What was the Civil War about?

[Rhett_Butler]

Funny..... I wonder if the British would have successfully subdued the Colonial Rebellion if the British would be made out to be the wonderful champions of righteousness and the Colonials a group of unrepentant, immoral rabble-rousers... ???

They say the victor writes the history so I'd imagine so.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by burdell

I'm talking more about legalities than causes. I don't know about the original 13 but when other states entered the Union I believe Texas was the only one to insist on and be granted the specific right of secession. Was just asking if anyone knew anything to the contrary?

I'm talking about legalities, too. I'm saying that even then, it was up for interpretation.

Declaration of Causes of Secession

At the provided link, there are each states reasoning behind secession. Like someone posted earlier, the Declaration of Independence says that government - presumably the United States government - required the consent of the governed. Secession was South Carolina's act of repealing this consent.

So Lincoln basically chose to ignore this part of the Declaration of Independence, and instead determined that the stability and well-being of the United States was more important than the soverignity of South Carolina.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

I understand your post and your question.

Historically and economically there are many reasons why the North realized that slavery was immoral- and it was not totally based on economics.

The far south was largely populated by a different group of people from the British Isles then the New England states and mid Atlantic.

From my own understanding of History you make a valid point in which there may be many reasons for why slavery was so accepted in the south- and rejected in the north.

I'm not sure that the various ethnic and national makeups of the North vs. the South made a difference. It's possible, but I see no reason to believe that it was much of a factor.

Now, I have no question that Northern society and Southern society functioned very differently, but I think that is a result of the agrarian south compared to the industrial north, and not necessarily due to some inherent goodness of the north.

Practically speaking, the north didn't have to worry about 60-70% of their population revolting, and killing all the white people. It was much more convenient for abolitionists to take the moral high ground, because they weren't affected one way or the other, and their lives and properties weren't dependent upon slavery. Having said that - I'm glad the abolitionists did take the moral high ground, because we're obviously better off.

[skytrekker]

An interesting fact about the origins about the British coming to the USA is this;

The New England states saw the Pilgrims who sought religious freedom, and where against any kind of human bondage- puritans as they where.

Later on the Catholic Irish came in- and where generally very liberal.

New York, PA, and New Jersey saw the Dutch, Swedes and Quakers, Hugonets, and Germans- with a more similar ethic as New Englanders.

The south saw more Scot-Irish (what I am partially ) and other less 'liberal groups' from England and the British Isles) that sought a new life based more on economics then religion and other 'freedoms'. It might be fair to infer this into the equation of the differences between the north and south 160 years ago.