The Secession of the South

Since the anti-slavery movement in 1830, the tension between the North and the South has steadily risen. There were some compromises between the North and South regarding slavery issues, such as the Kansas and Missouri bills in Nebraska state, but this has little effect on relieving stress. Election of President Lincoln in 1861 proved to be the boiling point of the south, followed by the division of the country. This eventually led to a civil war, North and South have different views on this. The purpose of the North is to maintain the integrity of the alliance, the south purpose is to separate from the alliance.

The Separatist regulation in South Carolina will streamline the department based on contract law. First of all, the contract is defined as "an agreement between two or more individuals or groups" ("contract") and South Carolina believes that the contract is not supported by the United States, so the South Carolina leaves the alliance I have a right. . To further break this point, the SC clearly understands the meaning of the contract law against them. According to the statement stated at the beginning of the Constitution, South Carolina believes that the contract they sign will no longer provide justice, the calm of the nation, the promotion of universal welfare, or the guarantee of South prosperity. so

On December 24, 1860, Representatives of the South Carolina State withdrawal meeting passed the "direct cause statement that caused separation of the Federal Union South Carolina State." "It protests that the hostility of non-slavery became an increasingly large" slavery nation "and the northern countries were unable to intervene in the return of slaves who were fleeing to fulfill their constitutional duties" .

Many southern states held a constitutional council in 1851 to examine ineffective and withdrawal problems. Except for South Carolina, the election did not provide even a choice of "not to divide", but an election was held that "if there is no cooperation from other countries, it will not divide." Today 's historians generally think that economic conflict is not the main cause of war. From the 1910s to the 1940s, historian "progressive schools" spread the economic base of the division crisis, but now few expert historians agree with this interpretation. Economic historian Lee A. Craig says that: "Indeed, many studies conducted by economic historians over the past few decades have shown that economic conflicts do not exist in inter-Korean relations before the war and do not lead to civil war."