Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot
The battle did not ensue over slavery, although that undoubtedly was on everybody's mind. The battle ensued over Lincoln's decision to resupply a US fort after the state that the fort was in seceded from the US, I'm sure you'd agree that the states had no right to secede unilaterally, and certainly no right to attack the US army
|
No the war didn't start specifically over slavery there were at the time a number of differences between north and south at the time which were creating a significant amount of tension between both regions, state's rights and slavery for sure were first a foremost. Indeed the first battle ensued over the resupply of the fort, however that move at face value was provocative to say the least considering that the north seemed to want to impose their way of thinking on those in the south when at the time there was such a disparity between the two where the north was neck deep in an economy based on industry and manufacturing while the south was mainly farmers. As it is today, those that live in the city, work a professional job or whatever cannot relate to those that ranch or farm for a living and vice versa. There are competing interests now as there was then. Call slavery for instance what you want, at that time, the abolishment of slavery had a direct impact to the farmers in the south who relied heavily on basically free labor and had no appetite for the federal government to come in and tell them what they can or cannot do.
Far as whether I think the states had a right to secede unilaterally, there was and even to this day any specific law that forbids it. The federal government was established not as an overload to the individual states and in fact was at its creation limited in its jurisdiction which remains in effect today all though you'd never know it. This is why the states govern themselves, have their own unique laws, constitutions and in a sense should remain autonomous in that regard. At the federal level - the grand idea was to establish a government that could provide logistics on behalf of the individual states where it made sense to do so, such as a combined effort in providing for national defense, or a centralized money\banking system and court system. That has been so perverted today that at the federal level it has amassed significant control and power over the states far beyond where I think the founding fathers ever imagined was possible.
Finally did the south have a "right" to attack the north? Well consider this, at the time the federal government was to many in the south a tyrannical government and thus yes the constitution protects the ability of the people to defend themselves against that, it's in the second amendment. To some they were heros, to others they were traitors, the only difference as we look back on that today is opinions are forged in whether or not you personally agreed with or not the premise the south had in mind as they revolted. That bias is human nature is it not?