Comparison between 1776 and 1861

Many try to condone the actions of the southern secessionists by saying that they were just acting in accordance with the Declaration of Independence and following the lead of the Founding Generation. But it is a misconception that they were actually following the lead of the men who lead the nation through the War for Independence. Of course, the Declaration states that there is a natural right to revolution and that a government cannot rule without the consent of the governed. But one must look past this as well, and compare why the colonies were breaking away as opposed to why the South was seceding.

The Declaration states a long list of grievances held by the colonists and says that this is why they were breaking away and becoming and independent nation. This list is actually a concise form of a previous work by Thomas Jefferson called "A Summary View of the Rights of British America," which was written a couple of years prior and was a letter stating what the colonies saw going wrong and trying to get the King to do something about it. But these grievances are clear and they do not match up at all with the reasons the South stated for seceding.

For example, one reason Jefferson states is that the King had "refused to pass other laws for the Accomadation of Large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only." More simply, the King would not allow a part of a colony to form another colony, or a portion of a county to break away from another, unless they relinquished their right to representation in the colonial legislatures. Now when, it must be asked, did this happen in the first eighty years of the Republic? The answer is: never! Not once was any part of the United States, north or south, denied representation in Congress, or their state legislatures. If a reapportionment occured, which happens every ten years in conjuntion with the Census, representation is added accordingly if need be. So the South cannot claim that they were denied representation in this or any other matter. In fact, for a while, the Southern states attempted to deny representation to many people in their own states, allowing onlyl the propertied to vote.

Another grievance listed is the fact that when some crimes were committed, the English were "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences," and the were "depriving [the accused] in many Cases of the Benefits of Trial by Jury." Colonists were accused of crimes, such as murder, and instead of being tried in the colonies, they were being taken to England for trial, in front of, not their peers, but people who had no idea what was going on in the case, for it had no bearing on them. Certain witnesses also had to go, leaving their families behind for atleast a year to fend for themselves. Now, can anybody name a single case in which a man committed a crime such as murder in one state, say Alabama, and he was transported all the way to, say Wisconsin, for his trial? One can say pretty safely that no, that didn't happen. So the Southern states were not being unfairly tried for crimes committed in their own states.

Here is a common excuse that Southern apologists like to give: taxes. As many know, Great Britain had imposed unfair duties and taxes on certain goods, and this resulted in events such as the Boston Tea Party. In the Declaration, Jefferson states as a reason that fact that England had been "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent," hence the phrase "No taxation without Representation." The colonists has nobody representing them in Congress, yet they were being taxed and they didn't have a say in the matter, and they saw this as unfair. Now, if one has a knowledge of the Constitution, they know that any tax that is imposed must be passed by Congress. Therefore, if a tax or duty is in place, it was duly voted on and approved by a majority of Congress and signed into law. It is therefore lawful and one can complain, but it will do them no good. Now Southerners could say that they didn't like a certain tax, as they did with the tariff, but they can't claim they don't have a say, because they have representatives in the House and Senate. If something they don't like passes, they had better try harder the next time to vote it down and get others to do so as well.

There are so many others, that it would take a book to compare all of them. The point is, the South was breaking away for one reason only: to protect the institution of slavery, which they saw as being threatened, even though Lincoln most likely would have done nothing to harm the institution. They knew that slavery was going to die. It had to eventually. The only way to keep it alive, was expansion. The Republicans were opposed to slavery in the territories. With a threat to what they saw as essential, they broke away, even though they did not have a clear right to do so, unlike the 13 colonies, who had a slew of grievances to prove that they were being treated unfairly, something it would be hard for the South to prove, considering they were pandered to constantly in the years before the war. The point is, 1776 and 1861 are not comparable. They are totally separate events, in no way alike. The South was not the 13 colonies, and they can't claim to be such.