[XxGodJrxX]

The two questions to ask are whether it was legal and whether it was justified. I would say that there is no question that the south had the RIGHT to secede from the union. Besides the tenth ammendment in the constitution, I would say that any nation has the right to secede from any country. I don't see how any law can be made prohibitting secession and actually be enforced by any other means that warfare. Since there is not any way to enforce a law, then I would argue that it is not really a law at all. I would also say that the North legally had the right to conquer the south after a secession, for the same reasons that the south could secede.

Justification is tougher. I think the justification for the South leaving the Union is a little weak, but it is still there. The north disliked the southerners, slavery, and the agrarian lifestyle in general. When Lincoln was elected, the South seceded since they felt they weren't being adequately represented by the United States, and they were right. So they may have been justified in leaving.

If I was Lincoln, I would have reconquered the South as well. Putting the slavery argument aside, the south's secession cut the country in half. That means half the power that the country once had. In the short-term, this would be bad for the country, but in the long term, it would have been devastating. Having an enemy nation right to your south would present a problem, especially as they acquire more resources and alliances. Resources, such as cotton and food, would have been harder to come by for the United States. The world reputation of the United States would have been dealt a serious blow if they had not acted, and showing such weakness could also lead to further threats down the road.

In the end, it is as pvn always says, "Might Makes Right". [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]