Why does secession cause war

Six more states followed a month later and, by June, a total of 11 southern states were no longer part of the country. The secessionists claimed that - according to the Constitution - they had every right to leave the Union, but Lincoln vehemently refuted that assertion. He gave several reasons, among them his belief that secession was unlawful, the fact that states were physically unable to separate, his fears that secession would cause the weakened government to descend into anarchy, and his steadfast conviction that all Americans should be friends towards one another, rather than enemies.

But it may have been the last point that he considered the most important to his argument: Secession would destroy the only democracy in existence and prove for all time - to both future Americans and the world - that a government of the people could not survive.

Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence? He had good reason to raise the question, for if you traveled the earth in and visited every continent and nation, you would have found many examples of monarchies, dictatorships, and other types of authoritarian rule.

But all of the world over, you would have found only one major democracy: the United States of America. The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history.

Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed. The scholars immediately disagreed over the causes of the war and disagreement persists today.

Others minimize slavery and point to other factors, such as taxation or the principle of States' Rights. One method by which to analyze this historical conflict is to focus on primary sources. Four states went further. Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights. Other grievances, such as economic exploitation and the role of the military, receive limited attention in some of the documents.

This article will present, in detail, everything that was said in the Declarations of Causes pertaining to these topics. Read More. Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.

There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. Texas: The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.

South Carolina: Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

Georgia: That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.

The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone. Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.

The ongoing debate continues over the question that has been asked since the forming of the United States itself: "Can a state secede from the Union of the United States? Southerners insisted they could legally bolt from the Union.

Northerners swore they could not. War would settle the matter for good. Over the centuries, various excuses have been employed for starting wars. Wars have been fought over land or honor. Wars have been fought over soccer in the case of the conflict between Honduras and El Salvador in or even the shooting of a pig in the case of the fighting between the United States and Britain in the San Juan Islands in But the Civil War was largely fought over equally compelling interpretations of the U.

Which side was the Constitution on? The interpretative debate—and ultimately the war—turned on the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the meaning of a single word: sovereignty—which does not actually appear anywhere in the text of the Constitution. Southern leaders like John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis argued that the Constitution was essentially a contract between sovereign states—with the contracting parties retaining the inherent authority to withdraw from the agreement.

Northern leaders like Abraham Lincoln insisted the Constitution was neither a contract nor an agreement between sovereign states. It was an agreement with the people, and once a state enters the Union, it cannot leave the Union. It is a touchstone of American constitutional law that this is a nation based on federalism—the union of states, which retain all rights not expressly given to the federal government.

Supporting the later view of Lincoln, the perpetuality of the Union was referenced during the Confederation period. The Confederation produced endless conflicts as various states issued their own money, resisted national obligations and favored their own citizens in disputes.

His legal case was saved by an 18th-century bait-and-switch. A convention was called in to amend the Articles of Confederation, but several delegates eventually concluded that a new political structure—a federation—was needed.

As they debated what would become the Constitution, the status of the states was a primary concern. The new government forged in Philadelphia would have clear lines of authority for the federal system. The premise of the Constitution, however, was that states would still hold all rights not expressly given to the federal government. In the U. But did Lincoln win by force of arms or force of argument? Calhoun, the powerful South Carolina senator who had long viewed the states as independent sovereign entities.

His election was used as a rallying cry for secession, and he became the head of a country that was falling apart even as he raised his hand to take the oath of office. While Lincoln expressly called for a peaceful resolution, this was the final straw for many in the South who saw the speech as a veiled threat. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas.

And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. It is a brilliant framing of the issue, which Lincoln proceeds to characterize as nothing less than an attack on the very notion of democracy:.

Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled—the successful establishing, and the successful administering of it. One still remains—its successful maintenance against a formidable [internal] attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world, that those who can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion—that ballots are the rightful, and peaceful, successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly, and constitutionally, decided, there can be no successful appeal, back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections.

Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war—teaching all, the folly of being the beginners of a war.

Lincoln implicitly rejected the view of his predecessor, James Buchanan. Buchanan agreed that secession was not allowed under the Constitution, but he also believed the national government could not use force to keep a state in the Union.

Notably, however, it was Buchanan who sent troops to protect Fort Sumter six days after South Carolina seceded. The subsequent seizure of Fort Sumter by rebels would push Lincoln on April 14, , to call for 75, volunteers to restore the Southern states to the Union—a decisive move to war. Lincoln showed his gift as a litigator in the July 4th address, though it should be noted that his scruples did not stop him from clearly violating the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus in and His argument also rejects the suggestion of people like Calhoun that, if states can change the Constitution under Article V by democratic vote, they can agree to a state leaving the Union.