amendment “declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by its states, were reserved to the states.” (Doc A) However, the government still believed that secession from the Union was unjust and decided that a new change surrounding state’s rights was necessary. As a result, when the Union won in the Civil War, a resolution was made, where the state’s lost their power and the federal government gained power. U...
The election of Abraham Lincoln, an anti-slavery advocate, in 1860 resulted in the secession of the South from the United States of America. The South seceded from the Union and encouraged others to do the same, as Abraham Lincoln was against popular sovereignty and the Constitution. (Doc 7) Abraham Lincoln condemned the institution of slavery, which led the the secession of the South upon his presidential nomination.
When even the highly-supported secession documents clearly outline how important slavery was to the southern states, it is hard to deny its fault in the war. The argument that the Confederacy was fighting for states’ rights is the most-often suggested alternative, however all one needs to do is dig deeper and calculate what these
The federal tariff policy definitely played a what kind of role in the development and acceptance of nullification in South Carolina. In fact, in “South Carolina’s Exposition and Protest,” John C. Calhoun specifically pointed to the unjust and oppressive nature of the tariffs to justify his nullification theories. Without doubt, South Carolina’s economy clearly suffered during 1816 to 1832 as the price of cotton fell and the prices of imports rose. Whether justified or not, many South Carolinians blamed the federal tariffs in part because of the exaggerated and emotional reports of the press, Hayne, and McDuffie. Because their economic interests were impaired, South Carolinians were looking for something to blame and a way to respond. The federal tariff policy was an easy target, and nullification provided a dramatic way to take action.
...ld not protect the interest of the Southern states. Coupled with the hostilities, lack of votes for Lincoln from the South and disregard for the constitutional protection of slavery is a justifiable reason from the Southern leaders to secede from the Union.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, there was great conflict throughout the United States. The North and South had come to a crossroads at which there was no turning back. The Secession Crisis is what ultimately led to the Civil War. The North and the South disagreed on slavery and what states would be free states. The South despised Lincoln 's election and rose up in revolt by forming the Confederate States of America. Both the North and the South were responsible for the crisis, but the election of Lincoln had the most impact. All of these factors are what began the war in which brother fought brother.
Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2]
...om’s Cabin in 1852, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and the outcome of the Presidential Election of 1860—created conditions where Southerners felt the need to secede from the United States (they felt that their “way of life” was being threatened), as well as created conditions where the Northerners decided to go to war against the Southern Confederacy in order to maintain the Union. It is not surprising, however, that the Civil War occurred; since the Industrial Revolution, the Industrial North had always been different than the Agricultural South. If each region paid more attention to resolving the issues that separated them, instead of trying to prove themselves right, they could have stopped the bloodiest battle in American history (even though this is using hindsight knowledge).
This Declaration is distinct from the Texas Declaration of Indepence, in that it does not follow the similar wording and structure of the original Declaration of Independence. Rather, it responds to the Declaration and picks certain pieces of it in order to defend their want of being an independent state from the Federal Union. The Declaration from South Carolina was created due to the failure of enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, which stated that slaves which escaped from one state to another must be returned back. The Act was not being upheld by some of the northern states since they abolished slavery, and in return were not giving back the slaves to the states and owners which they came from. Therefore, the Declaration from South Carolina states that the northern states have disregarded “their obligations and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution” (1860). It claims that they no longer have the power of a self-government, hence their claim to independence and becoming a separate