Skip to main content

What are some reasons why southerners might oppose the secession?

After Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860, eleven southern states seceded from the Union. While they had various reasons for doing this, there were also good reasons why some southerners might have been opposed to secession.


One reason why southerners might have opposed secession was that the odds of the South winning the Civil War were very low. The North had many advantages over the South. The North had more people, more minerals, more miles of railroad tracks, more factories, and more weapons. The North also had an established government with a brilliant leader. These advantages would make it very hard for the South to defeat the North.


The South also didn’t have support from the European countries. The Europeans weren’t willing to risk angering the Union by the supporting the South. Since the odds were against the South winning the war, the European countries withheld their support from the Confederacy. The Europeans wanted to see if the South could win a significant battle in the North before considering offering support to the South. That victory never occurred.


Another factor in opposing secession is that the southern war strategy would have led to a long war and would have had most of the fighting occurring in the South. This could leave the South in ruins after the Civil War ended. There also would be a substantial loss of life on both sides, and there were people who felt that was too big of a price to pay.


Some southerners were concerned about the economic impact of a Civil War. Some southerners depended on the U.S. government for their jobs. These people would lose their job if the South seceded. The South would also have to establish its own financial system. There could be significant issues with debt and with inflation as the South tried to develop their financial system. The southern economy also might struggle if the North imposed an effective economic blockade on the South.


There were reasons why some southerners could have opposed secession.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.