The Pros And Cons Of The South Secession

1187 Words 5 Pages
During the 1800’s, the US was lit aflame with debate regarding the rights of slaves. Southerners claimed that slaves were property with no rights. Northerners, on the other hand, thought slaves to be people, and thus demanded the South treat their slaves as such. This conflict led the North to pass a series of laws that diminished slavery in the US, ultimately leading the South to secede from the Union. While the North’s antislavery legislation may have hurt the South, the South’s decision to secede was unjustified. From both moral and the legal standpoints, the Southern Secession was a poor attempt at resolving America’s conflict over slavery.
In terms of morality, the Southern Secession was unjust. As Lincoln said in his first Inaugural Address, “secession is the essence of anarchy” (Lincoln). He argued that if the South were to leave the union, then nothing would stop others from doing the same. This notion that the Southern
…show more content…
Lincoln had warned the South that “the Union [would] constitutionally defend, and maintain itself” (Lincoln). He saw war as an act of self-defense to protect the Union, and was convinced the Constitution would allow him to spill blood for the sake of unity. However, the South disregarded this warning and seceded knowing that they would likely have a war. Indeed at the Battle of Fort Sumter, the South fired the first shots in the civil. The fort had been held by Major Anderson from the Union, which the South saw as blatant disregard for their newfound sovereignty. As a result, Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard and his forces bombarded the Union-controlled fortress for 34 hours. Not only did the South seceded knowing there would be war, but they also started the war by firing the first shots. In other words, The Southern Secession was never meant to be a peaceful endeavour. Such desire for violence makes the Secession both immoral and

Related Documents