Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?

There were many reasons for the War between the States, but most historians say that the main reason was slavery.  The southern states formed a Confederacy and attempted to split from the Union.  Were they justified in doing this?  Should the Northern forces have gone to war to prevent the secession?

Well, constitutionally, its highly questionable. But slavery was just the catalyst issue that both sides clunge to the deviding point. The obamacare of its day, if you will.

This page has some issues
Secession in the United States typically refers to state secession, which is the withdrawal of one (or more) states from the Union that constitutes the United States; but it may refer to cleaving a state or territory to form a separate territory or new state, or to the severing of an area from a city or county within a state.

Threats or aspirations to secede from the United States or arguments justifying secession have been a feature of the country's politics almost since its birth. Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

The most serious attempt at secession was advanced in the years 1860 and 1861 as eleven southern states each declared themselves seceded from the United States and joined together to form the Confederate States of America. This movement collapsed in 1865 with the defeat of Confederate forces by Union armies in the American Civil War.[1]

A 2008 Zogby International poll found that 22% of Americans believed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."[2]

The Consitution of the United States does NOT prohibit the secession of States from the country.

Top five causes of the WBTS http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

 What about Thomas Jefferson saying:
 
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." 
 
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
 
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.
 
Jefferson wasn t my favorite FF, but he did talk about this issue from time to time.  If the South felt that the Fed govt had become destructive to it's survival, were they wrong to take up arms against the North?  (Actually they first tried to legally secede whereupon the Union promptly fired upon them at Ft Sumter).

Its basically an issue, of if you CAN successfully secede, then you can. But if youre not big enough and bad enough and nobody takes you seriously, OR you get your ass kicked.

Dennis324 wrote: What about Thomas Jefferson saying:
 
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." 
 
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
 
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.
 
Jefferson wasn t my favorite FF, but he did talk about this issue from time to time.  If the South felt that the Fed govt had become destructive to it's survival, were they wrong to take up arms against the North?  (Actually they first tried to legally secede whereupon the Union promptly fired upon them at Ft Sumter).

Jefferson seemed to advocate periodic revolutions.

The Confederates fired on the Union soldiers in Fort Sumter, not the other way around.

Were they right???

Yes and no.

Legally, the Constitution does leave room for secession. It coearly states that the Federal Government can only govern those who consent. That is why Lincoln had to throw several lawmakers from the north into jail along with a Supreme Court Justice or two. If he didn't, he wouldn't have gotten his way.

To Bryant, the south fired on a supply vessel first. The vessel was a clear sign of agression by Lincoln. Sumter WAS on confederate land and even today tUSA would consider a foreign fortification on home soil an act of aggression.

Final note: glad it went down the way it did. I love tUSA as a whole.

Marconius wrote:Were they right???
Legally, the Constitution does leave room for secession. It coearly states that the Federal Government can only govern those who consent.

How do you think this applies to those in the Sovereign Citizen movement, who as individuals do not consent to government rule?

Bryant wrote:

Dennis324 wrote: What about Thomas Jefferson saying:
 
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." 
 
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
 
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.
 
Jefferson wasn t my favorite FF, but he did talk about this issue from time to time.  If the South felt that the Fed govt had become destructive to it's survival, were they wrong to take up arms against the North?  (Actually they first tried to legally secede whereupon the Union promptly fired upon them at Ft Sumter).

Jefferson seemed to advocate periodic revolutions.

The Confederates fired on the Union soldiers in Fort Sumter, not the other way around.

They did.  After repeated calls for the evacuation of the ft from the govt of South Carolina, and a whole lot of other squabbling back and forth and shooting at boats and whatnot, the Confederates did open fire on Ft Sumter 1st.  That's what we get for believing Thomas Jefferson I guess. Lol!  Interestingly, Abner Doubleday (father of baseball) was the 1st man to fire upon Confederates from Ft Sumter. 

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:Were they right???
Legally, the Constitution does leave room for secession. It coearly states that the Federal Government can only govern those who consent.

How do you think this applies to those in the Sovereign Citizen movement, who as individuals do not consent to government rule?

 
 Good question!  I had to look this up.  The Sovereign Citizen concept originated in the Posse Comitatus movt, which was started by a guy who believed that no govt was legal above that of his own county.  (That's COUNTY...not country).  Every little county would then be its own sovereign nation!  No national Army or Navy to defend the country.  The economy would stink.  Its one reason (imo) that the Indians here didn't stand much of a chance to defeat the might of the American military.  There was very little unification of the tribes and even when they did unite, it was short lived to the extent that technology and education was stifled and could not match that of the so called invaders.

The Posse Comitatus movt was started by a guy who was a member of the Silver Shirts (a NAzi inspired Organization that sprang up in America after Hitler took power in Germany).  So that kind of lets us know where all this stuff was coming from.  The FBI has labeled these people a terrorist organization btw.
 
Anyhoo, it seems to me that if those people are citizens of the state and citizens of the Nation, then they are subject to both state and Federal law.  One thing they reject is taxation, but I would cite 2 examples of how the Fed Govt can impose taxes. 
 
1st the Constitution clear gives Congress the right to impose taxes via the Taxing and Spending clause. (Article 1 Section 8, clause 1). 
 
2nd George Washington quelled the Whisky Rebellion in 1791.  This was a tax protest that got kind of violent back then.  It may not have been fair and it was certainly unpopular, but from our nations beginning, 2 things are clear. 
1, Founding Fathers and the Father of our Country clearly felt that govt had the right to tax its citizens. 
2nd, there have always been those who rebelled at the idea of taxation.
 
Imo, as long as the people have a voice in govt, can continue to vote and elect their representatives, then the govt may impose taxes if they see fit.  If we don't like it, we have the means at our disposal to legally and peacefully remedy the situation.  Once the govt takes away those means, then rebellion is justified.

The South left the Union for many of the same reasons the colonies left Great Britian

Yeah...there was a problem in Washington at the time where Southerners felt disenfranchised.  But mostly I think Southerners felt they could whip the Yankees in short order and be home before harvest.  Had they thought it would be a prolonged war that would take years to finish, I suspect many would have thought better of it.  One has to remember that most southerners didn't own slaves at all.