The Us Civil War

I am watching a cable show about the Battle of Gettysburg. I was surprised to learn that someone placed, and the US Park Service has allowed, a monument to "The High Water Mark of Rebellion." There is no legitimate argument that the Confederacy was correct. The Confederacy was pure treason. There is no constitutional nor historical basis to legitimize the Confederate claim of "States' Rights." The Civil War was purely, and indisputably, about preserving human slavery in contravention of US law. Why would any loyal US citizen pay any respect to despicable treason?
HStoner HStoner
51-55, M
3 Responses Dec 14, 2012

Stoner...I have never been any sort of a historian buff but this thread and the info in it was really interesting to read! Thanks imabear for that awesome link too.... I love it when I stumble on learning something I didn't know before. Thanks to you for providing the platform for it too! ♥

Unfortunately you are wrong. Slavery was never the sole cause of the civil war. The South seceded for many reasons. The biggest were because of the economic strain the North put on the South, and of course the right to own slaves. But no war is that simple. There are good intentions, and there are bad ones. There is never simply a just war.

You should read up on secession and its history and basis in the US:

There are historians on both sides of the debate, of course, but one should at least be familiar with it before they state that it was nonsense. In essence, the American Revolution was actually a secession of the original 13 colonies. The Civil War was less than 100 years late and secession had been discussed in the interim. Many felt that the states maintained their ability to leave - they had joined the Union voluntarily and they could leave. Some state constitutions alluded to this right.

Thanks so much for sharing that link imabear. It was really interesting.

In fact, there is not, and never has been anything in the Constitution permitting a state to leave the Union. This is a very significant omission since Article IV, Section 3 expressly addresses the admission of new state. Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports the notion of "States' Rights." To the contrary, Article VI expressly declares the Constitution and laws of the United States to be "the supreme law of the land . . . any thing in the constitution or laws of any state notwithstanding." The closest you can get the "States' Rights" is the Tenth Amendment, which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Hardly an affirmation that the states possess rights against the Federal government.

As I said, there are opinions on both sides. The Constitution is far from being perfect document - which is why we have so many amendments and even SCOTUS decisions over constitutional questions. There is always the question of what the signers intended and much is simply open to interpretation. The link I provided provides information on the arguments for State's Rights that are almost as old as the Constitution itself. It is of no importance to me which side you take. Indeed, I simply think you need to educate yourself more on the question of secession, it's history, and the history of the events that led up to the Civil War. It is not as simply as some claim - the sectionalism issues were apparent almost from the start and only got worse as time when on. In fact, we still have them today. In short, history is as complex as human beings are complex because it is, after all, people who made it. Trying to paint it as simple denies the struggle and effort of the people who lived those times. It cheapens their lives and their contributions, IMO, to boil their lives and beliefs down to a simplified sound bite.