Why did Lincoln stop the South from becomning its own country?

Answer 1

Answer:

There are numerous answers to this question. Part of it requires an understanding of the social, political, and economic situation surrounding the times.

The south, in general, was forced to transport its goods to the north for manufacture, and attempting to build an industrial complex of its own. The cotton and goods that were transshipped to the north had various surcharges added, and the goods they received in turn had a higher price than the total income off the sale of the goods. The south was also looking for other markets for its goods, which would permit higher profiitability.

In general, the belief in the south was that the economic situation was unfair, and due to the banning of the importation of slaves as part of the original Constitution, was promoting a major shift in economic status toward the north.

Lincoln, having read the Constitution, felt that it was his duty, under Article 4, section 4 of this document, felt that he had the duty to "provide a republican form of government" and "maintain the more perfect union" under the preamble. For a while, the situation was unresolved, though there were hotheads on both sides formenting for a battle.

The situation finally came to a head when Southern loyalists attacked Ft. Sumter, on April 12, 1861. The fort was within South Carolina, which was one of the Confederate States, at the time. The south felt that the fort was an affront to Confederate sovereignty, as well as being a potential blockade to trade along the river.

At this point, Lincoln felt that the southern states were in a state of insurrection. Under the Constitution, (article 1, section six) he mustered the militia of the remaining states. Political tensions at the time were high, and nationalism (on both sides) had reached a peak.

The north saw the south's attack as unprovoked, and the south felt that their states had the right to sovereignty after secession, just as when the Colonies seceded from England, which they felt had not been representing their interests either.

At this point, under Article 1, Section 9, Lincoln declared Martial Law, and suspended the rights of Habeus Corpus. As an economic measure (under the constitution the importation of slaves was supposed to be dealt with by law after 1808) the Emancipation proclamation was issued, to damage the CSA economy.

I say this, because the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to those states in rebellion, and it was not until the Thirteenth Amendment (freeing the slaves) was passed that the North outlawed slavery.

Under the post-civil-war case Texas Vs White, a good many discussions of the legality or illegality of the actions were undertaken. Texas vs White established (under a potentially biased justice, and a good bit of controversy) that the secession could not have taken place, and any laws passed for a secession were illegal, and resulted in troops engaged in insurrection being on Federal Soil, which meant that they could be dealt with as needed.

The viewpoint can also be supported with part of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this." The evidence seems to indicate that he felt, should any state secede, that the union itself would be in jeopardy.