Verified answer

The question isn't slavery but the secession of a state from the Union.

First only about 600 people (all male and all white) voted for the states making up the confederacy to leave the union. When the issue was put to popular vote the act of secession was soundly defeated.

Second the act of secession was unconstitutional. In Texas Vs White the Supreme Court held that the Articles of Confederation established the United States as an indissoluble union.Even after the change to the Constitution the concept continued and never was rescinded.Compare that to the USSR's constitution that allowed member republics to leave. Which they did in the 1980s.

You're left with a revolt within the United States. The confederacy was never recognized by the United States and no peace treaty was ever signed. (Much the same as what happened to South Vietnam)

One example of this took place at Fortress Monroe. Several slaves escaped captivity where they were forced to build confederate gun emplacements. The next morning a confederate office appeared and demanded, under the Fugitive Slave Act that the slaves be returned.Here was an official confederate request for action under the laws of the united states. Were the confederacy an actual nation, the request could not have been made.

With an armed uprising in the borders of the United States the federal government was correct in putting the rebellion down.

Probably not.... leaving your argument aside the problem was that when the south declared indpendence the north did not attack. Rather the south eventually attacked Sumter and forced troops on Washington. They got so close they near too Washington twice. Lincoln had to fire his generals because they did not want to advance on the Southern Army which seemed to continue attacks on Washington.

The North was justified in having troops in southern states because the southern states were indeed American states at that time. Futher the so called succession was done like a joke, with a tiny number of persons voting. Even within the vote itself opponents of succession were simply not invited to assemblies, so if there were 100 representatives within a state and 60 were against succession, then 40 showed up and voted to succeed. This is why several states split in half and within states that succeeded the South had to work hard to keep southerners from joining the Union. In the end the south produced the famous battle flag which has 13 stars, but there were not 13 southern states, rather only 9 states acutally succeeded with the farse of a vote while in four states they weren't able to steal the election. They even counted VA when more than half the legislature voted at the assembly against succession.

I totally agree with Willy. I'd also like to point out that Robert E. Lee declined the offer to be the leader of the Union forces because he saw that northern aggression was imminent and unwarranted. Also, to go along with your "illegal seizure" point, Arlington National Cemetery was originally an estate which belonged to Lee's wife and was illegally and unconstitutionally seized.

Icabod, I have a question for you. If the Union was right to put down the rebellion of those backward southern states, what about old King George? Was he right to try to quell rebellion from those uncooperative colonies who also weren't recognized as a nation and whose cecession was initiated by even fewer representatives than you mentioned that the Confederacy had?

The Civil War wasn't about slavery... that is correct. But it also wasn't about the Constitution. That was just some Yankee tricks about selectively enforcing the Constitution. The Civil War was about State's Rights. The founding fathers only ever intended the federal government to maintain a standing army, regulate trade, etc. It was never intended to impose its will over the states except to provide the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. The United States Constitution is a contract. By applying for statehood, the state agrees to abide by the contract. But contracts require two parties. The federal government was also bound by that Contract to uphold its end of the bargain. Namely, ensuring the liberties of the citizens of the state. Now once upon a time people understood this mentality. You get into our nice modern version of Ingsock and a little cultural reprogramming and Big Brother wants us to think that state borders are just there for show. Before the Civil War, people would say, "The United States ARE..." After the Civil War, people started saying "The United States IS..." See, that isn't even gramatically correct, but it reflects how people accepted the conglomerate rule rather than the sovereignty of the state. The War of Northern Aggression was in all actuality an invasion of what was basically a sovereign nation regardless of the formation of the Confederacy.

No, the "folks" in South Carolina were not justified in calling the War of Secession anything but its proper name. These "folks" certainly feared that the North would end slavery and take their "property" away by legal means (amendments to the Constitution), not by force.

Shots were fired at Fort Barrancas, FL by secessionists trying to take control of the fort and/or Navy yard. Shots were fired on the "Star of the West' as she sailed into Charleston Harbor, S.C., to resupply Fort Sumter. Finally, shots were fired on Fort Sumter before the North replied with any force.

The War of Southern Arrogance is another possible title you may want to consider.

The South shot first,so it's really the war of southern aggression.The South firing first made the war an issue of rebellion and insurrection.Slavery was abolished by a constitutional amendment.At the time of the Dred Scott ruling,slaves were property and the court's ruling was technically correct.

No.

However much the Confederacy at the time (and pro Confederate historians since) have tried to dress up the issue as States' rights, they were fighting to maintain slavery as a legal institution.

Slavery and the slave trade in Britain was outlawed because it was morally wrong as a practice, and it was equally morally wrong in America.It was the Confederate states that seceded and fired the first shots. In going to war to preserve the Union, Lincoln had no choice - to allow any state to secede without sanction whenever they felt like it would have made the United States effectively ungovernable.

The seceding states brought the whole civil war on themselves by trying to preserve the institution of slavery indefinitely.

By all accounts Lincoln new he had no constitutional powers to free slaves and was not prepared to do so arbitrarily.

when it looked like the South would suceed he did everything he could to stop it short of declaring a military action.he even gave the South the option of having to fire the first shot if this thing was so irretrievably broken.

The South fired the first shots.

Slavery became the overriding concern. States' rights became smoke and mirrors, an excuse, no longer a reason to rebellion. The South wanted to stay away from making slavery their suggested reason. It became considered as undesirable P.R. They knew that they might choose help from Europe, probable Britain. Many ecu countries might have favourite that the U.S. be fractured. States had ceded their authority, while they ratified the form. The shape became designed to place the federal authority over the states, because of the fact the unique plan. of a weaker federal government had failed, below the Articles of Confederation. Newspaper articles, from the time of the ratification votes, cautioned ratification pondering it would avert states from secession.

These die hard that still say the war was about slavery need to go to the records of congress during the year of 1861. Congress drew up and passed an amendment stating that the war was not about slavery but to reunite the union.

Congress made it as clear as anyone could understand, but some people still cant admit it.

Yes, they are, regardless of the legal jousting prior to the war. If you recall, it was the North, under Lincoln, who ordered the raising of 90k troops to invade and occupy the South and the reinforcement of Federal forts within the South - all this happened before the actual war. These Northern measures inadvertently started the war (the attack on Ft. Sumnter was simply an effect of this).

The Northern 'aggression' that followed is well documented: openly attacked southern civilian cities/towns, intentionally destroyed crops/livestock to starve the civilian population, and generally committed innumerable war crimes under today's standards (Geneva Convention, etc).

It was clearly a war of 'Northern Aggression'.