Breaking any union intended to be a permanent commitment would not be something to be taken lightly, or something to be done because of only a few issues where all parties don't see eye to eye. Or because one party may get benefits for now, as things have a tenedency to balance over time. If by secedeing one means becoming independent, that would entail a number of things that probably can't be achieved under any cirumstances. And, if it were to be done fairly, wouldn't it need to consider compensating the States remaining in the union for any benefits the others had received or took with them? Certainly, the seceders must take on lots of obligations that were entered into on their behalf when they were a part of the union. All things probably financially, socially and logistically virtually impossible. Also, I'm not sure that the right to secede doesn't exist. But, that doesn't mean others would have to accept it. That is key, because while seceding or declaring independence is one thing, being considered so by others is really what establishes it. In fact, for about as long as there have been rules governing inter-governmental relations, being acknowledged as the government of a country is what actually establishes one as such. For example: the seceding Confederate states of the US were never acknowleged by any government anywhere else. An important reason for their failure. France, Spain and even England (which the US had recent wars with and by no means was particuarly supportive), the real players if you will, refused to acknolwge the Confederacy, (meaning things like they wouldn't accept their crrancy, etc.). That was true even though the confederacy did many things, especially concerning trade of cotton which these countries desperately needed, to encourage them to do so. On the other hand, Isreal was recognized by several countries, the US very importantly, within hours of declaring it's independence. That is really what established its government as an entity.
Slavery caused the upper south to secede.
north was against slavery while south supported it, also South wanted to secede from the union and become there own country.
The south was against the tariffs because they didn't have any industry to protect.
Tariffs on imports, which the South needed, having so little industry. Later, South Carolina became the first state to secede, following Lincoln's election on a ticket of no new slave-states.
Sucks to be you NERDS
Go on fantage.com make an account then you will find out.
Lincoln's initial stance when the South began to secede was to not fire on Fort Sumter. He was trying to stay out of it and allow the upper south to convince the lower south to not secede.
states in the Upper South to secede
states in the Upper South to secede.
South Carolina and in 1862
Because he was against slavery and most of the south states were slave states and the north was against slavery. So the south thought that Lincoln would take the births side.
Not the NorthThe North wanted to preserve the Union, not secede from it. The South wanted to secede.
The north never wanted to secede from the south. The south seceded from the north in 1860 to preserve the institution of slavery.
South Carolina was the first state to secede in October of 1860. The South seceded because of slavery issues & constitutional issues.
The South Carolina Exposition was a protest by the state of South Carolina against the Tariff of 1828. The document stated that without repealing the tariff South Carolina would secede.
yes in fact they were the first states to secede from the union
South Carolina was the first to secede.
South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union.
The American Civil War..The South against the North..the south wanted slavery..the north didn't...
South Carolina did not secede from the Union in 1820. South Carolina announced its secession on December 20, 1860.
South Carolina was the first to secede in 1860
South Carolina was the first to secede.