was the south justified in suceeding from the union?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:09 pm
This was a debate question that was presented yesterday in class, and i just want to hear everyones thoughts on it.
Here's my take:
I do beleive the south was justified in suceeding from the union, because not only 60 Years before the southers succession, we as a whole succeded from the British Rule, and, the Consitution states that it's the duty of the citizins to form a new government if the current one becomes corrupt -- and in the eyes of the south the north was turning into the dictator, the south itself didn't have equal representation in the senate and house of reps, and there way of life was being threatended (if lincoln had decided to abolish it before the war, or if they stayed and he did.)
anyways, opinons.
Here's my take:
I do beleive the south was justified in suceeding from the union, because not only 60 Years before the southers succession, we as a whole succeded from the British Rule, and, the Consitution states that it's the duty of the citizins to form a new government if the current one becomes corrupt -- and in the eyes of the south the north was turning into the dictator, the south itself didn't have equal representation in the senate and house of reps, and there way of life was being threatended (if lincoln had decided to abolish it before the war, or if they stayed and he did.)
anyways, opinons.