Motivations for rebellion and secession from a nation or kingdom

[shunyadragon]

I was kicked out of Sparks thread, therefore I started my own concerning what are the ethical and moral motives of rebellion. I will start with the declaration of secession from each of the states that seceded from the union.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

Texas:

. . . in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that 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; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. . .

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Despite the rumors and false accusations the Republican Party during the Civil War period is not the same Republican Party of Today. The parties shifted party affiliations, and party loyalties over a period of time from the 1950s up to the 1970s. In the South the Republican Party shifted to more conservative positions and championed the causes of the South on issues of 'state's rights.' This time in objection to the integration, and equal rights legislation. The Democratic Party, than became the party of the North, and far West.

[Darth Executor]

The republican party didn't shift, it continued to defend everybody's civil rights once the tables turned. The democrats did a long swing from restricting the rights of blacks to restricting the rights of "racists".

[Bill the Cat]

Who cares Frank? I've already told you the WAR wasn't about slavery. It was about the North demanding the reunification of the country, and the South telling them where to stick it. Secession was not a declaration of war.

[shunyadragon]

Who cares Frank? I've already told you the WAR wasn't about slavery. It was about the North demanding the reunification of the country, and the South telling them where to stick it. Secession was not a declaration of war.

I care concerning the WHITE washing and rewriting history to suit secessionist who still represent a significant minority in Southern States. Note: The thread title: Motivations for rebellion and secession . . .

You telling me is a meaningless assertion. Most historians and I consider the declarations of secession a declaration of war followed by the confiscation of Federal forts and armaments, and the shelling and capture of Fort Sumter. The union actions that followed were to preserve the union, and not reunification. Can you provide an example where in history where a part of country simply decided to secede and told the nation or kingdom to 'stick it,' and just walk away without consequences of war. In fact there is no precedence in history to support your assertion

The secession was motivated by preserving the institution of slavery by the aristocracy of the South.

The Constitution is a contract sign by all the states for commitment to the Union. There is no Constitutional provision for seceding from the United States.

[shunyadragon]

Who cares Frank? I've already told you the WAR wasn't about slavery. It was about the North demanding the reunification of the country, and the South telling them where to stick it. Secession was not a declaration of war.

Actually many historians did not consider the Civil War to begin until the Virginia Army Marched North and threatened the Capital of Washington, which resulted in the First Battle of Bull Run on July 21 of 1861. The reason for this was that Virginia and North Carolina had not officially seceded from the Union. In this scenario the South began the WAR by attempting to invade the North and attack Washington. Both Fort Sumter and the Battle of Bull Run represent aggression and declaration of war by the South very much the way the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was a declaration of war by Japan.

The facts of history take precedence over personal assertions based on an agenda.

[Darth Executor]

Would you slaughter all your friends and family if they didn't care enough about stopping slavery Shuny?

[shunyadragon]

Would you slaughter all your friends and family if they didn't care enough about stopping slavery Shuny?

Would you slaughter all your friends and family if they did so in the support of the institution of slavery Darth?

[arnoldo]

I was kicked out of Sparks thread, therefore I started my own concerning what are the ethical and moral motives of rebellion.

According to the following quote, the erosion of state's rights provided for by the constitution was an issue.

I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.
https://archive.org/details/releeabiographyv012631mbp

[shunyadragon]

According to the following quote, the erosion of state's rights provided for by the constitution was an issue.

Possibly a minor issue related, but by the declaration of secession by all the States the 'states rights' for the preservation of slavery and the maintenance of white superiority were the main upfront issue to motivate the states to secede.

[Darth Executor]

Would you slaughter all your friends and family if they did so in the support of the institution of slavery Darth?

If they did so what? I enjoy schooling you, but basic English is something you should have learned already.

[arnoldo]

Possibly a minor issue related, but by the declaration of secession by all the States the 'states rights' for the preservation of slavery and the maintenance of white superiority were the main upfront issue to motivate the states to secede.

Fair enough. To find the answer you are asking for in this OP ask yourself why the colonists rebelled and seceded from being part of the United Kingdom to form the United States. Was that ethical and moral to do so?

[Cow Poke]

Who cares Frank? I've already told you the WAR wasn't about slavery. It was about the North demanding the reunification of the country, and the South telling them where to stick it. Secession was not a declaration of war.

Hence, the name "The War of Northern Aggression".

[shunyadragon]

Hence, the name "The War of Northern Aggression".

The problem with this is it is the South that started the war at Fort Sumter and an attempt to invade the North that resulted in the First Battle of Bull Run.

[Cow Poke]

The problem with this is it is the South that started the war at Fort Sumter and an attempt to invade the North that resulted in the First Battle of Bull Run.

You have the sense of humor of a hub cap.