In 1861, when the United States is split in two and on the brink of a Union divide, many took this time to stand up and voice their opposing opinions. We will observe two speeches given by authority figures who are standing on opposite sides of the seemingly impenetrable divide in the nation. Abraham Lincoln, the current president, for the Union and John S. Preston representing the nascent Confederacy. They each speak of their views on legalities and justifications of States seceding from the Union and their opinions of the opposing side. Preston was selected to addressed the Virginia Convention, because the states they had already been recruited for the Confederacy were eager to convince Virginia to join them. He explained specifically South …show more content…
Lincoln compares the constitution, a document binding the states as a union, to a contract. He expresses that unless all parties involved agree to denounce a contract it is still legally binding on all the parties involved. In this case, the parties are the States and the North will not agree to let them violate said contract. The president notes, in a warning, that states tried to be separate before under the Articles of Confederation and it failed miserably. Lincoln expresses to the mass that the nation can not be truly separated; they will stay side by side and can either find agreement or bring violence to American soil, "A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them"( Lincoln 3). If the Southern states were to leave the union, his duties as president required him to treat secession as an act of rebellion and not a legitimate political action. However, if violence and civil war were to befall on the nation, it would only be initiated by the southern states, "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere"(Lincoln
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
Lincoln was a very smart lawyer and politician. During his “House Divided” speech he asked the question, “Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently, forever, half slave, and half free?" When he first asked this question, America was slowly gaining the knowledge and realizing that as a nation, it could not possibly exist as half-slave and half-free. It was either one way or the other. “Slavery was unconstitutional and immoral, but not simply on a practical level.” (Greenfield, 2009) Slave states and free states had significantly different and incompatible interests. In 1858, when Lincoln made his “House Divided” speech, he made people think about this question with views if what the end result in America must be.
In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...
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
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
At the time, the South depended on slavery to support their way of life. In fact, “to protect slavery the Confederate States of America would challenge the peaceful, lawful, orderly means of changing governments in the United States, even by resorting to war.” (635) Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong and realized that slavery was bitterly dividing the country. Not only was slavery dividing the nation, but slavery was also endangering the Union, hurting both black and white people and threatening the processes of government. At first, Lincoln’s goal was to save the Union in which “he would free none, some, or all the slaves to save that Union.” (634) However, Lincoln realized that “freeing the slaves and saving the Union were linked as one goal, not two optional goals.” (634) Therefore, Lincoln’s primary goal was to save the Union and in order to save the Union, Lincoln had to free the slaves. However, Paludan states that, “slave states understood this; that is why the seceded and why the Union needed saving.” (634) Lincoln’s presidential victory was the final sign to many Southerners that their position in the Union was
In the 1860’s the United States weren’t united because of the issue of slavery. The civil war was never just about getting the union back together, but about making it count and getting rid of slavery. The south wanted their slaves and would say they are “-the happiest, and in some, the freest people in the world”. (Doc 5) However, the north knew that was not true because of Harriet Beecher Stowe's “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. In 1854 when the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed it caused some issues. Anti-slavery supporters were not happy because they did not want expansion of slavery, but the pro-slavery supporters weren’t happy because they wanted slavery everywhere for sure. (Doc. 7)The Kansas-Nebraska act caused trouble before it was even passed, Senator Charles Sumner argued against and attacked pro-slavery men causing Preston Brooks to beat Sumner with a cane. The south praised Brooks while the north felt for Sumner. (Doc 8) In 1858 during his acceptance speech Lincoln said his famous line, “A house divided
wanted to fight for what they believed in. In fact, the reasons why Confederate and Union
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.
In the middle of the nineteenth century bloody battles broke out all over the United States, pitting brother against brother and father against son. The causes of this war were the issues of slavery and state’s rights; but most importantly, the catalyst for the Civil War was the tension in the air cause by the dissention of the South from the North. Dissention is a radically different concept than the idea of disagreement. Had the Northern and Southern states merely disagreed about slavery and states’ rights issues, the Civil War would only be a wisp of what could have been. Disagreement leads to arguments while dissent leads to quarrels, and the distinction Boorstin makes between the two is entirely accurate.
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
...ited States.” Lincoln passed on his belief that the nation must be united and that a “new birth of freedom” would be created, or the nation would “perish from the world,” should the Union failed.
...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.
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...
From the beginning of the Civil War the Confederacy was at an obvious disadvantage. The Union Army of the North was better able to supply their troops despite early recruitment issues. (Boyer, pg 434)The Union eventually held the advantage of having the larger army and more money. The South entered into the Civil war without a navy, two small gunpowder factories, and unconnected railroad lines. (Boyer, pg 432) The North was far more industrialized, and able to provide troops with the necessities the South lacked. Although the Confederacy lacked supplies such as shoes, clothing and food, they did not lose in battle due to lack of ammunition. After relying on weaponry and ammunition imported from Europe, as well as, weapons confiscated from federal